Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian

>>31061313
I do not think a shotgun is more useful in an urban or suburban setting. An xm193 will cause plenty of damage at close ranges and it also has less recoil and more rounds than a shotgun.

>>31061313
I can buy more .223/5.55 versus .308 at a much more economical price. If you don't understand that than enjoy life nigga.

Shall not be infringed.

Thats why, faggot.

>>31061328
/thread

Just get a FAMAS. It shoots 5.56, .308, 12 Gauge and 37mm rpgs

>>3106131
one: Fuck you shall not be infringed, yadayada and two High velocity varmint hunting is very useful given how a 308 tends to be overkill and usually just zips through. And given proper ammo selection it can be much better in urban environments for followup shots and suppression can work with semi auto because no one wants to get hit with even a lolonly.22

>>31061328

Not a second amendment thread you dumb fuck.

>>31061313
>I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire
Where'd you learn this nonsense?

>Is a carbine better than a shotgun for urban/suburban engagement?
30 rounds vs 6-8 so yes.

>>31061357
OP asked for justification to owning an AR15. The second amendment is satisfactory.

The gov't doesn't tell me what I can do, it tells me the things I can't do.

>>31061327
>69 grain bullet for around 30 cents a round
>168 grain bullet for around 50 cents a round

If we compare price per grain, .308 is economical

>>31061363

Because the standard rifle was .308 until Vietnam

>>31061386
So you learned the nonsense from nowhere?

>>31061313
People have been hunting deer with .222 Remington since before you were born, kiddo.

AR15s are light weight, reliable, accurate, and have crazy aftermarket. The .223/5.56 round is an effective round for most anything you'd want to do.

A battle rifle is pointless. In all situations a good bolt action is better and will be way cheaper.
>but muh quick follow up shots at 500+ yards

>>31061381

Op isn't asking for justfication as to why you should be able to buy one, just why you would use ar-15 versus a scar 17

>>31061385
who gives a shit about price per grain, we want price per round

>>31061385
Can't fire the individual grains. For a given dollar amount, you can take more shots with a .223

>>31061328
>>31061381
This is really not the prevailing attitude.

I know. We're not supposed to have to rationalize it, but the idiots who really thing we shouldn't have them do not see the 2a the same way we do.

This guy is asking for civilian life applications, not total justification.

>>31061313
>Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian context.
I recently went through this journey myself. I built my own AR15 in typical 5.56/.223. Why? Because I wanted a rifle I would thoroughly enjoy and learn from while being able to loan to less able-bodied people and not have to worry about it killing them. I have a 70 year-old grandmother who now frequently spends time at a small house innawoods. My mosin, my 12gauge and my WASR would kick the shit out of her if she had to use them. AR? Won't.

Now, personally, I believe that as an able-bodied and gun-savvy faggot I should atleast keep and maintain a rifle similar to the service rifles of our military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

>"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]"

Reserve Militia. That's me. That's most of us. As such, why should I not have a rifle that takes the same caliber as what our military uses, from the same magazines and using 99% of the same parts?

>"But the likelihood of you ever being called to"

It doesn't fucking matter. The likelihood now that we'll suffer a nuclear strike is minimal, but we still maintain defense weapon systems just in case.

Because the second ammendment says you can have one you fucking retard. We don't have to justify shit. What's the need for free speech as a private citizen? What's point of not having state imposed religion in a civilian application?

>>31061313
In a self defense scenario at less than 300 yards but more than 50 yards you want the bullet going into the guy not through the guy. So it could prevent dead criminals from suing you for shooting them. And yes I realize the absurdity of a self defense scenario at more than 50 yards, but on a ranch it's possible.

>>31061385
what the shit? Thats the dumbest fucking thing I have read today....and I was on /b/ earlier reading a flat earth thread.....

>>31061381

No he didn't. Re-read the last two sentences of his post moron.

>>31061313
>A .308 is useful for hunting and engaging long range target and a shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting
> I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.
Wew lad.

>>31061313
All of a sudden I want a .308 AR.

>>31061386
Wrong. From WW1 until 1959, the standard chambering was .30-06. It went to .308 in 59, until 1964. After that, 5.56.

Now I suppose you're going to have an episode of autism, and start going on about .30-06 and .308 firing the same size bullet. This is true, and you should have specified that in the first place instead of implying that .308 was the standard chambering since forever.

File: danger.jpg (147KB, 833x1368px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 833x1368px

>>31061381
>OP asked for justification to owning an AR15
From a standpoint of practicality, idiot. Learn to read instead of immediately getting defensive like a fucking faggot.
>The second amendment is satisfactory.
Not in the eyes of those who want to take it away. You have to learn to rationalize it to these idiots, because they are too stupid to think it through.

>>31061313
>a shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting.
How about no.

>>31061654
but anon... the earth is flat, no matter how dumb it sounds

>>31061313
I live in a suburban/rural area and I take down muskrats, coyote's, ground hogs, and smaller feral hogs, granted I can hit them at longer distances with the .308 but the damage done to the pelts are much worse.
As for defense with the AR platform I switch the upper with the 300 Blackout one and I get superior stopping with reduced collateral damage than a .308 or shotgun with 00 buckshot.

File: DSCF9355.jpg (812KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 2048x1536px

>>31061327
This. I own both, .308 on left 5.56 on right. Sucks going to the range and shooting 34$ in 5 seconds.

>>31061313
so I don't kill my neighbors

>>31061381
Holy shit you're a moron. OPs asking about the practicality of 5.56 vs .308 from a tactical/ballistic standpoint, and your answer is MUH RIGHTS! DUH GUBMINT IZ BAD BRO! Off yourself you massive sperg.

Because it's the opposite of what the media thinks it is. My wife or teen daughter can handle the weight and the recoil; it isn't some kind of Rambo Gatling gun that requires manhandling. It's effective at short, intermediate, or fairly long range, and the capacity gives wiggle room for multiple attackers or non-incapacitating shots and still be able to secure a scene until help arrives.
It is a great equalizer for an elderly or lighter framed person, it isn't overly complex in its basic form, it isn't overly expensive, and it stacks up well against other arms an attacker might have.
Or if I want to use it for hunting, I can swap in a 5 round mag with the required soft point or HP ammo and it does fine for anything from varmints and coyotes to hogs and deer. Disassembly doesn't require a set of blueprints and an engineering degree.
There are better tools for specific jobs, but you'd be hard pressed to find an overall better generalist weapon.

>>31061313
>Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian context.
>I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.
How do you not understand the role of an AR but think you have the credibility to comment on what you think the range for suppressing fire is? Go fuck yourself

>A .308 is useful for hunting and engaging long range target
So are about 20 calibers, many of which do a better job, but the fact that that's the only caliber you can think of is extremely telling

>shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting
Again, if you've not only admitted you don't know what you're talking about why are you making statements on shit you can't comprehend

>Can anyone explain to me why get an AR-15 instead of a battle rifle and shotgun?
Because for many roles and reasons why someone would choose to acquire a gun an AR serves the role better

>Is a carbine better than a shotgun for urban/suburban engagement?
It depends on a lot of shit you faggot. Tell me, is a pickup truck or a minivan better for driving to work?

>Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian context.
The point is that it is common because it is what our military currently uses.

>>31061313
>>31062505
You know what kinds of guns were floating around the 20's? Enfields, 1903's, bunch of revolvers. You know why? Because that's what we used during WW1, because that's what civilians of gun owning/shooting age, many of whom were once soldiers, were used to using. The market wanted a familiar product that they had experience with. Ammunition was plentiful since there were many manufacturers making rounds for the military, that it only made sense to make extra (or sell off extra) to the civilian market since the guns they were buying needed the rounds they were making.

You know what kinds of guns were floating around 1945-1960? M1 Garands, 1903's, M14's, and on a far more minor extent you have some thompsons, and captured axis guns. Commercialism with guns started taking off in the fifties with shit like winchester .22s, but the majority of weapons in ownership were what the military had been using, and a majority civilians of gun ownership/shooting age were familiar with what they used in the war, so they demanded that product.

You know what kinds of guns were being bought in 1970+? M16/AR15's, and 1911s. Because that's what the military was using, many people wanted to use what they were familiar with during the war, or new for this era, people wanted guns they weren't familiar with personally but wanted the "army's gun". Ammunition manufacturers were making tons of rounds for these guns, so it only made sense that they sold off extra rounds or produced extra rounds for civilians.

You know why people today buy AR15s? Because the fucking military is using it. Whether it's former soldiers wanting a weapon they're familiar with, people who want to emulate gear they feel is better because the military chose it, or they want something that's common to make repair/maintenance and buying ammo for easier, it's what the military is using, it's what everybody is using, it's a better purchasing decision for most people's needs.

>>31061313

In terms of Calibers I would agree that in a domestic or civilian setting the .223 is really out of its league. It is a military caliber.

But back in the day when .223 was invented it was because of the .222 wildcat round that it was patterened after.

Its a Varmint round, something you shoot coyotes, foxes, skunks, woodchucks and similar critters with.

The advantage of .223 (if it could be called an advantage) is that its shitty at overpenetrating even if you're not using hollowpoint ammo.

In domestic home defense situations its unlikely to shoot through more than 1 wall, it tumbles and that usually lets the second wall catch it.

12 Gauge Buckshot will go clear through an entire house.


If I understand your argument correctly its NOT about why people should have .223 ammunition available, but why would someone care to Employ it as a civilian.

And I would more or less agree with that.

The best calibers for civilian use in a rifle, besides shitty .22LR... are in the 24 caliber range and higher:

.243 win
6.5mm Grendel (THIS)
.270 win
.308 win
.30-06

>>31062517

>its what the military is using

This makes me wonder again why some countries prohibit civilians from using weapons chambered in ammo that the military uses.

On one hand it could be said the military stuff is "better" but there are frequently civilian arms in those countries using better stuff than the military calibers.

My guess is separate supply train, they don't have to worry about competing with the civilian market for ammo.

I mean thats why 8x33 Kurz is popular in Pakistan because despite being an ancient caliber, their military doesnt use it so its fair game.

>>31062304

This is something else I wonder... why is .22LR so damn cheap?

I would think somebody would have designed a really nice round that was also cheap to make and reliable.

Ive been thinking a long straight-walled 7.62mm caliber would work nicely filling the same role as the .22 but still being pretty adaptable. Thinking basically like the 5.7x28 except instead of necked down its just straight.

there is so much dumb shit ITT

>>31063908
>This is something else I wonder... why is .22LR so damn cheap?

Lack of a primer. Lack of the extra machine work to make a primer pocket

Not much brass, and what is, it's thin walled

Not much lead, and not much powder.

>>31061313
I would opt for the carbine only for the cheapness. A cheap carbine--hipoint carbines are actually not terrible--will only run you a few hundred bucks, and 9mm is cheap and plentiful. You don't need a rifle for urban ranges, and it's quicker to load and fire than a shotgun. Also, you get all the accessories you do for an AR.

>>31061407
>>31061486
>>31061654

Price per grain was a stupid way to put it... but how about price per stopping power?

One .308 round counts for a lot more than several .223.

>>31061714
Unless you shit gold, or you just want a decoration you'll never actually use... no, you don't. You'll shoot away an entire paycheck every time you go to the range.

>>31061313

Because ammo and magazines are cheap and everywhere. That, and you can put an AR together more easily than you can put together pretty much any other self loading firearm in the US.

>buy 20 stripped lowers $50/ea
>you now own 20 firearms

>>31063417
Shitstan has a vastly different gun culture than the US.

US gun culture is "we are all warriors, united" and shit like that, whereas middle earth culture is more "we too can fight, look at all this free shit that's just laying around"

They're the exact opposite of us, they don't have a choice in what they use.

>>31061313
Do you mean in a civil war scenario or just "Redguards are breaking into my house"?

An AR-15 is light weight, maneuverable, endlessly customizable, and in its original chambering extremely effective at urban/suburban combat. It is cheap enough to practice with, strong enough to humanely take medium sized game with, and low-recoiling enough for even children to shoot repeatedly.

>>31064044

Entirely situational and complicated to compute in any quantitative manner.

How much faster would a CNS shot of a .223 bullet kill than a bullet of .308. How many seconds would it take a 80lbs deer to be incapacitated with a broadside lung shot of .308 as compared to .223? What about a quartering shot?

You'll need quantitative values for these to use in your ratio to cost for meaningful

I'd prefer to just shoot whichever floats my boat and fits my needs.

>>31064044
You sound like you're talking about a video game here
Do you actually own any guns?

>>31061396
>deer with .222
Yeah if you're taking headshots like it's an fps game.

>muh shot placement
Nope.

.223 is a fucking piss awful caliber and has an effective killing range on humans less than the stench of your mother's vagina.

ARfags just can't deal. They'll be getting bullet splashes on walls and plate carriers while someone with an actual caliber will be picking them off through car engines. GL fags.

>>31063367

and then there's THIS expert.

>>31061766
>H-he stole my favorite move!

>>31061381
good shit, reppin the
>shall not be infringed

File: AR15Hunting1.png (2MB, 1574x797px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1574x797px

>>31064577
My cousin said the same thing, and I almost gave it to him until I remembered he's only had experience with .223 FMJ

Fuck, man. I've had an AR for only a month and I know you're wrong. I know this because there's a fucking truckload of user experience that says you are wrong. I know because there's a colossal amount of options when it comes to weight, speed and design of .223/5.56

>>31064394
>>31064425
I admit I don't have the statistics.

But are you arguing that .223 is not less effective than larger rifle rounds? That there aren't many places on the body where a shot with a .308 would be fatal where a .223 wouldn't? Do you think stopping power is a myth?

>>31064577

Also for .223 to do its optimal damage (which means the bullet shatters) you would have to be using a full length 20" barrel which nobody uses anymore. Thats old M-16A2 territory.

They're all 18" or 16" or SBRs pretty much. Out of an 18" I dunno maybe if it hits the right way and they're within 50 yards.

Pretty much like being hit with a .45 in terms of what it does to somebody and thats all because of raw force making up for such a small bullet.

>deer in the head
Then again some people take deer with a .22LR, just the same way those alligator harvesters shoot gators in the eyeball so it doesnt puncture the hide.

Maybe it works but it takes a tack driver to do it, and that can be had more cheaply than a match AR-15.

>>31064010
Out of a longer barrel a 9mm bullet cooks up surprisingly well, to the point of it being pretty much a .357 magnum

Some calibers benefit from barrel length and others dont. I think the .40sw is one that doesnt, its optimised for pistol barrels and thats why its so abusive to the frame. Put it in a long barrel and it gets like an extra 150fps or something pathetic like that.

I think a .45acp also benefits from barrel length as well (and with a 45 you do get better returning dividends for retained energy at a distance, though otherwise they're just like a 9mm but you get less capacity).

>>31061396
>Bolt action

Would agree except that it means its generally Only useful in non-combat situations, or in combat at ranges of at least 100 yards. And if there's a bunch of guys you're fucked.

Battle rifle does the job of being like a shotgun at point blank range, but still being able to reach out there. More dangerous than an AR/223 at 100-150 yards because it can defeat cover better and if you're hit - you are certainly down.

But like im saying, unless you have that specific need for it a Bolt Action really does the job quite nicely.

>>31064738
>implying all of those are .223
There are other calibers on the ar platform, retard.

>>31064801
>optimal damage
>bullet shatters
>implying fragmentation is ideal in a deer bullet
Aside from the obvious flaws in that logic, the fact remains that it takes lung shots, head shots, or a quartering heart shot <100 yards to kill a deer with it and even then if you so much as knick that front shoulder you're just going to splash.

I've used a .30-06 with NBTs and gotten a splash on a shoulder before. A .223 is even more prone to it even with something like an SGK. It's a light bullet moving fast, it just happens.

I'm mostly just trying to get a rise out of the .223 crowd, but all bullshitting aside you shouldn't be building an AR for hunting in anything other than .243, .308, .300 BLK, 6.8 SPC, etc. There's just no reason to unless you are just hunting something like bobcats and don't want to dick up hides.

>>31064885
>shouldnt be building an AR for hunting
THIS

also the 2nd amendment has 0 fucks to do with hunting, so a weapon that doesnt serve a hunting purpose doesnt enter into that equation either (for those who care).

I dont personally think an AR is optimized for hunting, its optimized for battle and protection. Bolt Actions are for hunting, maybe a 4 shot semi-auto browning.

Thats why an AR Pistol is good, when Mr. (but not Miss) Cougar decides you look tasty you can unleash hell on it.

Same with a Bear because even though its big and thick getting shot about 15 times will probably still put its ass down.

(and this is why the obscene notion of a .458 Socom AR Pistol is relevant, because of Mr. Grizzly Bear. And its much more adaptable than a .500 or .460 Smith & Wesson)

File: 1333656022357.jpg (60KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x428px

>>31061313
>a shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting.

No it isn’t, shotguns are good for busting clays and hunting pheasants, an intermediate caliber rifle beats it every time.

>>31064957
I mean I didn't say THAT. I'm just saying there are certain calibers that will take an animal more effectively and more humanely.

>>31065092
Well, you do have versatility to consider. A 12 gauge shotgun can do absolutely everything, except very long range, at least passably well, because you have so many choices of ammunition.

File: 1460234526925.jpg (305KB, 1221x1454px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1221x1454px

>>31061328

Why isn't 7mm08 our standard military caliber /k/?

>>31064957
>Most customized rifle in the history of time
>not "Optimized for hunting"

What the fuck does that even mean? The .223 has been shown time and time again to be effective on deer and hogs, the AR-15 platform is clearly accurate enough, it shoots faster than any bolt/lever/pump gun you can name, and if some reason you want to go bigger there's a plethora of caliber choices you can switch to in well under a minute.

The amount of Fudd ITT is too much for me, 6/10 got me to reply halfway mad.

>>31061313
>Can anyone explain to me why get an AR-15 instead of a battle rifle and shotgun?

>30 round capacity
>AR-15 is extremely easy to reload quickly, which makes a big difference under stress
>Very accurate
>Negligible recoil, which makes it an excellent option for women and seniors, who may have more difficulty handling the recoil of a shotgun
>Modularity makes it great for a variety of uses. It doesn't just have to be a HD gun, it can be used for competition, plinking, hunting, etc.

>>31064801
http://angry-peasants.blogspot.ca/2012/08/effective-range-of-your-223-or-556-rifle.html

This guy says 5.56 fragments out to 100m in a 16" barrel, 150m in a 20" barrel. Why's he wrong but you're right?

>>31061313
>default round is an only slightly-changed varmint/deer hunting round
>detachable magazines of nearly any capacity you can want are convenient for whatever purpose you might use it for
>light recoil is nice
>enormous aftermarket and dozens of manufacturers makes it easy to have a rifle set up exactly how you like it
>also lets you reconfigure one rifle into something entirely different, by yourself, with few to no tools and time ranging from a minute to not much longer than it takes to zero your optic of choice
That's even without getting into SHTF/chimpout/etc. situations

>>31065422
>.223 again
Stop this fucking meme, bro. .223 sucks ass.

>muh rate of fire
You'll never need a follow up shot on a deer if you are using a proper caliber.

I don't even care about ARs, just stop memeing on me with fucking weak poorfag calibers.

>muh cost per round
Don't pick up shooting if you can't even afford ammo then you fucking peasants. Go get a .22 if you're that poor, the fuck do you need a .223 for? The paper isn't going to die even with a .470 NE.

>>31063908
Kind of like 300blk? Has a slight bottle neck and taper but it's still .308 and can accept a wide variety of bullets.

File: 1316540963528.jpg (155KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x533px

>>31065281
>Well, you do have versatility to consider.

If someone is such a poorfag that they can only afford one firearm, they ain't going to be busting clays or hunting pheasant anyways.

That being the case, they should get an intermediate caliber rifle.

>>31063367
Watched a guy shoot a pronghorn 8 times with 6.5 grendel while it just stood there chewing the whole time. Finally fell over dead after about 2 mins.

I think ill pass on the meme round

>>31061313
Because the Second Amendment and Donald Trump and compensation.

>>31065657

Were you guys able to retrieve the bullets from the game and determine what went wrong?

>>31061313
If I can kill animals ranging from squirells all the way to wild pigs with a .22lr then .223/5.56 is fine and I get more wind fighting potential.

>>31061328
/thread

Autism

>>31061313
You only need a 223 platform if it has select-fire modes, the only reason 223 came up over 308 is materiel expenditure and the inability of troopers to use a 308 in autofire effectively

if you're using a semi use 308 or 30-06

if you're a designated sharpshooter and you need large magazines, 308, otherwise 30-06 AP

if you can find a 30-06 with large magazines, use that instead

anyone engaging in single element sabotage against enemy personnel may get away with using a 223 platform

>>31064044
>price per stopping power

This might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here.

>>31061328
this guy caught the thinly veiled 2nd amendment thread. But I'll bite.

.223 has the capacity to be used in close quarters without over penetrating, and is still useful in mid-range small arms combat. Contrary to the "Muh-Guns!" argument, pistol grips, Vertical Grips, and 30 round mags contribute to the overall effectiveness of the weapon system on the battlefield. In addition, the barrel / BCG etc can be changed in only a few minutes to allow for the use of a wider variety of cartridges, thereby extending the AR platform's effectiveness.

TL:DR shall not infringe, OP is a faggot

>>31064049
you toss 500 rounds downrange each time you go?

>>31065620
You do realize that a smoothbore slug gun has better accuracy and longer range than a classic revolutionary musket, hell, it might also match or exceed the kentucky long rifle

Shotguns are fucking classic and functional pieces of kit, the only time you want an intermediate rifle is when you're running with a formation and need to create a firebase, otherwise you want to head north of .308 or get a 12ga

>>31061313
>Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian context.
It's a lego thing. People need to blow money on something.

File: 1301132806116 shame what a shame.jpg (208KB, 450x400px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 450x400px

>OP asks for practicality of AR-15 vs other firearms in a civilian context
>spergs shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED /thread /thread /thread GUBERMENT KEEP OFF MUH GUNS"

This is why we can't have nice things.

>>31061324
>An xm193 will cause plenty of damage at close ranges and it also has less recoil and more rounds than a shotgun.

But a Beretta 1301 loaded with buckshot will put more, larger bullets downrange faster than an actual M4.

>>31067132
>12 gauge is more versatile than an Ar/ak
Found the retard

>>31064049
>entire paycheck
Poor.

>>31061313
>a shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>31067221
THIS. Jesus fucking christ you guys are dumb as goddamn sheep.

>>31067305
And jam even more than a vietnam era M-16 because of their shitty shell loader system.

>>31065281
No it really can't because it suffers from severe lack of capacity unless it's mag fed and will still likely have much less ammo than any intermediate rifle. It will also be less controllable and probably heavier and a bit longer as well.
Offer me a 870 or AR and I will take the AR everytime unless we're at a skeet match.

>>31067132
Try carrying a combat loadout of 200-300 slugs, dumbass.

Also, "hurr durr up to 120 yards of accuracy w/ modern slugs" is a retarded as fuck exchange for the significantly better accuracy and range of even inaccurate intermediate rifles like the Mini-14.

File: militia.jpg (48KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 850x400px

>>31061313
In a national or local emergency in which local law enforcement or emergency services are not adequate for the job, a well-prepared militia (that is, 4-6 responsible gun owners) can get together and effectively protect a neighborhood through regular patrols, checkpoints, roadblocks and as a general deterrent to crime and violence.

An AR-15 is just an affordable and customizable weapon that will allow a practiced shooter to control a field of fire out to 300m or more. Get 4-5 friends with these, and you can control a city block. That's why.

And an AR-15 is just one type of semi-auto rifle. It just happens to be very popular is all.

>>31067305
Some loads of 5.56 penetrate less walling than 12 ga.

>>31063908
You have just invented .30 Carbine. Congrats!

>>31061313
I like 7.62x39, but I admit a rifle in an intermediate caliber feels kind of pointless in a civilian environment without select fire.

>>31061313
As someone who loves his .308 rifles, owns an FAL, shoots CMP high powered rifle matches, hunts, benchrest shoots, and handloads half a dozen cartridges, i can honestly say that up to 200yrds (sometimes further) nothing is more accurate then a well made .223 matched properly to the rifle. Since most civilians dont need the power of the bigger round, it makes more sense to have a cheaper, more accurate round for target shooting, which is all that 90% of American gun owners do.

>>31061381
The question isn't whether or not it should be LEGAL to own an AR-15, the question is "why is it a better option than other guns"

you fucking retard

>>31067509
>I like 7.62x39, but I admit a rifle in an intermediate caliber feels kind of pointless in a civilian environment without select fire.


No no no no ....just no.

FULL AUTO is pointless in a civilian environment because there's pretty much no scenario where you need to lay down suppressing fire.

>>31061313
Hijacking thread.

I know there are AK "variants" that shoot 12ga. Is there some semi-auto shotgun based off AR15?

>>31061766
Tbh. both .308 and .223 were a mistake. .308's forceful adaptation phased out numerous competent weapons out of use(Vickers MG's for instance) while intermediate round, which was something European militaries wanted were adopted either way. Except instead of something mirroring 6.8x43(Belgians, British and French proposed several cartridges similar to it) we've got fucking .223.

>>31069737
It's not that full auto is necessary in the civilian world, just that owning an assault rifle that's only semi-auto is pointless

The intermediate caliber was designed in part for more controllable fully automatic fire, neither of which is needed as a civilian

>>31061381

Biggest faggot of the year award.

>>31069760
https://www.classicfirearms.com/ar12-semi-auto-ar-15-platform-12ga-shotgun

>>31069908
Semi-automatic assault rifles don't exist.

>tfw hostile tripfag ar clowns are trying to seige your base
>they fail to penetrate the cinderblocks filled with concrete that make up the outer wall
>tfw a glorious anon fires a single .416 rigby solid through their vehicle and kills 2 instantly from 300 yards
>ar tripfags are falling left and right
>as they fall they spill out hundreds of rounds of .223 and about $200 in cash that they saved going with the more economical choice
>as the last ar tripfag dies something unique drops
>it's a coupon for the 10% off all ammo at gander mountain
Can't wait for the end.

File: 2016-06-10_12.02.44.jpg (2MB, 2982x1678px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2982x1678px

I went one further.

SR25 in 338FED for them >25m-hitting-like-3006MAG-brcause-IMMA-MAN!

>>31066456
Overpen.

You could hear them ricochet. We thought he missed like his scope had been shifted. It was going clean through and bouncing off the terrain.

>>31061313
>the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire

I'm fairly certain that the intermediate range is designed to allow soldiers to carry X rounds with less weight (relative to larger rounds) and still kill people effectively at an appreciable distance. What you said sounds like fuddlore.

Good 5.56 is effective at several hundred yards and doesn't get less effective at closer ranges, there's no reason for you to think it's inappropriate for use in a weapon, especially in imaginary suburban warfare.

>>31064801
>>31065518
>for .223 to do its optimal damage (which means the bullet shatters) you would have to be using a full length 20" barrel which nobody uses anymore
>This guy says 5.56 fragments out to 100m in a 16" barrel, 150m in a 20" barrel. Why's he wrong but you're right?
>using m193 or m855 for shooting living beings in year 2016

>>31061313
Because if youre putting holes in paper, the shape and size of the hole really doesnt matter.

Unless its .45 wadcutters. They make some pretty holes.

>nuttin' more versatile than a shotgun!
>all .223 ever is 55gr. and weak
>muh stoppin powuh
>intermediate rounds are only good for suppressing
This is the most fuddlore infested thread I've seen in a while.

>>31070240
>https://www.atf.gov/file/57521/download
The ATF Disagrees with you :^)
but seriously, when will they disband

>>31070761

Do you know which style and make of bullet? Sounds like a good candidate for hogs this year.

File: ptr.jpg (410KB, 1280x635px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1280x635px

>>31070961
This. Let's pretend, /k/. Imagine you are a bad bad North Korean or Viet Cong living innajungle when you see a pair of Hueys unload two squads of US Soldiers outside your village. That's 12 heavily armed duderos well trained in firing and movement techniques designed to overcome an actively defended fortification. Would you rather they had:

1) FAL/H&K G3/M14 in 7.62x51, 393gr per cartridge. 10 kilo combat load = 280rds

or!

2) Colt M-16A2 in 5.56x45, 183gr per cartridge. 10 kilo combat load = 660rds


If this force of US duderos was closing in on your home, which group would you rather be fighting? The guys who can fire and keep you permanently in cover even if you are in a good firing position, or the guys who will be sparing their ammo for when they actually have a shot? This eyes-peeled but less-shooty approach gives you the opportunity to pop up/shoot first. Who would you rather fight?

AR and .223 is great for Army techniques, and M193 is a great penetrator. I love the idea of the .308 battle rifle, and it does have a designated marksman use, but it is not the general purpose round modern combat techniques have come to depend on.

>>31061313
>He doesn't shoot his .223 at 500m

Must suck to suck

>>31061313
> I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.

Fucking summer fag. IN the military you will very rarely use auto, supression fire is done in semi auto, often one round every 6 seconds at at a deliberate rate of fire

>>31064044
.223 can take down a man easily as a .308.

.308 obviously is a heavier bullet as well as more power behind it, but it's heavy and so is it recoil. Most engagements nowadays are within 300 meters to 500 meters.

>>31061385
>pirce per grain

Probably the dumbest thing I've heard today.

>>31061357
>why own an AR?
>second amendment
>lol this thread is not about the amendment you dumb fuck hurrr
lol can you actually feel when you're stupid?

>>31072202

> Why would someone create a new website when newspapers are the better medium for expressing your views?

> Because the 1st amendment exists, fucker!

Congratulations on answering the question none one asked.

>>31061313
.223/5.56 is perfectly fine for hunting up through caribou.

.308 is overkill for varmints.

Shotguns suck for all forms of combat, their only application is as a door breaching tool and even then they're inferior in multiple categories to det cord doorknockers. Carbines greatly greatly exceed their utility in all forms of combat.

Through a 20" barrel mag-fed rifle, a .308 only gains about 100 yards of supersonic distance over 5.56 due to COAL constraints.

5.56 weighs less, is cheaper, has less recoil, and is more widely available.

Most militaries that are considered even halfway decent use semi for every-fucking-thing, including suppression, outside of their belt-fed weapons.

You are literally wrong on every single point.

>>31072100
>.223 can take down a man easily as a .308.
no

>>31061381
Nigga u dim desu senpai

>>31072278
Comparing ball military ammo to ball military ammo (m193 to m80), 5.56 is actually the more lethal of the two. M80 sucks.

Comparing premium monolithic copper hollowpoint to premium monolithic copper hollowpoint (62gr TTSX to 150gr TTSX), still not really. With a torso shot, both should be immediately lethal. With a periphery shot, neither will be immediately lethal and should have roughly the same survival rate with eventual medical care.

Pretty much the only difference in lethality I can imagine would be comparing mk262 to M118LR, and even then it will be fairly minor.

>>31072278
>>31072100
look up hydrostatic shock. it is vital fluids in a living tissue literally bursting and stopping vital functions by introduction of a foreign supersonic body. by this measure, .223 is not as capable as .308

>>31064885
Coyote and varminting

>>31061313
I can hit a man sized target at 500 yards with a .223. I can't do that with a shotgun. There's no point in carrying multiple weapons besides *maybe* a pistol.

>>31064885
I use .223 for deer.

I've never had one splash on the scapula, even with relatively light/cheap bullets (Hornady 55gr "spire point" generic softpoint). They punch right through then expand as they should.

Maybe don't shoot deer with <55gr varmint bullets?

File: cigarette.gif (1MB, 365x205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 365x205px

>>31061385
>price per grain

That's a new one.

>>31072259
why use .223/5.56 for hunting and not 7.62x39??

>>31072491
Because instead of only 1 viable hunting bullet (123gr SST) in x39, I've got access to several dozen with 5.56.

>>31072353
>i can hit a man sized target at 500 yards
>a piece of paper
>that doesn't move
>that poses no threat
You fucking target operator fags are hilarious.

>>31072358
>I've never had one splash on the scapula
>they punch right through
>a 55 grain bullet
>punching through a bone at 100 yards and continuing to the organs and out the other side
Yeah, bullshit.

>>31072516
>because i only buy factory ammo
TARGET OPERATOR
A
R
G
E
TARGET OPERATOR
O
P
E
R
A
TARGET OPERTAOR
O
R

>>31061313
with the right loadings, 5.56 is safer for home defense than .308 and 00 buck.

AR's are also extremely light, can be broken down and 5.56 is a good caliber for larger varmint and game up to deer. Basically, it's a decent light backpacking gun compared to some .22 dickgun.

Finally, have you seen all these riots lately? When innumerable criminals come marching up the road intent on burning your home, you don't want 5 rounds of 00 buck, you want mag after mag of intermediate caliber suppressing fire.

>designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.

Full auto from an AR is principally used for ambushes and CQB. Suppressing fire is and historically always has been well-aimed fire intended to keep your enemy from breaking cover. You don't need FA for it.

>>31073050
>home defense
>as if you're going to be swinging a fucking AR around your house shooting 30+ rounds
Nice way to kill everyone including your family and neighbors, rambo.

>>31073050
>legally justified 'suppressing fire'


Lmao

File: 5.56.png (22KB, 660x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 660x450px

Well, there's this...

File: 7.62.png (23KB, 660x450px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 660x450px

>>31073235
compared to this...

If that isn't justification enough for the round, then formulate some questions and I'll answer them as best as I can.

>>31072310

Torso shots, barring spine or a heart shot, kill by bleed out, which is rarely instanteous. All other things being equal, the bullet with a wider circumference and the higher SD digs a larger wound channel.

I won't pretend to know what that means for shooting people, but there's a reason people prefer full power calibers for most hunting purposes, barring pests.

>>31073235
>>31073246
>5.56
That's a .243, dumbass.

Trajectory has fuck all to do with effective killing power either way.

>>31073379
>Trajectory has fuck all to do with effective killing power either way.

WOW THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE!

*INTENSE GARGLING SOUNDS*

Effective killing power is affected by quite a few factors. I'll not argue that if you took two twins and shot them in the exact same spot with both rounds there's a higher chance of death from the 7.62 over 5.56

But what I will tell you that, two 5.56 is certainly better than one 7.62 and any one hit is better than none. Being that 5.56 is easier to put on target makes it the more lethal of the two.

>That's a .243, dumbass.
I didn't notice that until after I posted, the website filled that in for 5.56/223 The numbers for the 55grain look about right anyway.

>>31073518
>implies that .308 is some unmanageable beast
>5.56 is easier to put on target
Lmfao.

>the numbers for the 55 grain look about right anyway
>the numbers for a 55 grain fired from a .308 parent case are equal to that of one fired from a .222 parent case
WEW LAD

>Hornady info:
.223 55gr GMX superformance

Trajectory (inches)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
-1.50 1.40 0.00 -6.90 -21.40 -46.10

.308 150gr GMX superformance

Trajectory (inches)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
-1.50 1.60 0.00 -7.20 -21.00 -42.70

So it carries 95 grains more while dropping less at 500 yards (thanks BC) and hits with four times (1222 ft/lbs vs. 302 ft/lbs) the energy.

Fucking kill yourself, retard. Stop posting forever.

>>31073708
http://www.hornady.com/store/5.56-NATO-75-gr-BTHP-Superformance-Match/

You could get the difference down to an inch. Although honestly, I didn't know you could actually get more performance out of 7.62 ( I admittedly own guns chambered in both)

So before I kill myself, is there anything else I should know about? I appreciate the effort and information in your posts and wouldn't mind knowing more.

>>31073815
>an inch
They both drop like fucking rocks, neither are considered flat shooting by any means.

The only people that think they are, are people that have never shot anything decent before and are only basing their opinions off of what they personally own.

For reference, a 58gr VMAX from a .243 drops 29" at 500 yards. It's not going to be ideal either due to energy and bullet construction, but in terms of trajectory you should at least have an idea of what an actual flat shooting caliber looks like. Unfortunately the drop isn't the hardest thing to compensate for, it's the wind, which the .308 will be superior with.

Now feel free to off yourself.

File: 1471553931792.jpg (166KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x536px

>>31073916
Just want you to know, I love you anon. I wish upon you many years tight groups and loose women, for you are a truly kind educator.

>>31061313
The same reasons it is the preferred anti-personnel round of many military forces is what makes it useful in a civilian context.
Also an excellent round for hunting cougars and coyotes.

>>31061313
Less recoil than a .308, usually a lighter and more ergonomic rifle, costs less, you can easily kill things from long to short range, usually more capacity than something like a battle rifle too, which means you can usually have more rounds on hand as well.

>>31072848

> Because i only buy factory ammo

Seperate unrelated question, anon. Why would I bother with handloading when boring old Hornady 165gr SP ammo, in any sporting goods store in the world, is accurate and effective enough to take hogs and whitetail?

File: 9pTgint.jpg (158KB, 850x832px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 850x832px

>>31061313
>I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.
Daily reminder that suppressive fire in normal doctrine is everyone firing one round ever few seconds, not mag dumping.

>>31074083
Handloading generally saves money for range trash or exceeds performance at equal prices when needed.

It's also more accurate for some rifles that may or may not like factory ammo. Two rifles from the same manufacturer in the same caliber might not prefer the exact same ammo just due to random variations. I like Hornady SST for whitetails, but I've seen a couple of rifles that didn't shoot real well with them as far as bench standards go (2" groups, which is fine for hunting but not "accurate"). Sometimes I want to use like a nosler partition in my 7x57 for heavier animals but they don't make any like that for off the shelf purchase so I have to do it myself.

A lot of european rifles have longer throats as well (allowing larger bullets or equal weights with more powder/less pressure) and some rifles such as the ruger no. 1 have EXTREMELY strong actions capable of wayyy hotter performance than a manufacturer will put out just due to the risks of some idiot blowing his face off when trying to use them in an older gun or a shitty milsurp.

tl;dr - bleeding edge stuff, most people don't need to.

>>31074509

Thanks for the info. Regarding the SST, have you had any problems with the jacket seperating/fragmenting? I've been avoiding them because I'd rather not dodge pieces of metal.

>>31074601
In the gun itself? No, never. Used them in .30-06, 7x57, .243, 7mm RM, and .270 loads so far without issues.

They are not going to penetrate heavy bone like a partition or other bonded bullets, but they don't splash as hard as the older nosler ballistic tip design. Ideally, you will be putting them behind the heavy bone entering and avoiding any on the exit if possible for the blood trail to be significant enough to track if need arose.

They rapidly expand upon impact and are absolutely amazing on light-medium animals, but that's about where it ends I'd say. You have to be careful not to shoot too far up as well, because they'll fuck up the backstrap meat if they're anywhere near it. They literally rip apart anything they touch and most of the internal organs will be liquid-goo when you open the deer up. I'm a big proponent of your basic soft point spitzer designs, but the SST is hands down the best deer bullet I've ever used when it comes to just flat out killing power. I wouldn't recommend for larger mule deer, aoudad, elk, etc. though.

>>31074686

I just meant seperation in the meat. I'll keep that in mind if I ever get the chance to go west and hunt elk.

File: shoot-the-sky-out.jpg (21KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x259px

If use an AR-15, it goes through your wall and it can kill your kid in the bedroom.

Why do you anons want to kill your kid in the bedroom?

>>31074776
Oh, no. I haven't had issues with fragmentation on the pass through shots. I only had one case that had a little bit of shrapnel when I hit the back shoulder of a bigger buck with a 95 gr SST from the .243.

It passed through, but portions of the jacket stayed behind.

Rib > heart/lung > rib, nothing but net.

>>31061313
>Can someone explain to me the point of an ar-15 in a civilian context.
It's a gun.

>I mean the intermediate range is designed for suppression fire, which is limited in a semi-auto.
Silly anon, suppressive fire violates the rules of gun safety.
Don't shoot at anything you don't intend to kill/destroy.

>A .308 is useful for hunting
Yes, therefore 5.56 isn't. Sound logic.

>engaging long range target
408 cheytac or 338 lapua side magazine upper.

>a shotgun is more useful in a urban/surburban setting.
Capacity.


>Can anyone explain to me why get an AR-15 instead of a battle rifle and shotgun?
Capacity and commonality.

>Is a carbine better than a shotgun for urban/suburban engagement?
Depends.

>>31075014
>Don't shoot at anything you don't intend to kill/destroy
You're still trying to hit them with suppressive fire, it's just not your only goal.

And besides, even if you are just trying to pepper an area you're still doing it to keep them down while you move in and kill them.

>>31075014

>Silly anon, suppressive fire violates the rules of gun safety. Don't shoot at anything you don't intend to kill/destroy.

I know, right? Don't tell anyone, but I sometimes repeatedly fire over my children's beds, just to make sure they stay lying down and go to sleep.

>>31071823
It was Hornady but thats all I know.

>>31075444

All they show is A-max and SST. I'm going to guess the former, but still, polymer tipped. Weird.

- - - - -

Regarding .223/5.56, anyone here hunt white tail with your AR? I ask because I'm curious how far you've had to track a deer on a lung shot with the better hunting bullets like a Fusion.

My .308 is a stand rifle and it's heavy as hell, so I'd like to avoid that if possible.

>>31075620
I'm the guy who doesn't like .223 for deer and was explaining bullet design. Have a reason.

Have used .223 (from an r700) on 3 deer and the shortest distance I tracked was maybe 75 yards on a small doe. Double lung at about 45 yards. One of the bucks I shot went probably close to a fucking mile after a quartering single lung shot. Bullet hit the shoulder and failed to exit, he went until he suffocated on his own blood due to not being able to bleed out from an exit hole. 55 grain btsp at about 115 yards. Shitty bullet placement I guess, but still not very good IMO.

Yes, they die, but I don't think it's very humane unless you're doing headshots. I don't like it.

>>31075996
>55 grain btsp

The FUCK is this? .223's cheap enough already, for the least you can do is break down and get some lead free stuff.

>>31075996

> 115 yards
> Tracking a mile

Fuck. Really not wanting to have to buy a 6.8 upper just for hunting.

>>31076082

> Lead free

What's wrong with a partitioned lead bullet? It's going to mushroom a hell of a lot faster than a copper bullet.

>>31076082
This was early 90s, so most monolithics weren't a thing as far as I remember. I'd worry about less expansion and penciling with it either way.

>>31076121
I mean, you might have better results. Just my experience with it.

If it makes you feel better, I swore off of nosler ballistic tips after having 2 splashes in a row (with a 150gr .30-06 load). One deer literally fell then got back up 5 minutes later and was never able to recover. The other was a big ass Catalina goat, no pass through and huge fragmentation at maybe 5 yards (crazy thick brush ambush and had him walk way closer than expected). Bullet was going too fast at that distance and exploded. He only went about 30 yards, but was very sketched out about it no even exiting.