From Thumper@VERT/THEWASTE to All on Fri Jul 13 14:50:05 2018
The Armalite Rifle was designed primarily in hopes of getting a military contract - so was the Colt Peacemaker (Single Action Army), the Winchester lever-actions, the Remington rolling blocks, the Trapdoor Springfield, the
M1 Garand, the 03 Springfield, etc.
Whether a gun is a “military style” depends on the furniture and
attachments, and is really a subjective matter. Mostly you’re just talking about semantics, but semantics can be important. The key question is the definition of a “military style.” By definition, an “assault rifle” is
“select fire” meaning it can fire semi-auto or full-auto (machine gun)
mode. The AR15, civilian version of the M16, fires only in semi-auto, so it does not meet the definition of an “assault rifle.”
The AR15 was designed and built specifically for sale to the civilian
public - and is the most popular rifle in the country today. Yes, its roots
are in a military design, just as the roots of the vast majority of other
guns lie in military designs. If a gun company wants to be a huge success
right out of the gate, they want a big military contract. But having roots
in a military design does not make a gun a military gun.
Can an AR15 be a “military-style” weapon? Sure, if that’s what the owner is shooting for. (See what I did there?) Would you call a Ruger Mini-14 a “military style” gun? It takes some design features from the Garand and
M14, but it was built for civilian use. Same with the AR-platform guns. I
can set one up to be a single-shot tack-driver, or dress it up in military- looking hardware to simulate the look of an M16 or M4. In fact many of the civilian improvements and accouterments have been subsequently adopted by
some in the military. Would that mean that Special forces are using
“civilian style” guns?
The Wastelands BBS
ž Synchronet ž The Wastelands BBS, Copperopolis, CA