3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands...and now the current stock just sold out...

[Alystyr]

The Garand is an excellent rifle, that just happens to be 80 year old technology; so while it is a good rifle, it is now far outclassed by the new breed.

I somewhat agree, but not because it's old. The Colt 1911-style pistol is older still, yet it remains one of the best pistols ever (IMHO).
The Garand's two biggest drawbacks are weight and ammo capacity.
Its accuracy, however, is definitely not outclassed - equaled, maybe, but not outclassed.

 

[Care4all]

and inevitably, 100's of those 3,700,000 made and sold legally will illegally, or through easy loop holes, end up in the hands of gangsters, murders or terrorists such as San Bernadino attackers....

 

[MikeK]

Yes, their bullet is certainly capable of killing somebody at that range, but intentionally hitting someone at that range is quite the trick.

It depends on the shooter.

When I was in the Marine Corps in the 1950s we qualified at 200, 300 and 500 yards. I qualified as Expert Rifleman all but one time (weather) and I could strike a man-size silhouette eight and sometimes ten out of ten times at 500 yards (in the prone position) with iron sights (no scope). Offhand (standing), ten out of ten at 200 yards. Sitting and kneeling, 300 yards, not so good.

Of course training is the key. We spent three solid weeks at the Parris Island rifle range, and I mean three seven-day-weeks from dawn to dusk. We left there with black, blue and green shoulders, muscles we never had before and biceps rubbed raw from the sling.

 

[westwall]

and inevitably, 100's of those 3,700,000 made and sold legally will illegally, or through easy loop holes, end up in the hands of gangsters, murders or terrorists such as San Bernadino attackers....

No doubt. As they would if they were banned as well. Japan is the most heavily regulated country on the planet as regards guns, is the easiest to keep free of guns and yet the Japanese police admit that the Yakuza have more guns than members. France has more illegal weapons than legal ones. The genie is out of the box. Banning guns only makes it easier for bad people to do bad things to good people.

 

[westwall]

Yes, their bullet is certainly capable of killing somebody at that range, but intentionally hitting someone at that range is quite the trick.

It depends on the shooter.

When I was in the Marine Corps in the 1950s we qualified at 200, 300 and 500 yards. I qualified as Expert Rifleman all but one time (weather) and I could strike a man-size silhouette eight and sometimes ten out of ten times at 500 yards (in the prone position) with iron sights (no scope). Offhand (standing), ten out of ten at 200 yards. Sitting and kneeling, 300 yards, not so good.

Of course training is the key. We spent three solid weeks at the Parris Island rifle range, and I mean three seven-day-weeks from dawn to dusk. We left there with black, blue and green shoulders, muscles we never had before and biceps rubbed raw from the sling.

Yep, some of the best shots I've competed against were Marines. However the ballistics of the 7.62X39 are well known and as I stated actually intentionally hitting someone at 1000 meters with one would be quite the trick. The bullet drop at 1000 meters is over 1000 inches so we're talking the trajectory of a rainbow. The AR in a precision set up will be using 80 grain VLD bullets (Very Low Drag) and they are dropping less than half of that.

 

[Auld Phart]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson. And if you are caught off your property with one of the assault weapons without that license, you get a felony conviction and all your guns confiscated and destroyed. Also, a three month waiting period to purchase a gun, whether private or commercial sale. And if you sell a gun without the paper work, same thing, felony conviction, and all your weapons are confiscated and destroyed, and you never can own another firearm. Not only that, if you do said sell, without the paperwork, and the gun is used in a crime, you own that crime.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson.

Why?

ARs, unlike the old Thompson, is not full auto.

Which is why the Thompson has the laws covering it's ownership it does.

When you can empty a 30 shot clip in under 10 seconds, what is the differance between auto and semi-auto?

Pulling the trigger for every shot.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes...Americans understand that the anti gun extremists are nuts.....so...after San Bernadino..where 14 unarmed people in a gun free zone were killed by 2 muslims with guns....in a gun free zone....Americans bought out the entire stock of AR-15s...

Post San Bernardino Gun Sales Surge Drains U.S. AR Supply - The Truth About Guns

TTAG’s reached out to some of this country’s largest firearms wholesalers and learned that the sales channel is dry. AR’s they ain’t got. And no wonder. IWI US’s VP of Sales & Marketing, Michael Kassner, tells TTAG that IWI’s sold thousands of Tavors over the weekend. Folks, that’s a $2k rifle. You can imagine how many low-end AR’s are finding new homes in the rush to tool-up against terrorism, further fueled by the assault media’s decision to come out of the gun confiscation closet, ahead of Hillary Clinton’s potential election. There’s a lag between wholesaler supply and what you see at your local gun store. That means . . .

you’ll still see guns on the shelves for the time being. But for how long?

Looks like if you want an AR-15 to shoot up a classroom full of first graders or a movie theater yoy are going to have to buy one from a private gun owner

Lucky for you, there is nothing stopping him from selling it to you

 

[Defiant1]

Yes...Americans understand that the anti gun extremists are nuts.....so...after San Bernadino..where 14 unarmed people in a gun free zone were killed by 2 muslims with guns....in a gun free zone....Americans bought out the entire stock of AR-15s...

Post San Bernardino Gun Sales Surge Drains U.S. AR Supply - The Truth About Guns

TTAG’s reached out to some of this country’s largest firearms wholesalers and learned that the sales channel is dry. AR’s they ain’t got. And no wonder. IWI US’s VP of Sales & Marketing, Michael Kassner, tells TTAG that IWI’s sold thousands of Tavors over the weekend. Folks, that’s a $2k rifle. You can imagine how many low-end AR’s are finding new homes in the rush to tool-up against terrorism, further fueled by the assault media’s decision to come out of the gun confiscation closet, ahead of Hillary Clinton’s potential election. There’s a lag between wholesaler supply and what you see at your local gun store. That means . . .

you’ll still see guns on the shelves for the time being. But for how long?

Looks like if you want an AR-15 to shoot up a classroom full of first graders or a movie theater yoy are going to have to buy one from a private gun owner

Lucky for you, there is nothing stopping him from selling it to you

Or you can acquire all the parts needed, without government interference, and build your own.
No records, no serial #s.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That will be sad - when they're all banned.

Thats cool...I stocked up on Polio blankets just in case.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

Another stupid liberal who thinks the 2nd is about hunting....

 

[Geaux4it]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

That's why I prefer the Daniel Defense M4.... if I hadn't lost it in a tragic boating accident

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

And when you croak, your descendants are going to look at your arsenal, and wonder what the crazy old fart was thinking. I have 100 brass, and the makings of about the same number for my primary hunting rifle, that will more than likely last me the rest of my life. I really don't plan on going to war.

But Obama does

-Geaux

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

The AK is the ultimate peasant rifle but it doesnt shoot straight for shit.
You can pick up a cheap AR for around $500 bucks and you wont be getting an M-16 for anything less than 15 grand on a good day and up to 25 grand on a bad one.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

I bet you're just gagging for it - the break down of society. So you can fulfil your wet dream of being a weekend warrior....

You're weird.
Who the hell would want to live in a state of anarchy?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They should be melted down to make something useful.

Casino chips?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes...Americans understand that the anti gun extremists are nuts.....so...after San Bernadino..where 14 unarmed people in a gun free zone were killed by 2 muslims with guns....in a gun free zone....Americans bought out the entire stock of AR-15s...

Post San Bernardino Gun Sales Surge Drains U.S. AR Supply - The Truth About Guns

TTAG’s reached out to some of this country’s largest firearms wholesalers and learned that the sales channel is dry. AR’s they ain’t got. And no wonder. IWI US’s VP of Sales & Marketing, Michael Kassner, tells TTAG that IWI’s sold thousands of Tavors over the weekend. Folks, that’s a $2k rifle. You can imagine how many low-end AR’s are finding new homes in the rush to tool-up against terrorism, further fueled by the assault media’s decision to come out of the gun confiscation closet, ahead of Hillary Clinton’s potential election. There’s a lag between wholesaler supply and what you see at your local gun store. That means . . .

you’ll still see guns on the shelves for the time being. But for how long?

Oh good, and after the first rain we'll have 3.7 mil pieces of scrap to build AKs with.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson. And if you are caught off your property with one of the assault weapons without that license, you get a felony conviction and all your guns confiscated and destroyed. Also, a three month waiting period to purchase a gun, whether private or commercial sale. And if you sell a gun without the paper work, same thing, felony conviction, and all your weapons are confiscated and destroyed, and you never can own another firearm. Not only that, if you do said sell, without the paperwork, and the gun is used in a crime, you own that crime.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson.

Why?

ARs, unlike the old Thompson, is not full auto.

Which is why the Thompson has the laws covering it's ownership it does.

When you can empty a 30 shot clip in under 10 seconds, what is the differance between auto and semi-auto?

And you'd more than likely hit nothing.
Aimed single shots are far more effective.

 

[dannyboys]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

Nope. My '930' doesn't just have a 3 shell capacity. HAAAAA HAAAAA

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

Nope. My '930' doesn't just have a 3 shell capacity. HAAAAA HAAAAA

That old dude can shoot a pistol like nobodies business!!!

 

[dannyboys]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

I have an old AK47. It would be my first choice if I could only have one gun. You never need replacement parts but if you did you can find them anywhere on earth. Ammo is dirt cheap.
I've seen the AR15 at the range. It looked a little to 'precious' for my taste. The owner didn't want to put more than a dozen rounds through it.
Like having a big shiny 4X4 but not willing to take it off road.