

The AR-15 Is More Than a Gun. It’s a Gadget - jonnycoder
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/ar-15/all/

======
hga
A few corrections or comments:

McNamara and company forced the AR-15 on the Army (the Air Force was already
buying them for guarding planes and the like, a much less demanding duty)
because the small arms procurement part of the Army at the time was utterly
corrupt, preferring inferior US designs like the M14 (too much operating stuff
out in the open, otherwise a great improvement on the M1 Garand) and the M60
machine gun (details on request). They biased tests by e.g. replacing screws
holding a rifle together with springs while they had custody of them before
the official tests (or at least I've read that about the trials that selected
the M14, the AR-10, original big brother of the AR-15, was said to be
sabotaged that way).

The NRA never, _ever_ , supported the "assault weapons" ban, with the sole
exception of one off-script or trial balloon radio interview with Carleton
Heston (take your pick, he and other Western actors cut commercials to support
the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968). This was much noticed in the
community because Clinton's AW ban _was the first piece of Federal anti-gun
legislation that passed without the NRA's approval_ , however grudging.

" _Accustomed to taking down trophy bucks with a hefty .30-caliber round, they
ridiculed the AR-15 as a “mouse gun” and feared that its smaller .223-caliber
bullet would only wound an animal, instead of taking it down with a single,
clean shot._ "

A bit of an exaggeration, higher energy narrower than .30 caliber (7.62 mm)
rounds have long been used to take deer sized animals. Prior to recent
tremendous developments in bullet technology .223 was iffy except for smaller
critters, it was in fact derived from the .222 Remington, a target and varmint
shooting cartridge, at least in the US.

Any correlation with the expiration of the 2004 "assault weapons" ban and the
civilian market's response is bogus. It was sufficiently weak that the only
effect was an increase in the cost of magazines, and since it had been our
issue rifle for a quarter century there were plenty used ones to be had.
Otherwise you could buy one as long as you were willing to forgo e.g. a
bayonet lug.... I think the big event was 9/11, and the feckless domestic
response, e.g. Bush telling us to go out and buy stuff to support the economy.
Many people realized they were on our own, at least in terms of initial
response, and plenty of subsequent events like hurricanes emphasized that.
E.g. there's the saying that "When seconds count, the police are minutes
away". After a hurricane for many it will be more like weeks.

That Hello Kitty rifle is real, there are some very nice modern gun finishes
that come in many different colors, like DuraCoat which was used for that one
and which the article has a photograph of a SHOT Show advertising display for
it.

I can't speak to the author's emphasis of all this coming from the gaming "and
others who had fallen into the post-9/11, SpecOps-inspired 'tactical
lifestyle'" ... but I'll note there wouldn't have been a 1994 "assault
weapons" ban if these weren't already popular guns. I personally know they
were popular in the '70s, and as Cam Edwards put it, " _The AR was designed in
1957 and sold to the public beginning in 1964. Perhaps we should go ahead and
ban that newfangled rock and roll too._ "

Obviously, the "NRA’s dire warnings of an Democratic gun grab should Obama win
the presidency" were accurate, if the timing was a bit off. And Sen. Joe
Manchin is a poser who doesn't know the difference between a magazine and a
clip, unless his shooting experience up to now has been with single shot
rifles and double barreled shotguns.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
>Obviously, the "NRA’s dire warnings of an Democratic gun grab should Obama
win the presidency" were accurate, if the timing was a bit off

I don't see how this is true, unless we massively redefine "gun grab" from
"confiscating private firearms that are currently legally owned" to "limiting
the production and/or commercial sale of some types of firearms and firearm
accessories".

~~~
benjohnson
A long time Democrat senator in Washington State recently introduced a bill
that authorized yearly police inspections inside the home of gun owners -
directly in violation of the 4th amendment in the Bill of Right.

That's worse than a 'gun grab' in my opinion.

~~~
hga
Actually, he's been introducing that bill for years. This is the first time
anyone's paid attention to it, because it has a real potential for passing. Or
did before this discovery....

This is the only thing that can get "the ACLU" (the national HQ and most but
not all state units of it) against "gun grabbing", the realization that it
can't be accomplished without gross 4th Amendment violations.

------
jewbacca
> Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s famously statistics-driven Pentagon was
> itching to replace the M14, an Army-designed gun that, despite its
> successful use in World War II.

With information from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle>:

The M14, while "developed from a long line of experimental weapons based upon
the M1 rifle" (a semiautomatic rifle which certainly saw widespread use in
WWII), did not enter production until 1959. Compared to the M1, the M14 was
fully automatic rather than semi-, had a much larger magazine size, shot a
different bullet, and was actually significantly lighter -- so even knowing
nothing about how the actual mechanism and whatever other properties of a gun
that impact its performance were changed, it's safe to say it's not the same
gun, and this is a factual error.

The fact that, as someone who has never even seen an unholstered gun outside a
museum much less shot one, and has no domain knowledge outside of movies and a
single decade-old video game, I could spot this error from a mile away, makes
me skeptical about this article. I know this seems like useless nitpicking,
but it reminds me of reading mainstream articles about relatively esoteric
high tech subjects: in domains I know better, these articles are often so
nakedly full of holes and errors that they totally waste whatever argument the
author is working towards. So whenever I spot easy errors on topics I know
little about, it puts me on higher guard for what else might be bullshit that
I don't recognize.

That said, this is a fascinating article, and even with skepticism it has
adjusted my perspective on the debate.

~~~
D9u
There are 2 distinctly different "M1" rifles. The 1st type is known as the "M1
Garand" which fires a Winchester .308 (7.62 mm NATO) round.

The 2nd type is known as the "M1 Carbine" which fires a smaller, .30 cal.
round.

The M14 fires the 7.62 mm NATO round, the same as the M! Garand.

~~~
hga
A correction: the M1 Garand, designed before WWII, as issued originally fired
.30-06; .308/7.62 NATO is a 1/2 inch or so shorter round, using _much_
improved powder and a 147 vs. 150 or maybe 152 (Wikipedia) grain bullet to
achieve the same exterior ballistics as M2 Ball I think. I've read that
shaving off 1/2 an inch of overall length (the case was quite long because our
powder in 1903 wasn't as good as the German's) allows decreasing the receiver
length by about an inch ... but I'm now ashamed to realize I never measured
them when I had my Garand and a couple of M14 semi-auto investment cast
receivers "just in case" for legal grandfathering.

However, the gun will fire any round with .30-06 or .308 dimensions if the
pressure profile is a good match. I had my Garand refurbished and rebarreled
in .308/7.62 NATO, and it was quite reliable. The Navy started doing that sort
of thing the earliest that I know of, with a sleeve fitted into the chamber
(!).

~~~
D9u
I stand corrected. Thanks for setting it straight. I've heard of verified
open-sight shots from match-grade M1 Garand hitting targets over a mile
distant.

What's the farthest shot you've heard of from credible sources?

~~~
hga
Nothing even close to that.

Normal Garand match ammo, at least the typical Federal .308 (don't know about
.30-06) Sierra MatchKing match loads, are supposed to have real difficultly
reaching 1,000 yards. If you want to stay in the envelope it's recommended to
go down to, say, 6.5 mm bullets, a diameter where you can get much higher
ballistic coefficients, e.g. the .260 Remington and its ilk.

Note this is all stuff I've just read, I've never been at a range that was
longer than 300 yards, and almost always 200 or less.... :-(.

~~~
D9u
While not using an M1 Garand, the link below says 2 miles!

<http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook.htm>

------
gcb0
> Why would normal, law-abiding Americans want to own > a deadly weapon that
> was clearly designed for military use?

riiiiight. because all the other firearms are designed to open cans and turn
off TVs.

~~~
dmix
Also an AR-15 is an assault _weapon_ as opposed to what the military uses,
which is called assault _rifles_. Those are fully automatic and much more
powerful.

Assault rifles are already banned and the AR-15's you can buy in gun stores
don't fit into that category, unless legislators invent things to be
considered military... like "military grips" which is basically a pistol grip.
Which often doesn't make the gun any more lethal.

~~~
DanBlake
The assault weapon rhetoric is politically defined. A AR-15 is nearly the same
weapon as a Mini-14, which just looks like a normal hunting gun. The features
that define a 'assault weapon' were just made up from some committee. The
stupid thoughts on that are, if you add a bayonet lug to the gun below, it
becomes a assault weapon.

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-
QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-
QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH4/np-Obav_IWI/s1600/Mini14.jpg)

~~~
dmix
Lawyers love debating language while detaching themselves from reality.

------
speedyrev
My only problem with this article is the comparison of the M16 to the AR15.
They share some parts but not lower receiver. The M16 is a military rifle with
the ability to go full auto. The AR15 is a customizable civilian rifle that
only shoots once per trigger pull. AR15 does not equal M16

~~~
speedyrev
Yes, you could modify it, but it is by law different. In fact, try it and you
go to prison. They are still not the same.

~~~
stephengillie
By modifying it, we're talking about disassembling it, drilling a hole through
a piece of metal, and reassembling it.

You're telling me that the instant the hacker reassembles the gun, she'll be
placed in prison?

~~~
RyJones
Drilling the hole, actually, is the crime. Prison requires being convicted of
he crime.

~~~
stephengillie
Right, but before a person is put into prison, that modification has to be
discovered, investigated, and the person charged and convicted of a crime.

Meanwhile, the tool appears identical to an unmodified tool from the exterior.

~~~
jff
The risks far outweigh any possible benefits. Perform the modification. Great.
Now you have a weapon which shoots expensive ammunition much more rapidly at
worse accuracy, and if you take it to a range, you'll probably get arrested.
If you ever get caught with it, you will lose your liberty for some period of
time, and for the rest of your life be unable to own firearms.

That's why idiot "mall ninjas" (google the term) like to brag about how easy
it would be to convert their gun to full auto, but almost nobody actually does
it.

~~~
RyJones
Not sure if I'm the idiot mall ninja category here, so I'll point out what I'm
trying to do is inject some technical backing into the conversation without
much editorial.

I prefer the term "SSDG" or "Space Shuttle Door Gunner", though.

~~~
D9u
Many of these home mods result in a runaway rifle, where it doesn't stop
firing when the trigger is released. It only stops when it malfunctions, or
runs out of ammo. Definitely not something I'd want an idiot to be carrying.

~~~
RyJones
Are there mods beyond a lightning link or installing a FA FCG (which requires
drilling a hole in the proper place)?

~~~
jff
There's the Slide Fire linked elsewhere in the thread, which as far as I can
tell is just a mechanical bump-fire assist. Bump firing is a Bad Idea, by the
way.

------
rdl
From what I've read, the M16 wasn't that popular in early Vietnam use -- it
might have been preferred to the M14 for size, but the AK-47 (AKM or Chinese
equivalent, usually) of the enemy was more highly regarded than either. More
reliable mechanically, and still more lethal (and less likely to be deflected
by light cover) than the M16's 55gr bullet.

~~~
nhebb
I was in the Army in the mid-80's, when most of the NCO's and officers were
Vietnam vets. The critical importance of keeping your weapon clean was
stressed because the M16 was prone to jam. The vets said the AK-47, on the
other hand, could be dropped in the mud and still keep on firing.

------
protomyth
If it is gear used in a hobby (and shooting is a big hobby for a lot of
people), it will have modifications / upgrades sold. Cars and gaming being two
big examples.

------
rdl
This is a great book about the AK-47, the big "alternative" to the M16:
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743271734>

The Author, C.J. Chivers, writes an interesting blog for the NY Times where
they attempt to ID munitions from the battlefield in Africa, Syria, etc.
<http://cjchivers.com/>

------
_delirium
Interesting read, thanks. I was completely unaware of the whole
customization/hobby/gear subculture around the AR-15.

~~~
hga
Indeed, it's well illustrated by the caption " _Is the iPhone in this picture,
taken at this year’s SHOT Show in Las Vegas, an AR-15 accessory, or is the
AR-15 an iPhone accessory?_ "

And other gun designs are taking more and more advantage of this. The
dimensions of the rails are standard so I can e.g. put sights like the
holographic EOTech you can see in the first photo on my originally designed in
Switzerland, parts from Europe and the US and assembled here "semi-automatic
assault rifle".

------
a_p
I used to think that the most dangerous thing about the AR-15 was that it had
the capacity to hold 30 round magazines. I don't have a good opinion of 100
round drums, because they jam too easily.

Then I learned about the Slide Fire [1], a stock that legally gives the AR-15
full auto capability. The loophole is that the stock uses the gun's recoil to
pull the trigger again, instead of the gun's internal mechanism doing it.

A good analogy to computers would be an interface that does not allow clicking
a button to send multiple requests, but allows a script to click the button
much faster than a human would.

[1] <http://www.slidefire.com/>

~~~
jbooth
So, the military teaches troops to almost never use full-auto on their rifles.

Why is having full-auto mode so much more dangerous? Seems that in a mass-
shooting situation, the person's more likely to blow the whole clip and be out
of ammo.

~~~
a_p
In a firefight between two militaries, it is not more dangerous. The danger is
that the regular police that only carry sidearms would be seriously outgunned.

~~~
jff
Not really. The point is that in fully automatic mode, you can blow through a
backpack full of ammunition in about a minute, probably not hitting anything
because the continual fire and your efforts to control the gun are throwing
the barrel all over the place. Now the cops are standing there, they're
pissed, and you're out of ammunition. If you were a typical "crazed killer",
this is the point where you'd shoot yourself, but you just sprayed all your
bullets down the street.

~~~
a_p
Bump firing the rifle would be inaccurate if the shooter went through the
whole clip with one or two pulls. This stock attachment allows for reasonably
accurate burst firing.

A gunman with an automatic weapon will not necessarily waste all of his
ammunition with continuous, inaccurate fire. With very little training, he can
learn to burst fire. This capability blurs the line between a military and
civilian rifle.

There is a video of the stock in action here [1]. It seems to me that someone
with limited training would still completely outgun a regular police officer
armed only with a pistol.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvLt8-Wf7r0>

~~~
jbooth
... so? If someone is well enough trained to fire controlled bursts, they're
probably well enough trained to be just as effective double tapping in semi-
auto.

------
D9u
After a couple of hours doing online research, I've found very little
supporting evidence for the claim, made by others, and myself, that there were
_indeed_ M16A1 select fire rifles which carried the _"Mattel"_ brand name,
which, on the ones I've seen, had the logo stamped into the lower receiver
group, specifically, on the magazine well.

It was early November, 1982 when I graduated OSUT at Ft Benning, GA, USA (1st
Platoon, Echo Company, 7th Battalion, 1st Infantry Training Brigade, AKA "Sand
Hill,") and I distinctly remember being quite disappointed that the rifle I
first checked out of the Armory had a _"Mattel"_ logo on it. We quickly
compared our rifles, and there were some with the Mattel logo, and some with
other markings, but we all had a good laugh about "toy" rifles.

Back in '82, in OSUT (One Station Unit Training)all weapons were kept in the
Armory, under lock and key, and we'd check a rifle out of the Armory for
target practice, do some shooting, then clean our assigned weapons before
checking them back into the Armorers, who would raise holy-hell if you had not
thoroughly cleaned the aforementioned rifle.

For those who doubt my (and other's) assertion(s) regarding the "Mattel" logo,
I had no camera while going through boot camp, and doubt that any of the other
recruits had carried a camera while training. Our company Commander was
Captain G. Tronsrue, a West Point graduate, as well as an Airborne Ranger.
He's on Facebook, and I've conversed with him there. He said that he remembers
my name, and that only a few other "Echo Outlaws" had contacted him via FB.

What a walk down memory lane!

~~~
hga
Heh, I smell a hack at least slightly in the spirit of this article.

I'm not familiar with working on finished (anodized?) aluminum; did the stamp
appear to have been applied after the original finish? Were these perhaps
refurbished lowers, allowing an armorer perhaps unenamored of the design
and/or round to apply the stamp and then properly refinish it? (Were M16s
refurbished in such a way?)

~~~
D9u
I couldn't tell you how the marks got there, only that I wasn't the only one
who saw M16's stamped with the Mattel logo. I didn't consider the logo thing
to be important at the time, it being boot camp, and all that. We weren't
"issued" a specific rifle the way we were the rest of our TA-50, we'd go down
to the Armory and sign out a rifle, and that rifle wasn't always the same one
you used last time. Ft Benning (Sand Hill) was the only place I saw the Mattel
stamped rifles, and I highly doubt that an Armorer there took the time to add
the logos as a joke. These were old rifles, definitely used condition, but I
still qualified Expert using them.

From what I've been researching, Mattel had a short contract during the late
70's to manufacture M16 rifles for the US military. Unfortunately, I have no
credible verification of said contract. Perhaps someone will dig a bit deeper
to get to the bottom of this aspect. As for the Mattel Marauder, replica, I
had never even heard of it until today.

------
reader5000
Interesting, the NRA cult trying to infiltrate the "tech" community with this
novel yet absurd "lol guns are for nerds because they are customizable" line.

Although there are admittedly a lot of neckbeard libertarian types that this
argument would appeal to, I think most "hackers" are interested in building
things that are productive and beneficial to society, and do not impose
massive societal costs. The marginal social cost of household gun ownership is
in the range of $100 to $1800 per year.
[http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINA...](http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf)

~~~
DamnYuppie
First that is a very narrow minded stereo type.

Secondly you attempted to support your stance by research that was done on
only 200 counties over 14 years ago. This paper is nothing more then corollary
drivel dressed up as research. Their findings are easily debunked, gun
ownership has been steady or increasing the last 10 years and homicides have
been in decline. Feel free to peruse <http://www.fbi.gov/stats-
services/crimestats>.

~~~
jonnycoder
Since this portion of the comments went political, I will post this
comprehensive list of Gun Myths I saw posted on reddit.com/r/progun:
<http://imgur.com/a/WiikM>

