Talk:Colt AR-15

Accessory Error The opening paragraph of the article states that the AR-15 platform is compatible with a number of accessories, including specifically mentioning a folding stock. True it is that many accessories are availabe, however a folding stock is not one of them. The gas operating mechanism of the AR-15 platform requires it to have a buffer spring and buffer tube with do not allow the application of a folding stock. The system does surely allow for collapsible stocks but not folders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.52.245 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The front page says that the AR-15 was "designed by Eugene Stoner of the Armalite corporation who developed it as a smaller-caliber version of the AR-10." I may be wrong on this, but hadn't Stoner left Armalite before the AR-15 project started? He invented the AR-10, and it was someone else entirely who redesigned the AR-10 for .223 as the AR-15.... Right? --70.160.160.175 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit Explaination

I just edited the page because I found an error, unless I am in error. Here is what I mean: The page stated that the AR 15 is modeled after the fully automatic m16 which is currently in use by the United States. Unless things have changed alot since I left the military, the military is not using the fully automatic m16 (commonly known as the a1 model), they instead use the semi-automatic m-16 (commonly known as the a2 model). I changed the article so that it now reads that "the ar15 is modeled after the semi-automatic m16 in use by the U.S." If this is still incorrect (which to my knowledge it is not), and you have knowledge of such then please feal free to edit it, in which case it should read something like "the ar15 is modeled after the fully automatic m16 previously in use by the United States." Thank you for your time in reviewing this, I have corrected this typo to the best of my ability at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.70.210 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The M16A2 is standard issue, and is select fire, having "safe," "semi," and "auto" or "burst (3 rounds)" as fire options. --tc2011 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I should have explained my revert. All M16 variants have either full auto or 3 round burst capability. — DanMP5 13:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained Redirect

I just searched for "black rifle" (a term mentioned offhand in a magazine article, wikipedia seemed the perfect place to look it up) and got redirected here. I can't find the term "black rifle" in the article or in this discussion page. It'd sure be nice to see a brief mention of this ?nickname? for the AR family, if that is in fact what "black rifle" means. Thanks in advance! 69.129.196.12 07:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Black rifle" is a term referring to rifles resembling military arms, namely, that the weapon is equipped with a black synthetic stock and/or fore grip as well as parkerization or powder coating (or similar metal protection system) of a matte black variety. Thus, the rifle resembles military arms which are commonly colored black. It became popular due to the misconception that these weapons are somehow more dangerous due to their features (rather than the accuracy and power of the weapon itself). Thus, the gun community jokingly refer to a rifle patterned after or styled similar to a military rifle as a "black rifle". --Pyrewyrm (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Range

550? Is that meters, yards, feet? It sure could use a label. Cacophony 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My guess would be meters. That's what most gun ranges are measured in, no?

Yeah, it's meters.

Vulcan Arms

I'm going to delete the Vulcan Arms link. Although they do make AR15 type rifles, they very inferior compared to the other brands linked, and it would be bad for people looking to buy one to assume they are quality.

• It should stay. If they are making them fine, this isn't a web directory, it isn't consumer reports. There is a link of manufacturers, and they are one. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• There are lots of other makers too that are not included. I feel it is improper to be advertising (or close enough to) for a sub-par company. Besides, it is not essential that EVERY company who makes them be listed.

• • Then include them. But your view is WP:OR. The 2 options as I see them are

1. Leave it in and include other manufacturers
2. Delete the whole section on manufacturers.

Anyone else want to chime in? Wikibofh_(talk) 02:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you want to write an objective entry on the history of Todd Bailey's companies, with a biased account based on the wealth of customer evidence then that is the proper way to handle this. Removing a hyperlink because a person believes they're "helping out" in some way is unreasonable in my mind. That's my own .02 cents Thatguy96 11:08, 13 January 2006

What about listing Vulcan, Hesse, and now apparently Blackthorne on one line? --tc2011 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Manufacturers nor Ammunition sections add any real pertinent information to the article, i say Delete them both. indy_muaddib (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

avoid subjective eliminations

I would advise people to avoid wholesale deletions. While Wikipedia is NOT a promotional site for any particular brand, it is reasonalble to mention different brands as long as they are all represented with an unbiased perspective. With regard to the individual who deleted the "varients" section because he thought it was an promo for Bushmaster, I understand the need to edit and remove the bias, but the "varients" section is valid and could be expanded with very useful information. I put it back without the Bushmaster reference. I would encourage the community to expand this section since "varients" are a big part of the AR-15 weapons system.

I assume you mean "variants".

Legal Status

The article says that "Replacing the Lower Receiver of a standard AR-15 with one that has a fixed (10 round) magazine (see below for instructions) will render the firearm legal..." Does this refer to Californial legal? Or is this required in all states?

This is a requirement by California only. --D.E. Watters 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, CA only, since there is no longer a federal assault weapons law. other states may have their own laws, but CA's is the most stringent. CynicalMe 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

50 BMG?

I'm curious about the inclusion of 50 BMG on our cartridge list. I've seen a 50 BMG barreled action rigged up to AR-15 furniture, but it's not a Stoner (gas-impingement autoloading) action (or even a semi-automatic). Is that what this refers to? IMHO, we should limit this list to calibers which use the AR-15 action; IIRC the pistol calibers are blowback actions which I suppose are okay too. Otherwise we could always include the top-break 37mm chambering. Boris B 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are both semi-auto and bolt-action AR-15 uppers available. CynicalMe 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rare calibers?

Any feelings about what calibers should be listed? I can think of a ton, but some use actions other than gas-impingement, some are for obsure (and probably ephemeral) cartridges, and some are from semi-custom manufacturers. E.g.:

Tromix AR's are available in the following calibers: 17 Mach IV, 17 Remington, 20 Tactical, 204 - Ruger, 223 Remington, 6mm PPC, 30 Carbine, 338/39, 440 CorBon Mag, 458 SOCOM, 475 Tremor, 50 Action Express. Discontinued calibers: 44 Rem Mag and 44 Auto Mag.

Currently chambered AR-15 /M-16 uppers from SSK are: 17 Remington, 221 Fireball, 222 Remington Magnum, 6/223, 6 MM WHISPER®, 6.5 MM WHISPER®, 7MM Whisper®, 458 SOCOM, 20 TACTICAL 222 Remington, 223 Remington, 6 MM PPC (JDJ), 6.5 MM PPC (JDJ), 7 MM TCU, 300 WHISPERR® .

AR-Uppers Styled by Teppo Jutsu: .458 SOCOM, 500 Phantom, .338 Spectre Cartridge Boris B 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't forget 5.45mm --Pyrewyrm (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I put a link in the exteranl links section to my ar-15 website - ar-15forums.com, it has been removed. However links to other commercial websites remain, why? My ar-15 website does not sell anything, except for google ads, other sites such as www.ar15.com are very commercial with ads and banners all over them. If my link was removed, I ask that the link to www.ar15.com, which is a commercial site also be removed. --21kev 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Much like your AK-47 link, this appears to be a pure attempt to get people to go on your board. I'd say this is against the rules, but I'm too lazy right now to track down the right one.--Asams10 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is dedicated to the AR-15, notice the name - ar-15forums.com - its a discission board about the ar-15 rifle among other things. I can not help it if ar15.com has what, 10 years of traffic on my site? --21kev 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing word?

In the section titled "Legal Status in the United States", the article says "The 2000 Assault Weapons in the state of California sparked a renewed interest in the AR-15 rifle." Was this supposed to say "The 2000 Assault Weapons Ban"? 24.6.66.193 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Magazine Picture

That magazine picture does not belong in the Operating mechanism section. I made a separate section called Magazines in this article but it was removed. I don't think that is a good solution. What do you guys think? Igor at work 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More Info on AR-15 Clones

Since the current California ban on AR-15 by make and manufacturer gunsmiths found ways around it by making "Clones" of the original AR-15. To get around the law they change the name of the gun to something like FAR-15 (Fulton Arms). The gun is made to the same specs as original ar-15 and the only thing different is the engraving on the side. These rifles are getting really popular in California. I have some really good reference photos of these and I think a section discussing these "clones" would be valuable. Before creating it, I wanted to see what is the general opinion as to the value of such info. Igor at work 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting animation

Bushmaster Firearms have recently redone their website and added this great interactive AR-15 animation. If you haven't seen it already, have a look. Hayden120 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AR-15 used in recent shooting in Wisconsin

Would it be relevant to mention here in the article the recent shooting in WI, where the perpetrator used his police service AR-15 rifle? Or have those rifles been used in lots of shooting sprees over the years, so that a mention isn't warranted in single events? --Wernher 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:GUNS#Criminal use. Unless some notable effect comes out of this shooting it shouldn't be included.--LWF 13:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your other question an AR-15 type weapon are quite popular making them for use in alot of crimes ForeverDEAD 23:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded from below. The AR15/M16/M4 platform is just as rarely used in crime as the .50BMG rifle systems.

the use of the weapon would be notable in the article about the shooting, but it dind't significantly change the image of the AR-15, so per the guideline, I would say that it isn't notable in this article --Boris Barowski 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the FBI's yearly Uniform Crime Report, rifles and shotguns are rarely used in crimes. Small caliber, cheap, easily-concealable, poorly made handguns like Bryco and Jennings seem to be the guns that pop up most frequently in violent crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.94.110 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spec is wrong

Under the specs of the AR15 firearm, it states the rate of fire is 800 RPM (rounds per minute).

Cartridge .223 Remington, 5.56 NATO Action Direct impingement / Rotating bolt Rate of fire 800 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s) Effective range 550 m (600 yd) Feed system Various STANAG Magazines. Sights Adjustable front and rear iron sights

This information is incorrect for AR15 firearms. AR-15's are semi automatic firearms (not full auto machineguns) meaning 1 round fired for each pull of the trigger. This should be edited and changed to remove that information altogether if it's going to be incorrect. Any reference to full auto weapon rate of fire should be used with the M16 series of firearms because they are different.

It could probably be argued about a technique called "bump firing" of a semi auto which means that the grip of the firearm is modified so that the recoil helps facilitate pulling the trigger faster, but is dangerous to use in this manner and not recommended by any AR15 manufacturer and the likelihood that anyone could bump fire 800 rounds per minute is not even remotely possible.

Thanks for your consideration, John A3 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DOT DOT DOT Ok breaking the discussion here to cut this off because there is confusion about how the cyclic rate is defined. Cyclic rate is the maxim rate of cycle without other variables (such as time spent reloading, aiming, etc)... Therefore, a semi-auto can still have a cyclic rate of 800 rpm. But in real life, its unlikely most human beings could continue to load a M16A1 at the speed needed to meet the 800 rpm... Assuming a magazine lasts 2.3 seconds, one minute would be some 26 magazines... Now, IF you could reload every magazine in one second, that's half a minute (nearly) spent just reloading to shoot the 26 mags that would make the roughly 800 rounds you would have to shoot to hit the 800 rpm cyclic rate. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The original AR-15 prototype was the predecessor to the M16 and was fully-automatic. The introduction even states, "The original ArmaLite/Colt AR-15 was a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle, which was later adopted as the M16, and is distinguished from later civilian-model AR-15 rifles marketed by Colt Firearms. Currently, AR-15 is a generic term for a civilian semi-automatic rifle similar to the military M16/M4-type weapons." Hayden120 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean it can fire 800 rounds per minute? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the original prototype could. The confusion is being caused by the fact that 'AR-15' now often refers to civilian semi-automatic-only rifles. AR-15s can still come in fully-automatic, but only for LE/Military. Both the M4 and M16 are AR-15 type rifle designs. Hayden120 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But if I go to the local gun shop and ask for an AR-15, I'm not going to get one that can fire 800 rounds per minute. The article is being misleading by casting that as the statistic for all AR-15s, and if it mentions that statistic at all, it should be done so in a way that makes it clear that it only applies to the original military version that became the M16. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are going to get 800 rpm, you're just not going to be able to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. That you can't get one shot per pull of the trigger has absolutely no affect on the weapon's cyclic rate. This is determined by how fast the action moves and resets. Semi-automatic weapons still have a cyclic rate, despite being restricted mechanically to one shot per pull of a trigger. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Marine, and I've fired an M16, and currently carry an M4. Neither one shot full automatic (safe, fire, three-round burst), and I've been led to believe they aren't issued, at least not to us (I believe a full-auto M4 is issued to SEALs). I've also fired an AR-15, which have safe and auto. It is possible to make an unauthorized and likely illegal modification to an AR-15 to allow it to fire full automatic, not to mention possible to obtain the parts. A fully automatic AR-15 is not beyond the scope of probability, if these modifications were done by someone who knew what they were doing. --Johnny (Cuervo) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully automatic M16s have been issued in the past (M16/A1) and continue to be issued (M16A3). The M4A1 is also issued. Many civilian "AR-15s" were converted to have this capability legally prior to the 1986 machine gun ban, and a number of registered drop-in-auto-sears (RDIAS) and similar components were also constructed prior to the ban, again legally. These weapons and components are still in civilian circulation, and can be transfered under current laws between private citizens, again legally (albeit with various restrictions, mainly state law dependent). That a weapon has this functionality still does not have an effect on the cyclic rate, which can be used to determine a rate of fire, regardless of a weapon's ability to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I made the "likely illegal" assumption based on the now-defunct (?) assault weapons ban, and, of course, making assumptions... :-) In any case, the cyclic rate, I believe, is based on the theoretical maximum of the weapon, not the finger. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (Btw, the "likely illegal modification" involved filing down the sear... I've just Googled it, and as the information is common knowledge regardless, feel no regret mentioning it here.) --Johnny (Cuervo) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns Section

These three paragraphs are nothing but a rambling 223 Remington versus 5.56 NATO debate, as though every rifle a Wikipedia user is likely to come across isn't already chambered for both rounds, very minor differences. Maybe grandpa's old military issue 1958 vintage Armalite AR-15 could cause a slamfire under proper conditions, so can a broken AK-47, so what's the point of mentioning this? The variants section also seems unnecessary, maybe a quick mention that sportsmen and dealers have custom manufactured the usually 5.56x45mm AR-15 rifles to fire everything from 7.62x39mm to 9mm Luger pistol rounds. In fact I own a Chinese made civilian AK-47 that shoots 5.56x45mm instead of the regular 7.62x39mm! Don't need to mention that under AK-47. It's already mentioned that the AR-15 was developed from an earlier (1954-1955?) AR-10 7.62x51mm version, so other calibers really don't need to be listed, I mean this varients section takes up a quarter of the AR-15 page. Someone looking for basic AR-15 info better look elsewhere. Really this whole page is a mess, I'm not qualified to fix much of this since I don't even have a user name, plus I'm hesitant to claim expertise over many of the other writers, but I do know I didn't come here to view a long list of bullets over AR-15 info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.6.196 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs: quantity over quality

I just wanted to comment on the number of "references" that have been added recently, and suggest that someone (perhaps myself later) should cull from the list those that are not entirely appropriate. Links to firearms dealers and gun auction websites in my mind do not necessarily provide an adequate reference. This reference is in fact cyclical, being a copy and paste job of an earlier version of the wikipedia article itself. I would suggest that the user who added these did so without properly examining the quality or adequacy of the content. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But some, history of Armalite[1], for example, probably aren't available anywhere else. Info from the manufacturers is probably more reliable than random dealer or auction sites, anyhow. Also, use of tertiary sources is not ideal, but I suppose they'll suffice in absence of better sources. But it's good this article is getting some attention, thank you, Xp54321. --tc2011 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Remove any refs you guys don't like.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that things like the Armalite history pages on their website are great. I'd also like to say that I'm all for adding more references to articles in general, and I think Xp54321 has taken great initiative there. I may add some other ones later when I get a chance. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I hope you have guys have some good books as well. Using google means only about 1-2 links on a google search results page will be good refs.:( It took forever to find anything.Even then the quality wasn't that good......--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pistol Grip

I am of the opinion that 24.255.175.182's edit is correct, insofar as a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously" is the norm. The expired law in question may have defined it as an accessory, but common usage and understanding is that the pistol grip is the norm (i.e., a standard characteristic of the AR-15, not simply an accessory), and that thumb hole stocks etc. are atypical. Thatguy96, what do you think, would you mind reverting to 24.255.175.182's edit? What do others think? --tc2011 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that understand is perfectly fine, but there are AR-15s without the pistol grip. Thumb hole stocks and other replacement items should be included somewhere in the text. Its obvious from the wording that whoever added it go the text from the AWB. That's the only document I know of that cares at all about anything "protruding conspicuously below" anything else. All of this should be included for clarity, and the replacement non-pistol grip options included as accessories. Why all the accessories are in the opening section is beyond me as well. I think it highlights that someone should come in here and do a lot of work on this page that I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination for. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro refers to 'standard' AR-15s. The AWB has not been in force for several years now and non-pistol grips for an AR are far from standard these days. I see your point though, so I moved the whole line to the history section. It (much like the intro) does not look very clean there, but seemed to make more sense as this is now in the past.--24.255.175.182 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I think that the section about the pistol grip should be scrapped. The AWB is in the past and, as noted above pistol grips are the norm on AR-15's, not to mention the fact that they're not something that can be easily discarded as they hold the selector detent in place. The sentence really doesn't fit anywhere else, so if nobody objects within the next few days I'm going to delete it. Pjones (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think it should remain in place. There are still "post-ban" rifles out there, and at least California still bans the characteristic feature. For the article to identify what's in common use is appropriate, I think. --tc2011 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How about moving it to the section on "Legal Status?" Pjones (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pistol grip is a characteristic feature of the rifle. I guess some mention of it being banned might be mentioned in under "Legal Status," but I think the pistol grip should be included in the leading description. --tc2011 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Pjones (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the pistol grip to "notable features" and moved the info on the AWB restriction to the "legal restrictions" section. Pjones (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much information?

When installing a new complete upper receiver, particularly one designed to handle a different caliber of ammunition (i.e. other than .223 Remington or 5.56 x 45 mm NATO), some modification to the contents of the lower receiver may also be required, depending on the particular conversion. For example, a conversion to 9mm typically would involve the installation of a magazine well block (to accommodate a typical 9mm magazine, such as Uzi or Colt SMG), replacing the .223 hammer with one designed for 9mm ammunition, and depending on the original stock, replacing the buffer, action spring and stock spacer with those designed for the new 9mm AR-15 configuration.

Early models had a 1:14 rate of twist, which was changed to 1:12 for original 55 grain (3.6 g) bullets. The 1:14 rate of twist was shown to be unstable at lower temperatures. Most newer configurations use 1:9 and 1:7 twist rates. There is much controversy and speculation as to how differing twist rates affect ballistics and terminal performance with varying loads, but heavier projectiles tend to perform better with faster rifling rates. Additionally, the various non .223 / 5.56 calibers have their own particular twist rate, such as 1:10 for 6.8x43mm SPC and 7.62x39mm, and 1:12 for .308 Winchester.

These two particular paragraphs seem to be somewhat out of place. Would it be possible to move some of the information about the history of the rate of twist and its change to the history section and possibly get rid of some of the other items not related to the .223/5/56 configuration?

Also, the list of calibers seems to be a bit excessive. Does anybody else think that it should be trimmed down to the more common calibers (5.56, 7.62 Soviet, 5.45, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .22 LR)? Pjones (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, really, NO. While it could have been presented in a far more professional manner, the list of available calibers was EXACTLY what I was looking for, and having to go over the history log one entry at a time as a waste of my time, so I quit looking. ¿Why come here to get information when I can get it somewhere else? 71.34.68.186 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON, who only asks dumb questions because he knows he answers already.

the Ammunition and Manufacturers sections make up half the article by page space and neither section add any real pertinent information to the article itself. nominate to remove both sections. indy_muaddib (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hand, those two sections are taking up over half the page space now. I suggest culling them to the really major manufacturers and calibers, e.g. ArmLite, Bushmaster, DPMS, etc. and .223 rem, 5.56 NATO, .308 win, etc. If no one objects I'll do this in about a week. — DanMP5 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done — since there were no objections. — DP⁵ 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Folding stock

The article states that the AR-15 is available with a vast number of modifications including a folding stock. However, due to the necessity of a buffer spring and buffer spring tube, the AR-15 is not compatible with any sort of folding stock system. It is compatible with a variety of fixed and collapsing stocks, but not with a folding stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.52.245 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

¿Why is this the only weaps article with a “Criticism” section? (I had to have it hammered through my head a little that there were no others.) There is no reason to criticism one, if not all equally. I understand the issue is using 5.56MM in the .223 cal chambered guns, but that would be better dealt with either as a blub in any weap therein chambered, or strictly in the .223 cal article (the same would apply to using .357 in a .38 weap).71.34.68.186 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC) A. REDDSON