Let's talk about the AR-15

Answering questions and dispelling myths about the most controversial weapon system in history.

Normally I begin my articles with a small introduction, but for the purposes of keeping this article succinct we’re going to just get right into it. From my experience and observation, much of the hatred towards this weapon system is born from misunderstanding, lack of experience, and emotional reaction. I do not intend to sway minds with this article, merely to inform and educate. To begin, let’s cover what the rifle is.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic hammer-fired rifle of steel and polymer construction, typically chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO, fed through a detachable box magazine and cycled by a direct impingement gas system. ArmaLite originally created the AR platform in the late 1950s for the U.S. military as a smaller semi-automatic replacement for the M1 Garand/M14 platforms, but they didn’t get the contract. The patent was licensed to Colt who ended up winning the military contract with their revised fully automatic versions (the rifle-length M16 and the carbine-length XM4). As the battlespace changed with time, the weapon became much more desirable for close quarters battle and urban warfare. The smaller package and lighter recoil made it more practical than the .308 M14, and the superior accuracy and ballistics outclassed the .45 ACP Thompson M1A1 submachine gun, as well. The military was able to replace two weapon systems with one which blended a small frame with light recoil, full auto, and good medium range accuracy.

As military technology always trickles down to the civilian world over time, we adopted the civilian version AR-15 due to its modularity. Receivers, barrels, bolt carriers, and gas systems etc. can all be interchanged to fit the needs of various hunting, competition, and defensive usage.

Q: are AR-15s military weapons?

A: No, AR-15s are not military weapons

The military issue M16 and M4 platforms are direct transplants of the civilian AR-15 DNA, but are completely different weapons. The delineation is that the military weapons are select-fire fully-automatic, whereas the civilian AR-15 is semi-automatic only. Additionally, military-issue rifles often have a barrel length of 14 inches or less, making them SBRs (short barreled rifles). In accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian rifle barrels must measure 16 inches or longer, otherwise a $200 tax stamp is required.

Remember that ArmaLite's AR-15, though originally designed for military use, did not win the military contract. The AR-15 design has always been civilian use for the entirety of its production and patent history, and has never once seen combat in a formal military role. The version that won the military contract was Colt's revised model, the full auto M16 and M4 variants. Civilian AR-15s are not military weapons, however due to their similarity to military versions of the platform, I would like to expand this topic at the close of this article.

A Holosun HS510C and HMX3 mounted on a Stag15. The hybrid red-dot/magnifier is a popular optics combination for competition and personal defense. The red-dot allows quick and accurate target acquisition at close range, and the flip-to-side magnifier makes medium range shots much easier.

Q: Does AR stand for Assault Rifle?

A: AR simply stands for ArmaLite Rifle, as that is the manufacturer who invented it

The phase of people calling AR-15s an “assault rifle model 15” has thankfully began to end. But for the purposes of educating those still misinformed, AR still stands for ArmaLite Rifle since the platform is still based on their design pattern despite going through numerous adaptations and modernizations. The similarity is a bit like a Hummer. Just because General Motors’ Hummer H1 is based on the HMMWV does not mean that an H1 is an armored military fighting vehicle.

Q: If an AR-15 is not one, then what is an assault rifle?

A: “Assault rifles” are fully automatic, whereas AR-15s are semi-automatic only

This question is not as easily answered, because the term assault rifle is assumptively conflated with the media-invented definition “assault weapon.” An assault rifle is a select-fire intermediate cartridge weapon. Civilian AR-15s are not select-fire, and so they’re not assault weapon. Simple simple, case closed.

“Assault weapon,” on the other hand, is not technically a real term; it was invented by legislators, Hollywood, and the news media. If you assault someone with a different weapon like a brick, does that make it an assault brick? “Assault” is an action verb and a noun to describe an action; it is not a adjective to describe a physical object. Additionally, the legal definition of assault actually has nothing to do with physical violence. As described by Cornell.edu, “Assault” is “Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Battery is the physical act. The problem with the term “assault weapon” is that anything can be used to fulfill the legal definition’s requirements of reasonable apprehension. So either everything is an assault weapon, even bricks, or the term isn’t real.

As stated above, an assault rifle is any intermediate cartridge select-fire weapon; it’s a machine gun. Per the NFA, a machine gun is any weapon or weapon system that can shoot, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically, more than one round by a single function of the trigger. In either case, it describes a weapon where pulling the trigger once results in more than one cartridge being cycled. In semi-automatic a single trigger instance only nets a single bullet being cycled, and the trigger must be released and reset in order for the weapon to fire again. A military-issue M4A1 is an assault rifle. A civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

Recently, the media term “assault weapon” has been expanded to include any firearm that has a physical resemblance close to a military rifle. This has been expanded to include pistol caliber carbines, hunting rifles that are fed with a box magazine, or any weapon that is semi-automatic in function. So to clarify what you hear in the media, “assault weapons” are any firearm that is “military styled,” but the reality is that the term isn’t real.

Ruger Mini-14 (top) and a lightly modified AR-15. Considering both rifles have a 16 inch barrel, semi-automatic fire capability, 20-round detachable box magazine, and are chambered in .223/5.56, which one would you call an “assault weapon,” and why?

(Photo credit: David Heafey, medium.com)

Q: Why does the AR-15 need to shoot such a powerful bullet?

A: For effectiveness of intended design by nature of being a rifle caliber

With the exception of the .22LR, all rifle calibers have superior velocities and ballistics compared to shotguns and pistols due to their longer case allowing for a greater powder charge. So in comparison, AR-15s are more powerful. But compared to other rifles, AR-15s are actually among the weakest when it comes to muzzle velocity, grain weight of the projectile, ballistic coefficient, and powder mixture/powder capacity. In short, AR-15s actually aren’t that powerful. Many counterarguments say that you can’t use AR-15s for hunting as “the round is too powerful and will destroy the meat.” In reality, .223/5.56 is banned in many states for certain hunting because it’s too underpowered and therefore improper to attempt an ethical and clean kill. Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s website states that, “To legally hunt elk with a rifle in Colorado, you must use a rifle that fires expanding bullets with a minimum caliber of .24 cal. or 6mm, a minimum weight of 85 grains that delivers at least 1,000 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yards.” You can legally hunt deer in Colorado with a .223, but you had better be picky about your ammo you’re using unless you want the animal to suffer a drawn out death due to a weak hit.

.223 (left) and 7mm Rem Mag. Despite the two rounds having similar muzzle velocities (approx. 3,000 fps), the 7mm is far heavier (150 grains vs 69 grains), and has far greater energy at 100 yards (2,700 ft. lbs. vs 950 ft. lbs.). This makes it much more powerful with superior ballistics, and is a popular deer caliber.

The counterpoint you always hear after a tragic event is that AR-15s wreck havoc on people who have been victims. Yes, bullets are lethal to humans. A .22-Short is just as deadly as a .50 BMG. A single tiny pellet of birdshot can be lethal with the right shot placement. This goes for all firearms; it’s not a unique attribute of ARs or the .223 cartridge. To people unfamiliar with the physical effects of a projectile, any projectile, entering flesh, it paints the picture that .223 has the same power as a naval cannon. Saying that bullets are lethal is not adding anything to the conversation; it’s simply a talking point to invoke an emotional response in an issue that should be treated with logic and reason. I am not trying to minimize the issue, but if lethality is reason to ban something, then all tools short of toy hammers should be banned. Mass shootings and gun violence are not issues to be taken lightly, and the use of platitudes and not taking the problem seriously is frustrating.

Q: So, why do you need an ar-15?

A: Versatility

The short answer is that it’s a great option for competition, sporting, hunting, varmint control, and home defense. Contrary to the popular narrative, ARs have long been used in hunting applications. Hogs, coyotes, and varmints (prairie dogs etc.) are among the most popular game.

An official Colt advertisement from the early 1960s, marketing the AR-15 as a hunting rifle.

The long answer is that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “needs and wants.” The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give me a Right; rather, it preserves a Right that I had by nature of being a human being. You have a Right to free speech and peaceful assembly regardless if the 1st Amendment exists, but the Amendment provides a protection in Constitutional Law so that your voice cannot be suppressed by the State. Self defense is not a privilege, it’s a Right. I'm not required to fight off an attacker with a pocket knife. I have a Right to use the most effective tool for defending myself. The most effective tool is a semi-automatic rifle; the most effective tool is an AR.

Q: But why an AR? Can’t you just use a shotgun or pistol?

A: Sure. but there are drawbacks that can be solved with an AR

Shotguns are fine home defense weapons. They’re cheap, carry massive stopping power, and the spread means even a novice can be effective with one. Pistols are good, too. They’re small and easy to maneuver throughout the home, and can have much higher ammunition capacities than shotguns. The reason I own an AR for home defense is due to preparedness.

If a criminal is going out to commit a crime, they prepare. Sometimes preparation means a lone criminal pulling up their hood and getting the crowbar from the trunk. Other times, it’s a small gang of thugs armed with guns and knives. There could be one person who’s 100 pounds soaking wet, or there could be four guys who all weigh 250. I’m already coming in at a disadvantage because they know when they’re going to strike and I don’t. So to ensure the safety of myself and my family, I’m going to prepare, too.

The biggest disadvantages of a shotgun for home defense are ergonomics and capacity. In comparison, shotguns handle bulkier, and the average capacity of five puts you at a disadvantage in the event of multiple assailants, with fewer opportunities to place accurate shots under an adrenaline dump. Pistols are great for daily concealed carry because of their size, but their ballistics are incredibly inferior to rifle rounds. Even Speer Gold Dot 9mm+P, the gold standard of defensive pistol ammunition, has 1,090 fewer ft. lbs. of muzzle energy than even cheap target load .223. The bad guy doesn’t even need to wear soft armor; layers of leather and denim have proven to drastically reduce the effectiveness of many common defensive handgun loads. It’s not even a contest; ARs are superior.

If I don’t know what I’m going to face, why limit myself to only five slugs out of a long and bulky pump-action? Why limit myself to a pistol with a third of the muzzle velocity and muzzle energy? An AR-15 is the most effective tool at leveling the field, then completely tilting it in my favor. It’s more powerful than a handgun, and it offers better handling and capacity than a shotgun.

Essential accessories for effective home defense. A Streamlight TLR-RMR2, to illuminate the target with 1,000 lumens of power for disorientation potential. A BCM KAG (kinesthetic angled grip) to ensure proper indexing of the drive hand. And a Strike Industries Oppressor slip-on blast shield, to redirect flash and gases away from the user while enabling the recoil mitigation of an existing muzzle brake.

Military use vs Civilian use

The biggest problem people have with AR-pattern rifles is that they’re too good at their design purpose. But my argument is always that this is the precise reason why they are important and essential; it’s the most effective tool for defense of life and liberty. These weapon systems are the ace in the sleeve of a good, sober, sane, moral, prudent person. In the face of criminal or invader, the right weapon gives them a fighting chance.

Is an AR-15 a military weapon? No. Could you fight a war with one? Sure.

Does deployment in formal military application mean a tool should be revoked from civilian usage? Absolutely not. A country’s armed forces will only select a weapon system if it is combat effective, and the same test can be used for civilian defense of life and liberty. The weapon platform that is effective on a battlefield is the same one I want to defend my family with. Special Forces Command chose the Glock 19 compact pistol as their service sidearm, which is mechanically identical to the same Glock 19 that I carry on walks. When loved ones’ lives are on the line, I don’t want anything but the most effective tool at my disposal. I don’t want to make do with a double barreled shotgun from the 1800s; I want the pinnacle of modern weapons technology so that any threat we face is instantly disadvantaged. Why would I bet safety and security on something that is “adequate?” Why would I skimp on a potentially life-preserving tool?

A Cultural Fissure

The distaste for the AR-15, on the surface, is due to it being the weapon of choice for psychopathic evil mass murderers. But when the layers are peeled back, the AR-15 has come under fire for a much deeper and less obvious reason.

There is a cultural fissure between people who have accepted the violence attendant upon humankind, and people who are uncomfortable with the idea of self defense. There is a sect of people who think that firearms self defense stagnates the progression of the human race towards pacifistic utopic reality, which is a notion I find in conflict with human nature itself. That paradisiacal world is a beautiful thing to strive for, and working towards it will make the world a better place. But trying to actually attain a world completely devoid of violence it is in conflict with the thousands of years of DNA we have running around in us. 2020’s CHAZ was supposed to be just this; a utopia with no cops, no money, and no government. Within hours of the takeover, CHAZ experienced its first murder by firearm. Throughout human history, every time someone tries to create a utopia, they do so at the violent expense of someone else.

We’ve come a long way, but just because we have WIFI and iPhones does not mean we are any more evolutionarily superior than our predecessors. The Holocaust was less than 100 years ago, a nanosecond in the scope of human social history. And genocides continue into the modern day all across the globe, we just don’t hear about it in our cushioned bubble of Starbucks and air conditioning.

A right cannot be restricted or abolished simply because it can be misused or because technological advancement has made it easier to use. The internet age has skyrocketed the ease of racial slur and hate speech, yet the 1st Amendment should still stand strong. We cannot let ourselves get to a point where we relinquish all of our Rights simply because somebody may use those Rights to harm us. Rather, the response is to meet those types of people with a wall that says, “You have no power here.”

In current weapons technology, the AR-15 is that wall.