General Liberal gun grabbers are making a great case for owning an AR with their contradictory logic

[b00ts]

that's not really true.
a smaller, lighter round was used so that ground troops could carry more ammo and use suppressive fire to frag/artillery/CAS a cover/concealed enemy. It was also around which could be integrated on a modular platform, so tankers/infantry/REMFs could all carry the same round.

You can Google exactly what the military was after when the 5.56 was brought in. Off the top, it needed to be in .22 cal, penetrate a steel plate and steel helmet at 500 yards, be in a rifle weighing less than 10lbs (can't remember exactly what weight they wanted), and capable of supersonic speed at 500 yards out. The round was designed to work optimally in a 20" 1:12 twist barrel. With the M4, you begin to see a decrease in muzzle velocity and, therefore, a poor performance in the round due to the shorter barrel. The military has been after another round for a while now and has fielded some... the .458 SOCOM and 6.8 SPC come to mind. The thing is cost and logistics in equipping units with the parts and ammo to convert their current stock of M16/M4s. I have a friend still in and he says there are rumors of them testing the 6.8 SPCII.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I have a friend still in and he says there are rumors of them testing the 6.8 SPCII.

To me it'd make sense to just run the .277 WLV and call it a day.

 

[Filthy]

You can Google exactly what the military was after when the 5.56 was brought in. Off the top, it needed to be in .22 cal, penetrate a steel plate and steel helmet at 500 yards, be in a rifle weighing less than 10lbs (can't remember exactly what weight they wanted), and capable of supersonic speed at 500 yards out. The round was designed to work optimally in a 20" 1:12 twist barrel. With the M4, you begin to see a decrease in muzzle velocity and, therefore, a poor performance in the round due to the shorter barrel. The military has been after another round for a while now and has fielded some... the .458 SOCOM and 6.8 SPC come to mind. The thing is cost and logistics in equipping units with the parts and ammo to convert their current stock of M16/M4s. I have a friend still in and he says there are rumors of them testing the 6.8 SPCII.

I think the requirements for the round were from Gen Wyman after Korea, he wanted to punch a hole in a steel helmet at 500 yds with a supersonic round, fired from a platform that weighed < 6 lbs with 20rds loaded.

But the military had experienced the logistical problems and change in warfighting back in WWII. The biggest problems that they had was the lack of a universal infantry weapon. Infantry units carried Garands, M2 carbines, BARs, M3s, Thompsons...all with different parts and ammunition requirements - to say nothing of the variance with British and other Allied weapons. NATO standardized on a 7.62, so the US went to .30 carbines in Korea, but were consistently out-classed by the AK-47. So the decision was made to go to a universal automatic infantry rifle with a round that could outperform the .30 and still retain the logistic benefits. That's when Gen Wyman's request for an intermediate cartridge was reconsidered, and they rechamberd the AR-10 (which had lost the competition to be the M14 for mostly political reasons) from 7.62 to 5.56.

When Vietnam happened, troops couldn't carry enough 7.62 ammo to Pin Down/Blow Up the enemy with automatic fire from the M14, nor could they effectively concentrate fire due to the heavy weight of the M14 and the high recoil of the 7.62. That's when the DoD stopped making M14s and went to the AR-15/M16.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

to say nothing of the variance with British and other Allied weapons.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not get carried away here.

The British and their commonwealth had the foresight to use the same weapons. It was only the doughboys who went out on their own.

 

[b00ts]

When Vietnam happened, troops couldn't carry enough 7.62 ammo to Pin Down/Blow Up the enemy with automatic fire from the M14, nor could they effectively concentrate fire due to the heavy weight of the M14 and the high recoil of the 7.62. That's when the DoD stopped making M14s and went to the AR-15/M16.

Vietnam was also supposed to be the testing ground for the 1st gen M16, but soldiers going through ammo like crazy with full auto and not hitting targets consistently gave little data on the rounds effectiveness.

 

[Filthy]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not get carried away here.

The British and their commonwealth had the foresight to use the same weapons. It was only the doughboys who went out on their own.

LoL. Just saying that they weren't using 30-06 Garands. But they had BRESAs, BRENs, Enfields, etc.

Every country had the same problem, and it was even worse across the Alliance.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Every country had the same problem, and it was even worse across the Alliance.

How so? Standard issue was Enfields and Hi Powers across the board.

 

[Filthy]

Vietnam was also supposed to be the testing ground for the 1st gen M16, but soldiers going through ammo like crazy with full auto and not hitting targets consistently gave little data on the rounds effectiveness.

Yeah, Bobby Mac and Gen LeMay were in a political fight against the Army establishment and their cozy relationship with Springfield Armory. The M14 won the competition to be the universal infantry weapon because the Army let SA use their cold-weather test chamber to refine the design so it would out-perform the FN FAL offering in the final phase of the competition. But LeMay loved two things - nukes and AR-15s. If it was up to LeMay, the AR-15 would have been the standard infantry rifle back in 1960. SOC operators were the first to test the AR-15 in battle, and they were ALL ABOUT IT. But the game was so rigged for SA, that it took an Inspector General investigation to confirm that the Army was playing crooked with their 'testing'.

The first mod to the M16 was to increase the magazine from 20 to 30 rds, and even after it clearly beat out the M14 in the very early stages of Viet Nam, Bobby Mac had to basically over-rule the Army and completely halt production on the M14.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

SOC operators were the first to test the AR-15 in battle, and they were ALL ABOUT IT. But the game was so rigged for SA, that it took an Inspector General investigation to confirm that the Army was playing crooked with their 'testing'.

Is it just me or is that the story of virtually every U.S. military procurement?

 

[b00ts]

Yeah, Bobby Mac and Gen LeMay were in a political fight against the Army establishment and their cozy relationship with Springfield Armory. The M14 won the competition to be the universal infantry weapon because the Army let SA use their cold-weather test chamber to refine the design so it would out-perform the FN FAL offering in the final phase of the competition. But LeMay loved two things - nukes and AR-15s. If it was up to LeMay, the AR-15 would have been the standard infantry rifle back in 1960. SOC operators were the first to test the AR-15 in battle, and they were ALL ABOUT IT. But the game was so rigged for SA, that it took an Inspector General investigation to confirm that the Army was playing crooked with their 'testing'.

The first mod to the M16 was to increase the magazine from 20 to 30 rds, and even after it clearly beat out the M14 in the very early stages of Viet Nam, Bobby Mac had to basically over-rule the Army and completely halt production on the M14.

Speaking of M14.... I want to get the M1A in 6.5 Creedmore for a hunting rifle. Thing is mint...

 

[Filthy]

How so? Standard issue was Enfields and Hi Powers across the board.

sure, but they faced the same problem of their standard infantry rifle being a completely different platform from their carbine/automatic platforms. The Brits gave every soldier a square peg, even when the situation was a round hole. They just converted the logistic problem to an application problem.

But the problem was the same - how do you lower the logistical overhead for the variety of applications that infantry encounters?

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

sure, but they faced the same problem of their standard infantry rifle being a completely different platform from their carbine/automatic platforms.

Carbines and auto platforms? You mean Enfields and Enfields, lol.

 

[Filthy]

Speaking of M14.... I want to get the M1A in 6.5 Creedmore for a hunting rifle. Thing is mint...

It's certainly Tacti-Cool AF. and a Hoot2Shoot.

but after much research and firing, I found the HK91/PTR-91 to be my ideal 7.62 platform.

 

[Filthy]

Carbines and auto platforms? You mean Enfields and Enfields, lol.

BREN - LMG (automatic .303 Brit, no shared parts )
Sten - submachine gun (9mm, no shared parts)
Enfields - standard infantry (bolt-action .303, no shared parts)

not to mention all the US lend-lease weapons, like Thompsons

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

BREN - LMG (automatic .303 Brit, no shared parts )
Sten - submachine gun (9mm, no shared parts)
Enfields - standard infantry (bolt-action .303, no shared parts)

not to mention all the US lend-lease weapons, like Thompsons

I was making a joke about how one dimensional their standard issue rifles were compared to the U.S.

 

[benjo0101]

I have understood exactly zero of this thread. 7.65 something or other in a winchester mark 7 thingymajig.

Was a fun read though

 

[Rambo John J]

and a pistol caliber carbine which shares ammunition/magazines with their handgun.

Yep
.357mag SW wheel gun and .357mag Henry golden boy rifle

 

[tang]

People forget/don't realize that the standard AR15 round (5.56mm/.223) was designed to not kill people rather than the other way around.

Yup. Even in the military it was a downgrade from 7.62mm/.308 to the smaller 556

 

[D241]

I'm interested in a good counter to this what I feel is a logical argument. I'm one of the rare rather neutral people on this issue.

One argument people have for guns is that guns are needed to protect ourselves from the government. This insinuates you want an even playing field. Fair enough.

However. Just like you can use guns for non lethal purposes, or you can have a whacko use guns to cause massive amounts of damage, one could also use tanks for non lethal purposes, or you can have a whacko use tanks to cause massive amounts of damage. Except, tanks are outlawed. Tanks are outlawed for this very purpose. Government has tank access. The same government you fear and want your AR for could literally blast a cannon through your home obliterating your AR into pieces.

But you would agree tanks should be outlawed as they are.

Why couldn't you cut back on weaponry made capable of causing massive murders such as Vegas, school shootings, etc....?

 

[Ted Williams' head]

Why couldn't you cut back on weaponry made capable of causing massive murders such as Vegas, school shootings, etc....?

- Vegas guy killed nearly 60 people with an AR, Nice attack guy killed 86 with a truck, etc.
- AR accounts for very small percentage of gun deaths.
- Banning a gun opens up black market potential, nutcase/criminals get hold of guns and kill anyway, fund criminal activity.

 

[D241]

- Vegas guy killed nearly 60 people with an AR, Nice attack guy killed 86 with a truck, etc.
- AR accounts for very small percentage of gun deaths.
- Banning a gun opens up black market potential, nutcase/criminals get hold of guns and kill anyway, fund criminal activity.

Good points.

My immediate counter is the comparison isn't accurate. Meaning tanks banned, smaller version is legal vehicles such as trucks.
The AR aren't the trucks though, that'd be the handguns. Except AR are currently legal.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

But you would agree tanks should be outlawed as they are.

You sure about that?

 

[D241]

You sure about that?

I wasn't 100%. I just googled my state and it said this-
Civilians can own decomissioned military tanks. The guns and firing control systems must be disabled. You cannot drive it on most public roads without special permits, and you'll need rubberized treads to avoid damaging the roadway.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I wasn't 100%. I just googled my state and it said this-
Civilians can own decomissioned military tanks. The guns and firing control systems must be disabled. You cannot drive it on most public roads without special permits, and you'll need rubberized treads to avoid damaging the roadway.

My question had more to do with whether or not you were sure everyone would agree that tanks should be outlawed.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

My immediate counter is the comparison isn't accurate. Meaning tanks banned, smaller version is legal vehicles such as trucks.
The AR aren't the trucks though, that'd be the handguns. Except AR are currently legal.

A person is also infinitely more likely to be killed with handgun so it's a false equivalency.