• @Sagifurius
    link
    16 months ago

    For god’s sake, the SFAR and the AR platform ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES. It’s so hard to take any writer seriously when they can’t even get the fucking basics straight.

    • billwashere
      link
      fedilink
      English
      06 months ago

      Let me start by saying I may be more liberal but I grew up in WV so I’ve been around guns all my life. I like shooting them, but not necessarily hunting because I can buy all the food I need. But I could do it in a heartbeat if I was hungry.

      To me the best way to address stuff like this is to educate people. I’m sure you know but not everyone does is that the AR is AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle. Most people just assume the AR means assault rifle or automatic rifle. Now the AR-15 does use the 7.62×51mm NATO round which was and still is primarily used for war, i.e. killing things. This round is verify similar to a .308 Winchester, and its slight longer cousin, the .30-06, or as any deer hunter would call it a 30 ought 6. Now I guarantee you’d never hear of a .30-06 being described as an assault rifle. But guess what, the .30-06 was designed specifically as a military round.

      So as my debate couch told me in high school, it all comes back to definitions. How do you define assault rifle? And I ain’t touching that one 😀

        • billwashere
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          But most civilians can’t get full auto in the first place. And having fired full auto on several occasions they are damn near useless anyway. It’s a waste of ammo because they absolutely suck at being accurate because of the recoil and muzzle jump. Burst fire is a different story.

          Now was the full auto fun? Hell yes it was.

          • @Sagifurius
            link
            06 months ago

            So anyways, if most civilians can’t get full auto, then most can’t get an assault rifle. The definition isn’t complicated, and the writer I’m sure knows that too.

      • @HelixDab2
        link
        26 months ago

        Now the AR-15 does use the 7.62×51mm NATO round which was and still is primarily used for war, i.e. killing things.

        Uh. No. No, it does not.

        The AR-15 uses (primarily) the 5.56x45mm NATO bullet, although you can also use .300Blk, 7.62x39mm, and a whole bunch of other intermediate cartridges by swapping out your barrel, bolt, and possibly buffer spring/weights.

        The AR-10 uses the 7.62x51mm NATO (e.g., .308 Win) cartridge. (And also the 6.5 Creedmoor.) 99% of the time, .308 and 7.62x51mm are interchangeable, much like 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Rem.

        • billwashere
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          Yeah you’re right. It’s basically the .223 right. I misread the article I was referring to.

          • @HelixDab2
            link
            16 months ago

            It’s all good.

            .223 and 5.56 are a little different, but it’s mostly in case capacity and o/a cartridge length. Once can be higher pressure than the other, but I can’t recall which without consulting one of my reloading manuals. In almost all situations, they’re interchangeable. You can get into some other differences with o/a length when you’re talking about hand loading for bolt-action v. semi-auto, but that’s more of a specialty difference rather than a general purpose difference.

            FWIW, the AR-10 came first, because Eugene Stoner was trying to directly compete with the M-14. It really didn’t go anywhere at the time, and it’s only become somewhat popular in the last 20 years or so. And it’s still not popular because 7.62x51mm is significantly more expensive to shoot than 5.56. But a 6.5CM AR-10 can be incredibly accurate to a very long range; it makes a great longer range hunting rifle.