π³π±
Rifles are generally effective at gurilla warfare like you expect in a revolution. Bombers less so. That said AR-15 is not a particularly powerful gun and most rifles are far more powerful.
@freemo @mike805
There was a time when men were men. These men carried battle rifles and didn't complain. With the decline of testosterone and the feminization of men, an AR-15 is the most they could be trusted to shoot well with their delicate bodies.
Unfortunately I experience recoil from a scatter gun and didn't have to Captain Morgan to piss until my mid 20s. I'm a soy boy but I know the cheat code to the AR-15. The code is Head-Leg-Head on the target or Head-Leg-Head-Shoulder. That will hopefully make the target stop. If it doesn't, repeat until out of ammo and accept impending death.
@AmpBenzScientist @freemo You know they do make AR-15s in more "manly" calibers if you want one.
The purpose of the .556 was not so much weak men who couldn't handle recoil. It was poor marksmanship and the attempt to compensate by letting soldiers carry more ammunition.
@mike805 @freemo The M14 was a full auto M1 Garand with minor changes. It was overly complicated, the stock swelling in humidity would make it inaccurate and features that would have been useful were absent. The M14 won when competing against the FAL and AR-10. The AR-10 was well liked but the government decided that the new Garand was the best choice.
In semi automatic, the M14 is a magnificent rifle with nothing but a gentle nuzzle in the shoulder. Compared to a Cetme/G3/41 it still feels like trash.
The M16 did a lot of damage with the original round because it would come apart in flesh. It wasn't competing in an environment it was designed for. The enemy's weapon wasn't a trashy AK. The Chinese reverse engineered an early AK and made the best AK ever built. This was the Type 56 Assault Rifle, the Type 56 was an SKS and both were used by the NVA.
The M16 still out performed the best AKM variant.
About the mild rounds, 7075 Aluminum isn't going to work that well with 7.62 NATO. DPMS made a 308 and that seems to be the basis of modern 308 ARs. It needs more material and structure to be able to fully handle the round.
After a certain point, the AR platform is no longer a Lego set. It has to be reengineered for more powerful rounds. It's not the fault of the AR, the locking bolt and barrel extension can handle it. The lower has to be different and the buffer & bolt need to be optimized for the round.
Can an AR-15 be built to handle a strong round? Yes it's called the SIG MCX or something. It's essentially an AR-15 & AR-18 with something that reminds me of a naval gun lock. The AR-18 parts could be left out and just use the AR-15 system, the advanced lock or something like it and a full length barrel.
The MCX was the answer to a question that only the government asked. How do we get a carbine with a suppressor, making it full size, to have the ballistics that a battle rifle would have? The answer was obviously shoving a steel pistol case inside brass and requiring a massive chamber pressure. Congratulations government, you recreated the battle rifle you turned down for the M14 and butchered the M16 into something it wasn't engineered to be.
@freemo If you look at any of the big horrors of the 20th century, and go back 5 or 10 years, you find a gun confiscation.
And since people associated with the Democrats talk openly about how they want to do That Stuff, and have since the 60s, you must assume the goal is to do one of those big horrors here.
AR15s are very effective against death squads, party militias, and other gangs of men out to kill off undesirables. You can't use a bomber for that.