Ok, so there’s lots of talk about “Assault Weapons” which in many ways are simply regular weapons with different styling. Many gun knowledgeable folks say that these weapons are “functionally identical” to regular guns that don’t look nearly as scary. Let’s state as a fact for this purpose that the non-military style rifle fires the same ammunition, at the same muzzle velocity, magazine capacity and rate of (semi-auto) fire as its military style counterpart.
Here’s the GQ… What IS the purpose of that styling?
One would presume that every aspect of an M-16’s design is meticulously considered for utility (maybe cue the laughter here?) and an AR-15 that is similar in design would have similar improvements in utility, over a hunting type rifle that the military is disinterested in.
I’m having a hard time parsing out exactly what you’re asking. If you’re asking why they exist I suspect the original reason is the gun manufacturers see the civilian market as a good place to make money and reproductions of military firearms requires little modification to extant manufacturing processes.
If you’re asking why do semi-automatic only versions of select-fire assault rifles exist then it is primarily because the designs were already in place for the military version and thus gun companies could very, very sell them to the civilian market. No new R&D, no new manufacturing facilities etc. The difference that makes a civilian AR-15 semiautomatic only versus a fully auto capable M16 variants (older models) or the three-round burst capable newer model M16 variants is very minor mechanically.
Since at least WWI days and probably Civil War days gun manufacturers in America have made a boat load of money selling weapons that they created for the military to the civilian market. There are major advantages to this strategy. One, lots of veterans will be comfortable with the weapon so you have a decent core of people already exposed to your product. Two, as I stated already you’re already geared up to make the weapon.
This really caused no regulatory issues when the main battle rifle was just a semiautomatic rifle but it started to obviously be a problem when the U.S. military was primarily issuing select-fire assault rifles, so in that case you make the minor modification required to make the rifle semiautomatic only and sell for profit.
There is also the police market. Police forces can get access to fully automatic weapons through a process different from how civilians can under the NFA, but for many police forces the desire for that isn’t there. So that’s also a major market for semiautomatic versions of assault rifles, lots of police have them for law enforcement purposes where the department either has decided it doesn’t want to have automatic weapons or doesn’t want to jump through the somewhat more burdensome requirements that come along with having them.
The styling of the weapon itself is well suited for storming locations and firefights, which are rare but not unheard of use cases for police firearms.
I don’t know all the intricacies of the fully automatic weapons for police departments, but my understanding is some departments they have automatic weapons that they hand out to specific units that might need them; but semiautomatic variants of the M16 many departments will have officers keep those in the trunk of their vehicle or something so they have a lot of firepower available for an emerging situation but you don’t have fully automatic weapons just sitting in every squad car.
it’s not “styling.” The AR-15 looks like it does because that’s how the AR-15 has always looked, even before the military adopted it. And the AR-15 has always looked like that because of the way the AR-15 works.
The core differences between the AR-15 and the M-16/M-4 are the latter have burst/auto fire capability and can have shorter barrel lengths. The AR-15 (by law) cannot easily be modified to accept any M-16/M-4 parts that would convert it to burst or auto-fire capability.
yes. One is the light weight, two is the fact that the barrel is roughly in line with the butt of the stock to reduce muzzle rise when firing, three is the fact that its design is “modular” so it can be configured with a variety of barrel lengths, sight options, and other accessory features.
Except the military makes extensive use of the Remington 700 bolt-action rifles, which are very popular with hunters.
I interpreted the OP as asking why assault-style rifles have extra grips, and sometimes a lot of other physical flair. Given that these weapons have evolved in a very competitive environment – combat – I’d have to guess that each of the modifications actually has shown some use for troops in firefights. Being able to shift grips might enhance an infantryman’s flexibility in different situations, moving from a rifle-stance to a hip-shooting stance to a side-arm stance as the needs arise.
Yeah, sure, from the civilian U.S. market, it’s (partly) because they’re cool-looking… One guy asked another guy what the silencer was for, and the other guy said “It makes the gun look bigger and scarier.”
The stocks on modern ones are plastic. Unlike wood, the plastic doesn’t warp or rot when it gets wet, and it is just as ugly after it gets scratched up as it was before. Plastic can be any shape and hollow. In the case of the AR-15, this allows the large recoil buffer tube to be neatly contained within the stock. Many “non-assault” styled guns have moved to synthetic stocks as well where utility without the “assault weapon” stigma is desired.
The hollow plastic is also light weight, and given the limited recoil of the modest .223 round, this is advantageous in nearly all circumstances. With a heavy recoiling gun, you need some mass to moderate the recoil if you intend to shoot it much. The AR carries the light weight theme farther, with everything possible made out of aluminum rather than steel. Steel is used where strength is essential, held together by lots of aluminum. Any rifle becomes about 2-3 times as heavy after the third hour you are carrying it. Light is good, as long as it doesn’t take your shoulder off when it is time to stop carrying and start shooting.
The AR is also a modular design. By swapping “uppers” a shooter can have different barrel lengths, and even calibers while still owning only one gun under current law. Even if swapping is not desired, the availability of many options makes it possible to easily customize the AR for any purpose to which it’s available chamberings (dozens) suit it. This can normally be done with minimal tools, and does not require special skills. Conventional guns often require the services of an expensive gunsmith even for minor things like changing the sights, or lengthening the stock to accommodate a tall shooter. The ability to customize and personalize the gun is probably a huge factor in the popularity of the AR platform…a bit like Harley Davidson motorcycles in this regard.
The overall layout/shape of the AR provides for in-line recoil. This pretty much requires the pistol-grip or something similar, as it moves the barrel and action downward from where they are on traditional arms. This makes the muzzle move far less with each shot, allowing a quicker follow-up shot. This requires a high sight line, though, which makes it important that the gun be held exactly level, but does allow slightly longer range shooting without regard to bullet drop…if you are willing to accept slightly degraded accuracy.
The article is on DailyKos but it is largely apolitical until the conclusions and appears to do an excellent job of breaking down the mechanics and market of high-end firearms. But of course, if you’d read the article, you’d know that.
Some of it is slightly better ergonomically. Some of it is there because it looks cool and will cause people to buy it. Like putting nice rims on a car. But replacing the rims with dull ones will not change the function of the car and taking the bells and wistles off a rifle will not change its capabilities.
Times and styles change, I guess. In my corner of the world, it was almost a sign of poverty to have a rifle that looked military.
My dad taught me how to use shotguns and bolt action rifles and how to hunt. My drill sergeant taught me about M16’s and which was my rifle and which was my gun.
I no longer hunt and am long out of uniform, so guns are not a big part of my life any longer. I must confess that I find private ownership of M16 style weapons puzzling. Is this common for ex-military? Lord knows I never want to touch, carry or shoot at anyone with one. I understand they are popular for varmints - but in my hunting days, we the same rifle or shotgun off season for varmints. Just for practice or testing various reloads. I guess we were too poor for a dedicated varmint weapon.
My uncles did have surplus military arms (Springfield M1903 and Mauser 98), but as fast as they could afford to, they made them look as un-military as they could.
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but if you want that type of weapon - enlist and you get if for free. Plus you get hands on experience defending our freedoms.
jz78817: post the characteristics of the guns, and we could answer it. From the photo alone, we can’t. This “gotcha” question was already posted in IMHO. Let’s stick to facts here. Caliber, magazine, cycle rate, etc. It would also help, functionally, if we knew if any major world military organizations were buying them and issuing them as combat rifles. If an “assault style” weapon isn’t actually being put into the hands of real soldiers, it might make some difference in classification.
the OP asked about “assault weapon styling.” There’s a reason I asked the question I did and I’ll wait a tick before addressing your post. Not that I think your question is unreasonable, but if I answer it it would invalidate my response to the OP.
'course, this thread is probably already in IMHO or GD territory already anyway…
Since some of the parts on these guns are molded plastic, I wonder if we could reduce the attractiveness of these weapons to young men by dying the plastic in"girly" colors rather than black. Would these deranged shooters still want to use these guns if the civilian models came with a lavender stock, and the grips were pink or baby blue?
When I first heard about this, the explanation was that the line was targeted at very rich women European women who associated with very dangerous men- essentially, mafia wives. I suppose after you fill a few rooms with ostrich and alligator purses, accessorizing in other ways starts to look attractive.
