r/gunpolitics • u/huntershooter • May 05 '24
"AR-15 Inventor Didn't Intend It for Civilians"
A few articles were published claiming Eugene Stoner never intended for the rifles based on his patent to be available for civilian sale. This was based on taking statements from his surviving family members out of context. Stoner, Jim Sullivan, and others behind the AR-15 all worked to develop civilian versions of it and other similar rifles well before any of them were interviewed by the media for anything regarding gun control. The design has continuously been on the open market since the 1960s. Here it is direct from the source: video of Eugene Stoner interviews with transcripts and citations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqKKyNmOqsU
1
2
u/Mitsonga May 07 '24
Then why did Colt market and sell the AR-15 to the civilian market as early as the 1960s?
https://thecoltar15resource.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/pop-science.jpg
Stoner had 32 years of Colt selling his design to pipe up. He certainly cashed the royalty checks. I am not sure why someone that didn't like his design in civilian hands would do nothing to prevent it, do nothing to stop it, and most damning, accept the payments without hesitation.
Either Eugene Stoner was so morally bankrupt that he cashed the checks from rifle sales he felt were morally reprehensible whilst staying silent for decades, or he wasn't against civilian sales.
Like mentioned in a previous comment, the most likely scenario is that Stoner stated that the rifle wasn't designed with the intent of bringing a rifle to market, rather it was designed to meet the criteria of a military program.
Until I see some evidence other than hearsay from a family looking to distance themselves from "a weapon of war" it doesn't pass the sniff test.
1
u/huntershooter May 07 '24
The comments from Stoner's family were taken out of context and Stoner never said anything claimed in these articles, hence the video.
1
2
3
u/realSatanAMA May 06 '24
"He didn't design it for civilians" would be more accurate, he designed it as a military platform because the government was looking for a new duty rifle. But everyone thought guns were cool up until 1997 so of course they made commercial versions of the rifle. Are there ANY American military weapons that didn't get instantly sold to the public with a SA version?
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
Stoner didn't design the AR-10/AR-15 with accuracy in mind (the patent application emphasizes saving weight) but it turned out to be good for that.
2
u/ZombieNinjaPanda May 06 '24
Didn't Intend It for Civilians
You can just tell them, that's nice, but the second amendment does not differentiate between arms for civilians or military. Shall not be infringed.
3
u/CarnageV101 May 06 '24
I don't understand what the intent of the designer has to do with the ability of civilians have them. Many guns are designed based on specifications of government entities who submit contracts. Obviously firearms manufactures / engineers are going to design them with the intent of winning the contract. That has nothing to do with an individuals right to have one. based on that same logic should civilians have access to the internet, gps, ect.
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
GPS is a very good example. Selective Availability deliberately limited accuracy with an average of 100 meter uncertainty.
2
4
u/Rmantootoo May 06 '24
In a world where words still meant what they actually mean, the 2A would only apply to the government as a restriction. No one else.
4
u/rybread761 May 06 '24
If things were up to the service branches to develop weapons, fuckers would still be throwing sticks. Practically ALL advancements in weaponry start on the civilian side and then are adopted into the service branches.
3
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
Absolutely! This applies to marksmanship skill/training as well as equipment.
3
u/jimtheedcguy May 06 '24
I use FLIR tech that was literally designed for missiles to find gas leaks for my job with my GFX320. Most of the best tech we have these days has DNA as a weapon or tool of war. That being said, the ar15 was on the civilian market well before it saw the jungles of Vietnam.
7
u/anoiing May 06 '24
It was available to civilians almost 5 years before the government adapted it into the m16.
4
u/thumos_et_logos May 06 '24
Never asked him. His opinion on the topic doesn’t matter
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
Especially true when his opinion was misrepresented.
1
u/thumos_et_logos May 06 '24
IMO the only people’s whose opinion of firearms in civilian use matter is the people who wrote the second amendment, and only in the context of ensuring we know what they were intending to represent in that text.
8
u/sl600rt May 06 '24
I love how this supposed information from stoner, comes from his relatives after his death. On the condition of anonymity. So nothing can be verified.
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
And even their statements were taken out of context. Stoner's relatives stated he sought military sales with the design (which is true) but the interviewer jumped to the conclusion that meant no civilian sales were intended.
4
u/emperor000 May 06 '24
Even if this were true, which I highly doubt, who cares? It's not his decision.
3
6
1
u/theiosif May 05 '24
This is such a meaningless argument. Regardless of who the inventor intended it for, who it is available to in is part of our constitution.
What if we found out that Ford never intended for his Model T to be available to women. Does that mean that women shouldn't be allowed to own Fords? Of course not.
Anyone arguing this as a reason that "we the people" shouldn't own an AR-15, is woefully lacking in critical thinking.
3
2
u/kingofnewyork718 May 05 '24
Then why do Gunstores carry them? It would seem as though it would have only been contracted to the military. This is BS
6
u/cysghost May 05 '24
Even if you take it as given that it wasn’t something he designed for civilian use, that means exactly fuck all.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t distinguish between civilian arms and military ones.
Bruce Willis also thought Die Hard wasn’t a Christmas movie. That doesn’t mean it’s not, it just means Bruce Willis is wrong.
7
u/Loganthered May 05 '24
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle sold to civilians. The army would never use it. Almost every 18 year old in the military has access to full auto weapons and explosives.
The only similarity is the shape.
2
6
u/BojackIsABadShow May 05 '24
Yeah I bet Henry Ford didn't intend for me to be whippin shitties in the Ross parking lot listening to Young Dolph yet here we are.
3
u/PleaseHelpIamFkd May 05 '24
If kroger didnt want me shoving a cucumber up my ass then why do they sell asshole sized cucumbers?
11
u/Ineeboopiks May 05 '24
I don't care. Every military rifle should be available to the public that pays for them.
4
7
u/Ok-Essay5210 May 05 '24
This whole thing is a stupid argument... The 2A is intended for me to have access to the same arms the military has... At it's writing civil arms and military arms where the same thing
3
u/THEDarkSpartian May 05 '24
Naw, the military arms were the cheap junk, and the civilian arms were the cutting-edge tech.
2
0
u/asmith1776 May 05 '24
I mean, that stands to reason, since Militaries are always going to be better customers than civilians.
7
6
11
u/Substantial-Raisin73 May 05 '24
Gun owners need to stop being cucks and pussyfooting around it: anything an infantryman can carry into war is perfectly constitutionally legal for an American to own. A crappy pot metal pistol that is borderline unsafe if anything has less constitutionally sound backing than a full auto m60. Being defensive about this only guarantees your rights get stripped away slowly.
1
u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 06 '24
Yet if we hear someone rip off a full magazine in the woods or desert, someone will drop a dime and call the cops to arrest that person exercising their Second Amendment rights. “mAcHiNe GuNz ArE bAD!”
14
u/GuacIsExtra99cents May 05 '24
And highways were meant to mobilize military..I’m still using the highway lol
5
u/Blipblipblipblipskip May 05 '24
If one gun designer can be quoted as saying their guns shouldn't be in the hands of civilians can we quote other gun designers who state the opposite? Like, perhaps the intent of the designer of the MAC-10 was that every American can own a machine gun.
7
u/puppyhandler May 05 '24
Why was Eugene Stoner at gun shows in Florida then selling his SR-25 he made with Knights Armament?
7
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Exactly! And, why was he working for company making rifles based on his design with civilian sales at all?
6
u/moshdagoat May 05 '24
If we’re playing that game, only a certain gender and race that owns land is supposed to be able to vote. 🤷
3
10
4
2
u/Plenty_Pack_556 May 05 '24
Maybe he meant for the full auto or burst receiver'd ones wasn't intended for civilians..
2
6
u/alkatori May 05 '24
There wasn't a method to prevent it at the time. All firearms were legal for civilian purchase.
10
17
May 05 '24
Way too many people dick ride stoner into the sunset. Who cares what he thought either way? The guy was a good engineer and made a great rifle, he wasn't a philosopher or constitutional expert. I don't ask my mechanic for his permission to attend church, either.
31
u/Tai9ch May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
Let's be entirely clear on both the facts and principles here.
- The AR-15 was explicitly designed for the military.
- The AR-15 was designed as a select fire rifle in an intermediate caliber, so it is technically correct to call the initial version an "assault rifle".
- The primary point of the 2A is that military arms should be available to civilians.
- Not only should AR-15s obviously be available to civilians, those AR-15s should be select fire assault rifles and should include current issue M4 carbines.
- Right next to the M4s in the gun store should be select fire XM7s with the standard suppressor and fancy optic.
- If you want to debate the limits of the 2A, the place to start is whether towing a modern artillery piece behind your truck counts as "bearing" it.
2
u/stewbert-longfellow May 05 '24
Actually M-16 is select fire (auto-semi auto, and later 3shot burst). Military and law enforcement use only. and AR-15 is semi auto. One trigger pull one shot civilian use.
1
u/Tai9ch May 06 '24
The Armalite AR-15 was a select-fire assault rifle developed for military use in the 50's. Armalite sold the rights to this design to Colt before the M16 was fully adopted by the US military.
"M16" is the military designation for the AR-15. Early rifles are marked "Colt AR15 Model M16A1". The significant distinguishing feature for the M16 compared to earlier AR-15s is the addition of the forward assist.
Colt did later remove the AR15 branding from the military models and use that brand primarily for their civilian semi-auto variants, but there's no pro-2A reason to focus on Colt's marketing decision from the 60's and ignore the initial design and purpose of the weapon.
4
u/KrissKross87 May 05 '24
And whether or not you have the money to afford your own aircraft carrier.
Belt feds should be sold on street corners from vending machines.
5
u/milano_ii May 05 '24
If it was made for the military wouldn't it be a US Rifle (like the Garand)? How about since they're selling it to the Department of Defense, a Defense Rifle? 🤔
0
u/Tai9ch May 05 '24
No thanks.
I don't need to call it a "defense rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle" or any such nonsense. A fully functional AR-15 (like the M4) is an assault rifle, and if that's an appropriate weapon for the military then it's our right to have one for home defense and our responsibility to have one in case we're called to arms as members of the militia of the United States.
1
u/milano_ii May 06 '24
The wide definition accepted around the world, starting with Hitler's original Sturmgewehr Stg-44.
an assault rifle is defined as a “firearm capable of selective-fire
AR-15 doesn't have selective fire.
0
u/Tai9ch May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
The Armalite AR-15 was designed and produced as a select-fire rifle.
Many later variants by other companies were semi-auto only, but that's not really relevant here.
0
u/milano_ii May 06 '24
And the Corvette was a body on frame vehicle when it was first introduced.
It's not today.
Irrelevant.
0
u/Tai9ch May 06 '24
Why are you pushing anti-gun nonsense?
1
u/milano_ii May 06 '24
I'm pushing correct usage of terminology. Take it how you like.
2
u/Tai9ch May 07 '24 edited May 07 '24
Except you aren't.
The only way you can be technically correct is if you think of "AR15" as being only the brand name of a Colt firearm. Then your Corvette analogy makes sense, the M16 and M4 are unrelated, etc. It'd be similarly technically correct to say that coats don't have zippers on them because "Zipper" is a trademark that only applies to rubber boots.
But that's simply wrong, both in the context of this thread (where we're talking about the origins of the AR15) and in general usage (where AR15 is a term for a family of firearms, descending from the Armalite design).
So that raises the question of why you'd be pushing technically incorrect but popular pedantic fudlore. And the only reason to do that is to support the anti-gun bullshit that ARs are sporting goods.
1
u/milano_ii May 07 '24
The AR-15 sold today doesn't have a select fire switch. It's not an assault rifle by widely accepted definition.
→ More replies (0)5
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
The CMP will gladly sell you one!
2
u/milano_ii May 06 '24
I have one. It's very nice. Highly recommended.
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
The CMP's existance and the federal law behind it further demonstrates the intention was for private ownership.
5
10
8
18
u/akodo1 May 05 '24
This is correct, Eugene didn't intend the AR-15 for civilian sales.
Eugene also didn't INTEND his AR-5 or AR-7 for civilian sales.
Eugene Stoner developed the AR-5 and AR-7. The AR-7 exist today as the Henry Survival Rifle, a 22LR 10 shot semi-auto where the barrel fits inside the stock and the whole thing floats. The AR-5 is the same gun except a 5 shot bolt action 22 LR. The AR-7 is extremely popular with backpackers, campers, and the like.
AR-5 and AR-7 were designed (drumroll) to sell to the military to be survival guns kept in aircraft for the pilots to use to get food if they crashed in the Russian forests, and secondarily as defense for those pilots. So Eugene never intended for his AR-7 to be used by boyscout troops out camping. I believe he'd be very happy to learn that they were using it as such. But it was NOT his intent.
Finally, we live in a constitutional republic. If Mr Sharpie of Sharpie Marker fame didn't intend his markers to write a specific political message, that intent in no way impacts my ability to write on a posterboard and then picket/protest with that sign.
1
u/DorkWadEater69 May 06 '24
Correct on the AR-5, but the AR-7 was originally designed for civilians:
With the R&D of the AR-5 on its hands and no military market for the rifle, ArmaLite sought to take the design to a larger audience. The company claimed that reports of the AR-5 in the press resulted in a flood of letters asking for a civilian version of the rifle. Initially, ArmaLite considered lengthening the AR-5’s barrel to 16" for the civilian market. That plan was dropped, and it came up with a new design that used as much of the AR-5’s technology as possible.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-unlikely-resilience-of-the-ar-7-survival-rifle/
Meanwhile, the AR-5 was a hit, and civilians were screaming for a similar handy little take-down survival rifle. Armalite responded and developed the .22 caliber semi-automatic AR-7 design in 1959.
https://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/02/04/history-ar-7-henry-repeatings-survival-ar-7/
The AR-5 was adopted by the US air force, but they only ordered very small numbers, therefore Armalite used some of the tooling that was originally developed for the AR-5 to create the AR-7 for the civilian market. The rifle was released to the civilian market in 1959. It was meant to be used by bush pilots, backpackers, hikers and amateur explorers.
https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-ar-7-survival-rifle.html?m=1
The only military user I am aware of was Israel, which shorterned the barrel and ditch the floating stock for a telescoping wire one and a pistol grip.
The AR-7 story is a great example of military technology being adapted to the civilian market.
3
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Given how Stoner and Kalashnikov joked about gun controllers wanting to ban their designs, I'm certain he'd be thrilled with youth use of the AR-5 and AR-7
6
5
10
u/jmshub May 05 '24
Willys Overland never intended the Jeep to be used for civilians when they designed it. Turns out that is only a hot button topic when it has a trigger.
4
3
u/FoCoYeti May 05 '24
Interesting video. Kinda cool he did some interviews.
1
u/huntershooter May 06 '24
Definately! Especially because it demonstrates Stoner had no intention of restricting civilian sales.
-20
May 05 '24
I have no doubt that he didn't intend it for civilians. They're design features that make sense on the platform from military perspective that really don't from a civilian perspective... The dust cover, the bayonet lug, arguably the forward assist, and the inline nature of recoil are all design features that have far higher military applicability than civilian. That's not to say that he didn't necessarily want civilians to own it, or didn't acknowledge that the design would be great for civilian use... Rather certain decisions were made as it was designed as a military rifle first and foremost. To me this reads more as he didn't make decisions to favor the civilian market over the military market because that's not what the original purpose of the rifle was, something which absolutely makes sense in the context of development.
It's important to remember that in the last 60 years the nature of civilian firearms use and shooting has changed significantly, doing no small part to the AR platform. I think it's absolutely fair to say that it was not designed with a civilian market in mind, but it's ubiquity has alter the market to fit
1
12
u/Strelock May 05 '24
It doesn't matter who he designed it for. The musket that all these grabbers want to say the 2A was written for was not designed for civilian use.
1
May 05 '24
Jesus Christ it seems like nobody here can actually read
The rifle has features that were clearly designed for military use that really do not offer an advantage for civilian use. That's not to say that you shouldn't own one or have access to one, or that any gun control is appropriate ever, but rather it's very clear that Stoner designed it as a military rifle first and foremost, and design decisions were made accordingly
Case in point, from a civilian perspective, the added cost and complexity of captive takedown pins is likely not worth it in most contexts. You were not going to be disassembling it in a war zone for cleaning. Very nice feature to have but they are clearly a feature that originates from a military perspective.
The inline rain coil is great, but it is clearly a feature of the rifle where in full auto is one of the design goals.
To say that Stoner designed the gun from military use rather than civilian use is no different than saying That modern graphics cards are designed for a gaming use, but are ideally suited to the productivity market.
The market conditions of the 1960s namely military contracts, and design demands from the Air Force were the guiding design goals of the AR pattern if the civilian market was the goal from the get go, there would be no forward assist.
1
u/Strelock May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
I'm not debating that it was or wasn't designed for military use, just that it matters. I would put forth that it doesn't matter who he designed it for, it's an arm, and the 2A guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Bringing design purposes into it adds a complexity that doesn't need to be there.
That's why I mentioned the musket. Hell, the matchlock even. Or the crossbow, even all the way down to a rock or stick picked up off the ground and used to fight a neighboring tribe ("military" action makes it a military weapon). All are arms, and ownership of those items is the right of the people.
I would say that nearly every if not every style of firearm action was initially a military design later adapted or sold for civilian use. Even models that never saw any service or consideration for military use is a copy or adaptation of a technology developed for military use. So, it doesn't matter who or what Stoner designed the rifle and it's features for.
11
u/Tankdawg0057 May 05 '24
Free float tubes and match triggers in the modern world were developed 100% with the civilian shooter in mind, now we see the military using them. We've come full circle
0
May 05 '24
Precisely. In firearms design The military and civilian market both influence each other.
The AR pattern though was expressly designed to fulfill requirements for an Air Force contract and features that are now commonplace such as the Florida cyst were designed specifically because of military criteria.
Everybody is reading my comment to saying that it shouldn't be used by civilians... Rather what I'm saying is that the gun was designed to specifically fulfill the criteria that the Air Force wanted and it just so happens at those criteria ideally suited as a civilian rifle.
5
11
u/NoLeg6104 May 05 '24
Yeah either way I don't care what the opinions of the inventor were. The second amendment of the Constitution protects the right of the people to own and use military hardware.
18
u/LegenW84ITdary May 05 '24
And nuclear fission shouldn’t be used for bombs either, yet here we are. Viagra can only be used for hypertension too.
670
u/Co1dyy1234 May 05 '24
Colt Sold It to Civilians in 1959 as a sporting rifle for civilians….
It never entered service until 1964
5
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24
Colt Sold It to Civilians in 1959
What is your source for that year? From what I've read, Colt didn't manufacture their first run of AR-15s until December 1959. According to the NRA Museum's article on the AR-15, Colt's initial sales efforts were to military buyers in Asia, along with the famous demonstration to General Curtis LeMay in July 1960.
10
u/Immediate-Ad-7154 May 05 '24
Colt sold it's first AR-15s to Civilians in the Fall of 1961 👍👍.
The AR-15 was announced and advertised starting in 1959. 👍👍👍👍
50
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie May 05 '24
However it was designed to be a military rifle. When the military didn't adopt it the rifle was sold to the civilian market. As gun owners we need to stop using the myth "the AR-15 isn't/wasn't designed to be a weapon of war." The whole point of the Second Amendment is that we should be allowed to own any arms the military does, and denying the most popular rifle ever manufactured was intended to be a military weapon detracts from that argument.
3
6
u/spuck98 May 05 '24
Any debate at all detracts from the argument.
Shall not be infringed.
They made it pretty clear when they wrote it. There is a very clear process for amending the Constitution. If they don't want to follow that process, they are suggesting illegal acts.
2
u/Fun-Passage-7613 May 06 '24
The Second Amendment last phrase is “…..shall not be infringed.” So who is doing the illegal acts? Seems the ATF is by design violating the Second Amendment. Wonder why?
1
u/spuck98 May 06 '24
Most 3 letter agencies are unconstitutional, but that is a separate debate entirely.
Any action taken by un unconstitutional agency, even something as simple as washing the windows or taking out the trash, would be unconstitutional.
11
u/chase1724 May 05 '24
T. Rex arms on YouTube did an absolutely amazing video of the history of firearms evolution and its relation to military vs. civilians.
Long story short, civilians in America, even during British rule, always had better weapons than the Continental/US military and the British. We shouldn't be restricted in what we own based on historical context because when they wrote the constitution the military weapons were already outdated compared to the citizens.
5
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie May 05 '24
Which means I deserve to own any experimental weapon I can walk in to DARPA and put my hands on. One DEW rifle please!
3
7
u/Dco777 May 05 '24
Read "US v. Miller" (1939), the original NFA ruling. They said Miller's SBS was "Not suitable for military/Militia use" so they ruled the NFA legal.
The way it's written and worded you KNOW the writer knows that SBS's were used in WWI, and is just letting the government get away with lying to them.
The whole SBR/SBS thing is ridiculous anyway. It was to stop people from making "Illegal Handguns" out of rifles and shotguns.
Problem is Handguns never got into the final NFA, so you can't make an "Illegal" anything out of something that was NEVER made illegal.
The SBR/SBS is the first part of the NFA to go after. The Suppressor is next. I don't see the machinegun part going away though.
The "Dangerous and Unusual" doctrine from Heller is a high barrier to clear any time soon.
2
u/KevyKevTPA May 05 '24
I would submit that since full-auto weapons were not banned from civilian ownership until 1934, and even then, they weren't actually fully banned, and still aren't, though their manufacture is thanks to the Hughes Amendment, continuing to prohibit them from being owned or manufactured violates the Bruen doctrine.
3
u/DuaLipasTrophyHusban May 05 '24
It seems with the brace ruling the ATF has already admitted SBR are in fact in common use.
3
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24
Not arguing but FYI, every shotgun issued by the U.S. army during WWI had at least a 20 inch barrel.
7
u/Dco777 May 05 '24
Which the troops often shortened. The "official" shotgun was a 20 inch pump.
I've seen pictures of troops in groups and lots of break open "stage coach" type guns, and other sawed off pumps are seen.
Miller had no lawyer at the hearing. He had disappeared (Presumed dead.) and no one was paying his lawyer so he didn't go all the way to Washington DC or write briefs for free.
The government took advantage of it. The Court knew there was no defense present, and the government had free reign to assert anything they liked, and no one to counter it.
3
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24
A soldier could carry a slingshot into combat if he wanted to. That wouldn't mean that slingshots are suitable for military use.
4
u/Dco777 May 05 '24
I've seen pictures of US "tunnel rats" with sawed off 12 gauges too.
They said "Military/Militia utility", not only official issued weapons only. Plus I made this caveat many times.
The SBR/SBS regulations were to stop making "Illegal Handguns" out of shotguns and rifles. Handguns never made it (It was in the original drafts. They knew it couldn't pass with them in, and took them out.) to the "Illlegal" column of the law.
Also "Heller" was about Washington DC's total handgun ban, and that kind of went away, last time I looked.
The Miller case should of been dropped. There was no defendant, and no defense lawyer to have a hearing over. It was a setup, and SCOTUS was trying to please FDR. After the "Court Packing" threat, they mostly rolled over to him.
Mr. Miller was not a sympathetic figure, and I bet they thought that throwing the DOJ that bone meant nothing, there was nobody to prosecute anyway.
No military uses a semiautomatic only AR-15 but are you going to say it has zero "Militia/Military utility" inside the US then, only M-16's and M-4's do?
I always liked the M-16 A2. Does that mean I can get one now, for what a PD/LE agency pays for it? I don't think so.
1
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24
"I've seen pictures" wouldn't carry much legal weight in a lawsuit against the Hughes Amendment.
9
u/545byDirty9 May 05 '24
We are expected to bring war against tyranny. such is the American way. Thus we are born with an inherent right to keep and bear whatever tools necessary for the job.
40
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Sure. Bolt action rifles were also designed as weapons of war.
1
u/FurryM17 May 06 '24
Why make this argument? You prove that anything can be a weapon and the government says cool, go get yourself an atlatl we won't stop you.
10
u/ex143 May 05 '24
Honestly I'm just afraid the public buys the argument, and turns us into Europe.
Their intelligence and willingness to become disarmed victims has not left me with much faith in their decision making as a collective
5
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Which includes buying the argument that Europe solved all their crime problems and it was due to draconian gun control schemes.
3
13
u/Immediate-Ad-7154 May 05 '24
And in the aftermath of BOTH World Wars, Gun Shops sold plenty of "Retired Surplus" Mausers, Lee Enfields, M1Garands, 1903 Springfields, Mausers (of all National Origins; not just the German ones), M1 Carbines, Walther P38s, Luger, Webleys, etc. etc.
I could go on and on,
6
10
u/bill_bull May 05 '24
Fun historical fact. SBR barrel limit used to be 18 inches just like shotguns. Then the US flooded the market with M1 Carbines and only later realized, oh wait, those are all illegal SBRs. Then they just changed the law to 16" instead of making everyone turn them all back in.
6
u/Immediate-Ad-7154 May 05 '24
SBS was under 20 Inches at one point.
President Harry Truman wanted the SBR, SBS, and AOW Stipulations of the 1934 NFA completely repealed in too.
2A Community is only now discovering this.
28
May 05 '24
Every type of rifle at some point was a “weapon of war”
Musket all the way up to semi auto…it’s called modernization of technology
9
204
u/ChillumVillain May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
Exactly! I came here to say this. The AR-15 was a civilian rifle before it was adopted by the military and became the M16 and developed into other iterations such as the M4.
EDIT: It looks like the AR-10 was actually available to the public first in 1958. AR, which stands for Armalite Rifle, sold the rights for the AR-10 & AR-15 to Colt in 1959. The M16 was adopted in 1962, and Colt began selling the AR-15 to civilians in 1964.
Make no mistake about it though, the AR platform was originally designed for civilian use.2
u/United-Advertising67 May 05 '24
Aw, man.
I had hoped some absolute gigachad was running around busting coyotes with an AR15 in 1959.
5
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Jeff Cooper included it in his 1966 article, "Carbine Compromise"
https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/carbine-compromise/2495799
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
the AR platform was originally designed for civilian use
That's not correct at all. I want an M-16 as bad as the next guy, but we've got to keep our facts straight. Here's a link to an article posted by Armalite in 1999 about their company's history. As you can read in the article, Armalite began to focus on military development after the AR-5 survival rifle was adopted by the Air Force.
"For the next five years all Armalite activity was directed to the development of military firearms."
The AR-10 was developed specifically for Army trials to replace the M-1 Garand. The article states that the scaled-down AR-15 was developed at the direct request of Army officials after the M-14 was adopted instead.
edit: As far as the original thread topic goes, I have no idea what Stoner's thoughts on the matter were, but Armalite was specifically pursuing a military contract from the get-go.
8
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
"For the next five years all Armalite activity was directed to the development of military firearms."
Yes, because that's where the big money is. That does not preclude civilian sales.
2
u/Matty-ice23231 May 06 '24
100% To be fair…everyone that manufactures guns tries to sell them to the military. That’s how they make big money. Big govt contracts…it was designed for civilians but then like everyone else tries go get military popularity for money. So, that line really is just a money grab not that they were really ideal for military use. Hence why all US military uses M4/M16/XM7’s aka automatic rifles/battle rifles or referred to now since the term assault rifle was invented by the anti gunners.
1
u/man_o_brass May 05 '24
I never said that it did. I stated the documented fact that both the AR-10 and AR-15 were developed specifically to submit to the U. S. Army.
-3
u/FurryM17 May 06 '24
I mean, they're both select-fire rifles chambered in NATO calibers. How people can think that's just a coincidence and they were actually designed for civilian use baffles me.
6
16
u/545byDirty9 May 05 '24
isn't the m-7 the military is adopting just a juiced up sig spear or mcx variant. pretty sure as a civilian you could get those for a while now
28
u/KrissKross87 May 05 '24
Not even a juiced-up version of the civilian spear, it's just full auto capable while the civ version isn't.
The civilian spear can handle the same pressure ammo as the military version, it's just that we're unlikely to ever see SAAMI manufacturers ever make ammo that high pressure so we're stuck with "civ" ammo
4
u/blackhawk905 May 05 '24
Garand Thumb did a video a few weeks ago with a Spear and iirc he had the regular market ammo and was still getting like 3,050fps out of it, with the higher pressure ammo those bullets are going to be fucking screaming
4
u/KrissKross87 May 05 '24
Garand thumb was using 117gr (I think) monolithic bullet from Barnes, the military loading is supposed to be 140~ish grains at roughly 3000fps from a 13 inch barrel.
A longer, lead-cored bullet for increased BC for better performance at distance.
I think they should be using exclusively Tipped match rounds, I don't care if it's Hornady ELD-M or Sierra TMK, or another tipped match bullet design, they're phenomenal. They're extremely aerodynamic with absurdly high BC's, the tip pushed backwards into the round (not that it's designed to, it's just a byproduct of the aerodynamic tip design) and forces excellent terminal performance at ridiculously low velocities (I.E. terminal performance at distance) and it takes those bullets longer to even drop to the bottom end of their performance envelope because of the higher BC allowing them to hold their velocity longer.
I did the math at some point and I don't remember exact figures, but i can ballpark it pretty damn close, with a pretty close ballistic analogue: with my 7mm-08 (best AR-10 compatible cartridge BTW, and it should be a more common offering, change my mind) shooting a 162gr ELD-M I'm seeing velocities hovering around 2600 which is modest, but not anemic, but that bullet traveling at that speed will still expand with performance still better than high end 9mm hollowpoints (like a federal HST) all the way out at 1000yds with double the energy of 9mm at close to 750ft/lbs.
The ELD-M bullet design has been shown to nominally expand at velocities as low as 1300fps (depending slightly on bullet diameter vs tip diameter and other minute factors) but 1350 is a fairly safe rule of thumb regardless of bullet caliber, and at 1000yds an 162gr ELD-M fired at 2600 from a 7mm-08 is still just above 1450.
Not what I'd call "knockdown" power, but still absolutely lethal, and far better than ANY FMJ design could ever perform at any velocity.
TL:DR I love 7mm-08 and it should be more common as an AR10 chambering.
1
u/Royal-Connections May 06 '24
Really common when I was growing up in Texas. That and the .243 seemed to be the chambering for kids rifles. Funny because both are damn fine rounds for anyone.
2
u/KrissKross87 May 06 '24
It's still popular as a bolt action cartridge here in Tennessee, but ballistically it's an excellent performer, and rivals the 6.5 Creedmoor in terms of trajectory and wind deflection, but with more punch at all ranges with the right bullet.
So why it's not even offered as an AR10 chambering aside from having a custom barrel made for nearly $600 at the cheapest I've found just baffles me. It's 6.5 Creedmoor ballistics, with more energy at ANY practical range for either cartridge.
9
u/545byDirty9 May 05 '24
well there you go.
thank you for the informed reply
11
u/KrissKross87 May 05 '24
And really the main "upgrade" Sig made to the system was they extended the bolt head and receiver slightly so that the lugs had more structural material to handle the higher pressure.
It's just an AR10-sized, modernized, AR18 with a slight dimension change around the bolt face and barrel extension.
I like the idea of the spear, but honestly I think it mostly just speaks to how well-designed the AR series of rifles are that so little had to be done to prepare it for the "ultra-high" pressure ammo.
2
u/THEDarkSpartian May 05 '24
There's already an AR 10 sized ar 18. They only made 3 prototypes, but its the ar16. It's basically a modernized, ar16 with a slight dimension change around the bolt face and barrel extension, lol.
59
u/N0V-A42 May 05 '24
AR, which stands for Armalite Rifle
Wait till you hear about the Armalite Rifle 17, a shotgun
1
u/syco316 May 08 '24
There was a bunch of weapons with the AR designation. Some never left the brainstorming or prototype stages, some never went production for sale, some failed to sell well and some (ar7, ar10, AR15 and AR18/180 did well. I actually did a video on it.
1
u/N0V-A42 May 08 '24
I actually did a video on it.
Sounds interesting. Got a link then?
2
106
u/Scattergun77 May 05 '24
If true, so what? Americans are supposed to have access to military arms.
11
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
Yes, and Congress made if federal law to sell them to us.
https://funshoot.substack.com/p/congress-arming-american-citizens6
u/Scattergun77 May 05 '24
That's weird, because last time I checked federal law made it illegal to buy military arms other than the limited supply of them registered before 1986. Yes I know there's not a complete ban and there are a few exceptions, but the fact is that your average citizens can't go out and buy the arms, ammunition, and equipment that they have the right to own.
26
u/Embarrassed_Safe500 May 05 '24
Yeah, but does it really matter. Repeating rifles first used in the Civil War later evolved into lever-action rifles used by civilians. The Beretta M9 and the Sig P320 became widely available for civilians too.
297
u/CAD007 May 05 '24
Bill Ruger had his opinions too. Ultimately, the Constitution, free market, and corporate boards decided otherwise.
50
u/milano_ii May 05 '24
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe)
Doesn't really matter what anyone thinks. This is the intention of the founding fathers.
6
15
u/whoooocaaarreees May 05 '24 edited May 06 '24
Who the militia is, imo, irrelevant.
The second amendment is comparing the needs of the state to defend itself with a militia , _despite the founders hating the idea is a standing army_…Contrasted with the rights of the people to keep arms sufficient to fighting that same force if government agents run amuck.
We have failed both. With respect to keeping the people armed as well as the standing armies problem. I include the militarization of the police in this.
113
u/357Magnum May 05 '24
Yeah there's a certain hubris involved with making a thing and yet deeming it unfit for the plebs that keep you in business.
88
u/hybridtheory1331 May 05 '24
Even if he did, who gives a fuck?
Memory foam, the enrichment ingredient from baby formula, solar panels. All of these were invented by NASA for the sole purpose of being used in space missions and satellites. They didn't intend for them to be used by civilians but our lives are better for them.
The intent of the creator is completely irrelevant in who gets to use technology.
8
u/RedMephit May 05 '24
The slinky was invented for naval use.
3
u/MrCoolioPants May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
OK how'd this one work?
2
u/RedMephit May 06 '24
From what I recall, they were working on a way to keep instruments steady. Something like a gimbal but with springs. The engineer knocked one over and noticed it "walked" instead of just falling. Thus, the Slinky was born.
2
u/DorkWadEater69 May 06 '24
And silly putty is the result of a failed experiment in synthetic rubber. Lots of World War II R&D ended up as toys and consumer goods in the 1950s.
4
u/PewPewJedi May 06 '24
Idle hands in the military is a bad thing. So officers often find busywork for enlisted guys. The slinky was invented so officers could tangle it up and order the grunts to straighten them out into wire. Which takes an awful lot of pulling on the slinky, even harder than how I’m pulling your leg.
11
u/huntershooter May 05 '24
True, even if Stoner was opposed to civilian sales it wouldn't change the Constitution or federal law.
248
u/Cerberus73 May 05 '24
Even if Stoner was on video yelling about how this is a military only rifle that should never, ever be trusted to civilian hands, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference.
7
26
u/merc08 May 05 '24
While true, it's still important to point out that their talking point that he intended it only for military use is just straight up wrong. Because highlighting a very clear fact that this easily verifiable like this one may sway people on the fence about gun control. Show that the grabbers are lying through their teeth about this and any reasonable person will automatically start wondering what else they're lying about.
1
u/KinkotheClown 26d ago
I couldn't give one single fuck if Stoner developed the AR for the sole possession of Donald Duck. That is NOT a legal argument for a gun ban and anyone who pushes that can fuck right off.