• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have you ever shot an AR15?

Have you shot an AR15?

  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 30 62.5%
  • No - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • No - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 11 22.9%
  • Yes - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Total voters
    48
best triggers include HiperFire (on my PCC race gun) Geiselle (on my top 3G competition rig), CMC -one of the best of the drop in rigs, Eftman (another great drop in rig) and the king of aftermarket triggers Timney (I have one of their DCM/NRA Service rifle legal ones on my Rock River National Match rifle.

for the money the CMC I think is the best buy though the new RISE armaments cassette trigger is really good and can be found for under a C note.

I really like Jewel triggers. Have one on a Rem 700, the AR, and one other rifle I can't recall just now. Just a note; the stock trigger setup in my 1874 Sharps; (trigger and set trigger) also adjustable for pull, is the best of all. And it's a very crude trigger compared to modern triggers. Go figure.
 
FYI, Urban and inner city are not the same (trust me, I lived it)

I think you mean you would pick an urban area over a suburban area.

;)

I think I understand the distinction you are drawing.
 
best triggers include HiperFire (on my PCC race gun) Geiselle (on my top 3G competition rig), CMC -one of the best of the drop in rigs, Eftman (another great drop in rig) and the king of aftermarket triggers Timney (I have one of their DCM/NRA Service rifle legal ones on my Rock River National Match rifle.

for the money the CMC I think is the best buy though the new RISE armaments cassette trigger is really good and can be found for under a C note.

The 1.5 pound Timney I put in is very precise and fully adjustable as to height and placement. Very pleased. I probably don't want that light a touch nor put out that money for the backup lower pistol/rifle setup.
 
A new basic AR15 cost about $600 to $700 depending on the brand. Used about $400 to $700, depending if and how it is customized. If I bought every one at the local gun shop and/or at the local two flea markets, even including ones totally tricked out and with optics, it would be less than $1000 each on average.

But if you can get $5000 for one, more power to you! Someone that stupid is too stupid to figure out how to load up a magazine. :thumbs:
I think that was aimed at some of our less than brilliant,friendly neighborhood anti gunners that wouldn't know any better. My take.
 
One of the annoyances of debating gun control is that those who want to ignore 2A are usually incredibly ignorant about firearms, so sound like idiots when they rant, particularly politicians.

So to pro-gun rights people who are experienced with firearms it never goes beyond the sense that the anti-gun rights person is just an idiot having no clue what they are talking about.

It would be like debating someone over legalizing marijuana, they oppose it - saying it is because thousands of people die from overdoses every year, causes birth defects, permanent blindness and impotency plus all of a person's hair falls out. How do you debate someone THAT wrong factually? Thus, you never actually get to real issues at all.

People who have no experience with firearms think anyone can just buy a gun and then go out and shoot to death gobs of people. After all, that is how Hollywood says it works. Everyone - except maybe the good guy - who is shot instantly flies back against a wall, dead before they hit the ground. Just point the gun pulling the trigger as fast as you can and everyone around is instantly killed.

Anyone who is experienced with firearms knows how truly ignorant/lack that is. Anyone can test this. There are gun shops and gun ranges that rent firearms for use. A few even full automatic machine guns. Go rent-a-gun and shoot at stationary targets at only 30 feet with any pistol or rifles over a 22LR. Big 8 inch diameter targets or human outline. Do it with an AR15 with a big magazine. Do it with a handgun 9mm or larger in caliber. Shoot FAST like a mass shooter would. Remember, these targets aren't moving - like people who will be running.

See how many times you hit within 4 inches of the center of the target - an 8 inch diameter. Then see how many people - people who stood their frozen like statues, squarely facing you - that you would have killed. Again, SHOOT FAST! You will quickly see that anyone who isn't a highly practiced shooter can't hit targets in the kill-zone if they are firing fast even if the target isn't moving. It is VERY difficult for a new shooter. Even for an experienced one.

To the response "the proof is how many are killed by mass shooters with such a "military assault rifle" (it's not), the answer is unless denied medical care (as the Obama FBI did to the LGBTs wounded in the Pulse nightclub allowed to bleed to death for 2 hours), the AR15 usually mostly only wounded those shot - and nearly everyone at the location got away unharmed. MANY other methods used for mass murder have vastly higher death rates - and usually allow the murderer to both escape and be unknown. Mass shooters are always killed, suicide, or surrender quickly.

So... have you shot an AR15? Do you have a CLUE what you are talking about? Or is it only what you have heard and just figure what they are like to shoot?

AR15s are for weaklings, real men own AR10s. AR15s are only good for squirrels and rabbits.

.308 > .223
 
That’s like the .45ACP vs 9mm debate.
 
AR15s are for weaklings, real men own AR10s. AR15s are only good for squirrels and rabbits.

.308 > .223

I read all sorts of studies about wounding values for various mil-spec ammo, including the Hatcher and Evan Marshall Studies as well as the FBI stuff that led to the adoption of the 10MM and later the now being discarded 40 SW. I also spent a lot of time with the guy who won the National Service Rifle championship (Jack Caseman) of the USMC shooting team and why the USMC and the USAMU (Ft Benning) gave up the M14 rifles in favor of the M16 rifles for national matches-even with some of the stages being at 600 yards.

what I learned from all of this is the following

1) while a 762 NATO Round is more lethal, 556 was far more preferred in a military context where the main goal is infliction of casualties on the opposition. The standard load for an infantry operator in 762 was 8 20 round magazines. For the M16 it was 9 30 round magazines. 270 rounds of 556 is far superior to 160 rounds of 762 for that purposes

2) for SF or patrol types, the M16 allowed far more ammo to be carried. My nephew, who has had close to five years of heavy combat experience-first in the Rangers and later as an A camp commander in Afghanistan, noted that even in the sandbox, most of the engagements were under 250 yards and stuff longer than that was usually addressed by firebase artillery or gunships. The Marine champion noted that the fatigue from shooting dozens of rounds of 762 is noticeable, he could fire six times more 556 than 762 and be fresher., and this guy was not a normal soldier or marine, This guy was the best military rifle shot in the USA and maybe the world.Current top rifle shot-Ben Cleland has said the same thing.

3) The wounds that the M16 cause, are better from a military standpoint as well -especially with the Vietnam era rifling, since it didn't blast straight through an opponent (thus not dumping most of its energy) as the 762 did, rather it yawed and caused far more tissue damage which required more attention by medical personnel.
 
I read all sorts of studies about wounding values for various mil-spec ammo, including the Hatcher and Evan Marshall Studies as well as the FBI stuff that led to the adoption of the 10MM and later the now being discarded 40 SW. I also spent a lot of time with the guy who won the National Service Rifle championship (Jack Caseman) of the USMC shooting team and why the USMC and the USAMU (Ft Benning) gave up the M14 rifles in favor of the M16 rifles for national matches-even with some of the stages being at 600 yards.

what I learned from all of this is the following

1) while a 762 NATO Round is more lethal, 556 was far more preferred in a military context where the main goal is infliction of casualties on the opposition. The standard load for an infantry operator in 762 was 8 20 round magazines. For the M16 it was 9 30 round magazines. 270 rounds of 556 is far superior to 160 rounds of 762 for that purposes

2) for SF or patrol types, the M16 allowed far more ammo to be carried. My nephew, who has had close to five years of heavy combat experience-first in the Rangers and later as an A camp commander in Afghanistan, noted that even in the sandbox, most of the engagements were under 250 yards and stuff longer than that was usually addressed by firebase artillery or gunships. The Marine champion noted that the fatigue from shooting dozens of rounds of 762 is noticeable, he could fire six times more 556 than 762 and be fresher., and this guy was not a normal soldier or marine, This guy was the best military rifle shot in the USA and maybe the world.Current top rifle shot-Ben Cleland has said the same thing.

3) The wounds that the M16 cause, are better from a military standpoint as well -especially with the Vietnam era rifling, since it didn't blast straight through an opponent (thus not dumping most of its energy) as the 762 did, rather it yawed and caused far more tissue damage which required more attention by medical personnel.

The lethality is primarily the point. Why use a .223 unless going for small game. If I'm wanting to kill a deer or stop an intruder give me the .308. The AR15 is for women and the elderly.
 
The lethality is primarily the point. Why use a .223 unless going for small game. If I'm wanting to kill a deer or stop an intruder give me the .308. The AR15 is for women and the elderly.

I think that sort of blanket statement is a bit silly. An AR 15 loaded with some of the good Hornady self defense ammo is great for self defense, less likely to blow through your outer walls and harm an innocent, and most AR 15s are much easier to shoot accurately under stress. Now I guess being 60 I am "elderly"but I also shot expert on the standard military qualification course at age 12 with a Garand Rifle-including the 600 yard prone stage. And while I have three FALs, Two AR 10s and a super match MIAI basically in M21 configuration, I will always choose the AR 15 platform for self defense
 
I think that sort of blanket statement is a bit silly. An AR 15 loaded with some of the good Hornady self defense ammo is great for self defense, less likely to blow through your outer walls and harm an innocent, and most AR 15s are much easier to shoot accurately under stress. Now I guess being 60 I am "elderly"but I also shot expert on the standard military qualification course at age 12 with a Garand Rifle-including the 600 yard prone stage. And while I have three FALs, Two AR 10s and a super match MIAI basically in M21 configuration, I will always choose the AR 15 platform for self defense

I was mostly joking even though that is my personal preference.
 
To the response "the proof is how many are killed by mass shooters with such a "military assault rifle" (it's not), the answer is unless denied medical care (as the Obama FBI did to the LGBTs wounded in the Pulse nightclub allowed to bleed to death for 2 hours), the AR15 usually mostly only wounded those shot - and nearly everyone at the location got away unharmed. MANY other methods used for mass murder have vastly higher death rates - and usually allow the murderer to both escape and be unknown. Mass shooters are always killed, suicide, or surrender quickly.
You are right, unless the bullet penetrates the brain a person who is shot can usually be saved if they get proper medical treatment before too much time has passed.
 
The funny thing joko is that I think the majority of gun owners on this forum have probably never fired their weapon. Having a virgin gun yet preaching about the second amendment and gun rights. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

There are some people who buy and own guns purely for the purpose of collecting them and they never fire them but they are far and few between. Unless you're strictly a collector, which is rare, it would be silly to get a gun and never fire it. One of the first things you want to do when you get a new gun is to try it out.
 
There are some people who buy and own guns purely for the purpose of collecting them and they never fire them but they are far and few between. Unless you're strictly a collector, which is rare, it would be silly to get a gun and never fire it. One of the first things you want to do when you get a new gun is to try it out.

Ya....

Sounds like a disease.
 
Ya....

Sounds like a disease.

I'd say the real disease is trying to enact laws that are designed purely to harass people you don't agree with or are designed to deal with one's own projections
 
I'd say the real disease is trying to enact laws that are designed purely to harass people you don't agree with or are designed to deal with one's own projections

I think it is a bit sociopathic to care more about shooting a firearm than the well being and life of innocent men and women.

Just my two cents.
 
I think it is a bit sociopathic to care more about shooting a firearm than the well being and life of innocent men and women.

Just my two cents.

I think it is seething dishonesty to pretend that is what the gun rights debate is about. I think it is disgusting for gun banners to want violent criminals able to ply their murderous trade in complete safety.
 
I think it is a bit sociopathic to care more about shooting a firearm than the well being and life of innocent men and women..
I agree. I am not aware of anybody who cares more about shooting a firearm than others’ well being, however.
I enjoy shooting and go every week. I want to retain my right to own and shoot firearms. My ownership does not put anyone’s well being at risk. So why do you want to restrict what weapons I can own or how large a magazine I can use?
 
Interesting tidbit of information. And the gun grabbers want to take those horrid assult rifles away from law abiding citizens


Most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms—as much as 80 percent according to some estimates.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports prove that the overwhelming majority of gun-related homicides are perpetrated with handguns, with rifles of any kind accounting for less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides. In 2013, 5,782 murders were committed by killers who used a handgun, compared to 285 committed by killers who used a rifle. The same holds true for 2012 (6,404 to 298); 2011 (6,251 to 332); 2010 (6,115 to 367); and 2009 (6,501 to 351).
More people are stabbed to death every year than are murdered with rifles.
A person is more likely to be bludgeoned to death with a blunt object or beaten to death with hands and feet than to be murdered with a rifle.
 
I agree. I am not aware of anybody who cares more about shooting a firearm than others’ well being, however.
I enjoy shooting and go every week. I want to retain my right to own and shoot firearms. My ownership does not put anyone’s well being at risk. So why do you want to restrict what weapons I can own or how large a magazine I can use?

Wrong, completely wrong.

Zealot gun supporters want their guns and want zero restriction.

3-day wait for a background check? Gun zealots say why even have a background check to begin with?

Preventing those charged with domestic violence or mental illness from obtaining guns? A violation of their constitutional rights.

Preventing felons or criminals from obtaining firearms? Why? They are just going to get them anyway, why have a law.

Any commone sense support of gun control will be met with fierce irrational resistance from the gun supporters.
 
Ive shot AR15s and full auto M16s and both should be legal to purchase. I dont believe either one is a problem.
 
I read all sorts of studies about wounding values for various mil-spec ammo, including the Hatcher and Evan Marshall Studies as well as the FBI stuff that led to the adoption of the 10MM and later the now being discarded 40 SW. I also spent a lot of time with the guy who won the National Service Rifle championship (Jack Caseman) of the USMC shooting team and why the USMC and the USAMU (Ft Benning) gave up the M14 rifles in favor of the M16 rifles for national matches-even with some of the stages being at 600 yards.

what I learned from all of this is the following

1) while a 762 NATO Round is more lethal, 556 was far more preferred in a military context where the main goal is infliction of casualties on the opposition. The standard load for an infantry operator in 762 was 8 20 round magazines. For the M16 it was 9 30 round magazines. 270 rounds of 556 is far superior to 160 rounds of 762 for that purposes

2) for SF or patrol types, the M16 allowed far more ammo to be carried. My nephew, who has had close to five years of heavy combat experience-first in the Rangers and later as an A camp commander in Afghanistan, noted that even in the sandbox, most of the engagements were under 250 yards and stuff longer than that was usually addressed by firebase artillery or gunships. The Marine champion noted that the fatigue from shooting dozens of rounds of 762 is noticeable, he could fire six times more 556 than 762 and be fresher., and this guy was not a normal soldier or marine, This guy was the best military rifle shot in the USA and maybe the world.Current top rifle shot-Ben Cleland has said the same thing.

3) The wounds that the M16 cause, are better from a military standpoint as well -especially with the Vietnam era rifling, since it didn't blast straight through an opponent (thus not dumping most of its energy) as the 762 did, rather it yawed and caused far more tissue damage which required more attention by medical personnel.

The Marine Corps qualifies at three different ranges: 200, 300, and 500 meters (yep, they use meters, not yards). At each range there are different firing positions. At 200 meters you fire from a non-braced standing position and the kneeling position. At 300 meters you fire from the kneeling and the sitting positions. At 500 meters you fire from the prone position.

The highest possible score is 250, and you must obtain a minimum of 190 in order to qualify. A score of between 190 and 209 will get them a Marksman badge. A score between 210 and 219 will earn them a Sharpshooter badge, and a score of 220 or above qualifies them for an Expert badge.

The damage the M16 causes has very little to do with the weapon, and everything to do with the ammunition being used. The M193 anti-personnel ball round was specifically designed to be off-balance. Not only does the round spin as a result of the rifling, but it also tumbles end-over-end as it travels towards its target. That tumbling action causes the round to behave very strangely when it impacts a human body. The round has a tendency to ricochet around inside the body, so you never know where (or even if) there will be an exit wound. You could be shot in the butt and have the round come out your foot, breaking every bone in your leg as it travels.

The round was designed to inflict greater injury, but not necessarily death since it is such a small caliber. The idea was that more resources would be used by an enemy treating their wounded than caring for their dead. Therefore, having more injured than dead was the preferred goal.

It naturally depends upon the terrain, of course, but I very rarely have to shoot anything further than 100 meters away. I hunt primarily in forests and that explains why my range is so short. If I had to drive all the way up to the north slope to take a caribou, where there are no trees for hundreds of miles, then I would be required to take them from a much greater range. Fortunately, I don't have to drive that far to get my annual caribou. I just call the Park Rangers and find out how far away the herd is from the highway. When they are close enough I drive up, hike a half mile from the highway, and bag me a caribou. I don't consider it hunting, since there is no skill involved. More like rural grocery store shopping, except that I'm also the butcher.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a bit sociopathic to care more about shooting a firearm than the well being and life of innocent men and women.

Just my two cents.
There's no reason you can't care about both.
 
Any commone sense support of gun control will be met with fierce irrational resistance from the gun supporters.

At least you got that right, by the way its spelled common not commone, and what the gun control defines as common sense gun control is anything but common sense. But you're right that their proposals will be met with fierce resistance from gun supporters, so they've got a hopeless cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom