This isn’t meant to be an anti-AR15 thread. I have a sibling who owns one and I’ve thought of buying one too. I support gun control, but am not sure how many deaths are caused by semi auto rifles. Most firearm deaths are from handguns and from what I know of gun control, things like universal background checks, limiting CCW, etc. do more to reduce gun deaths than banning semi auto rifles.
I’m just curious what utilitarian use does it have.
It seems too powerful to use for home defense, and a pump shotgun or handgun is better (the AR bullets probably go through walls, potentially hitting other people).
It seems too weak for game hunting compared to things like the 300 or 30-06.
Ammo is too expensive for target practice (compared to something like a 22).
So putting aside if people ‘should’ be allowed to own them, is there a utilitarian value to owning one?
.223 Remington is not legal on deer in many states, but AR-type rifles come in many calibers these days, and there are varmints that it is suitable for.
The ubiquitous nature of .223 makes it one of the cheapest centerfire cartridges out there. And if you don’t want to remain with 22 rimfire and its limitations it can be made to be accurate, and plenty of people reload for it to keep the cost down. Military surplus stuff isn’t usually that accurate (it doesn’t have to be, most of it is going to be fired in machine-guns anyway).
Of course this applies equally to manually operated rifles firing this cartridge.
The nature of the defensive environment (urban/rural) will dictate whether a rifle is suitable or not.
A huge variety of bolt-on aftermarket components make it possible to build one to your taste, which is an attraction to some people.
It wasn’t until the Clinton ban that the AR-15 became attractive to a wider variety of gun owners, until then it was very much a minority taste and many people despised it as the ‘mousegun’.
Nothing really. They look cool and are very rugged.
I think the question should be, why should a law abiding person who has never broken the law above a speeding ticket, who pays their taxes, works in the community, and who has maybe even served in the military be restricted from owning any “reasonable” firearm?
Ammo is cheap and readily available. Magazines are everywhere. Average ones are pretty accurate and exceptional ones are tack drivers. Like a Harley Davidson, they are endlessly customizable so you can build exactly what you want and they don’t require any particular gunsmithing skills to modify. They are pretty soft-shooting. The .223 round is powerful enough for varmint shooting and some pests, like coyotes. In some states, I think it’s even legal for deer but you have to be a pretty shit hunter to think you will do better with a .223 semi-auto than a good bolt action. Some people think they are great for home defense, but those people have nihilistic fantasies where they are single-handedly keeping the zombie hordes away from the Alamo.
Where do you draw the lines. Weapons range from a pocketknife to nuclear weapons. Where is the line on what weapons civilians should be allowed to own?
Should civilians be able to buy RPGs, sarin gas and mortars at walmart?
My post wasn’t really an anti-AR15 post, I’m more wondering what purpose they serve. As I said they seem too strong for home defense but too weak for game hunting.
Just an FYI, virtually any firearm that’s commonly used for home defense is going to be capable of penetrating drywall. Yes, .223 bullets will probably go through walls. So will 9mm or .45. So will various sorts of shotgun ammunition. So will .22LR.
I think the appeal is just that it looks and feels cool.
I also wonder if many of the owners are ex-military, who miss the feel of an M-16 type of rifle, and are simply familiar with such workings.
I remember seeing an ad decades ago, that was published in the '60s when AR-15s were first sold to civilians. They were marketed as ‘varmint rifles’; i.e. ranchers would use them to kill groundhogs (whose burrows could cause their livestock to break their legs), coyotes (that prey on their livestock), etc.
I own several AR-15s (two 1979 SP-1s, and some Bushmasters and others that I built). The attraction to me is the historical significance and the variations over time. They’re fun to shoot, but I haven’t been to the range in over a decade. I’ll probably start selling them off.
Fun to shoot, and not cleaning them isn’t particularly disastrous, though the AK has it beat on that front. (For the AK, instead of cleaning, just bring a hammer to get the bolt carrier moving pre-first shot. )
The AR-15 can be very practical. It can be chambered for any cartridge from 17 to 50 caliber provided the overall length of the cartridge is 2.26" or less and the rim diameter is .473" or less. If you are willing to use the AR-10 action, then the length increases to 2.84". The single shot verions can be chamber in 50 BMG.
The wide variety of barrel lengths is also a good feature.
I own .224, .308 and .458 caliber AR-15’s. They are very adaptable.
I know a few folks who go after hogs seriously (as a nuisance) who swear by the things. OK - you need a damn clear shot or several not-so-clear shots but you can beat the snot out of them and they still function well. And for that reason they also make a good canoe/pack gun. With a well-placed and taken shot it will bring down a deer and it will take small game without blowing it to pieces. It is one of those platforms that isn’t great at any one thing but fairly good at a wide range of things. I’ve never had one and I have no desire to but I can’t fault those who do at all.
My niece uses hers for target shooting. It’s good in that role, especially for smaller shooters.
She started with some basic marksmanship using .22LR in high school. When she was ready for centerfire rifles, and targets at longer ranges than she can throw a rock, she moved onto an AR15. At that point she wasn’t full grown. Even now she is smaller than the men she typically competes against. The AR15 uses a relatively low power round. Combined with the recoil buffer it makes for a rifle with low felt recoil. For her size that’s important. The ammo is relatively cheap when comparing to other centerfire rifle cartridges. Because of the popularity of the platform her Dad was easily able to find a variant focused on accuracy without breaking the bank.
Her Dad bought an AR10 in .308 Winchester for when they go to the range. She’s tried it. It’s too much power for her to comfortably control. The men she competes against are generally big and strong enough to step up to more powerful cartridges or switch to rifles in the same power range without the recoil buffer. She’s really not. The AR15, or something similar, makes her size a non-issue.
There are loads of videos of folks shooting feral pig after feral pig. Sometimes it’s from a fixed position, others from trucks or even helicopters. The AR-15s seem well suited for that sort of thing.
That’s why I would have one if I did, historical significance and target shooting. My state has an ‘assault weapons’ ban but it’s one of the ones foolishly drafted to encourage slight variations on AR15 type to make it legal and what would subtract from historical significance. Also now magazine size limit that detracts also.
But as thread suggests if reasonably compared to other guns, AR15 types aren’t really ‘less practical’ than all kind of other guns including ones that wouldn’t fit under any ‘assault weapon’ definition. That argument against them ‘weapons of war with no legitimate civilian use’ is basically a phony appeal to emotion. A potentially more reasonable argument is just ‘OK they’re practical but 50%+1 still think the downside of allowing them outweighs the upside, and majority gets to tell minority what to do*, sorry’. That’s more realistic.
I also tend to like late 19th century gun tech: bolt or lever action, revolver etc. But I don’t hunt, those guns could in some cases ‘fire through walls’ (especially cheapo modern construction, not as much our 120 yr old walls, but anyway). And automatic pistols (which I don’t have) are highly effective in murdering people en mass (especially at several per shooter with big magazines). It’s harder to argue they ‘have no utilitarian value’.
The ‘utlility’ argument is made about AR15’s because it sounds plausible to a lot of people of generally low info level about guns, but not a very strong argument actually. Anyway the ultimate argument for bans is ‘because we say so and we have the votes’ (though pro-ban doesn’t have the votes at present nationally, poll answers maybe, but not Congressional votes).
*it’s not clear there’s any 2nd amendment barrier to banning sale or every ownership of ‘assault weapons’. Neither the previous federal ban nor any state one has successfully been challenged in court AFAIK. Lots of people feel such laws violate their personal conception of the 2A and that’s fine as their opinion, but courts haven’t actually found that as yet.