Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 1

The semi-auto AR-15 is NOT a select-fire M16
Whether deliberate or not this article confuses the semi-auto AR-15 and the select-fire M16. This may cause less knowledgeable readers to believe that the semi-auto AR-15 is a machinegun. I think we should briefly refer to the AR-15 being a semi-auto version of an M16 at the beginning of the article. Then move all M16 and machinegun references to a new section at the end of the article, or removed them altogether. The main body of the article should have no mention of an "800 rpm rate-of-fire", “Drop In Auto Sears”, “Lighting-Links”, or “Machinegun Conversions”, etc...except at the end of the article in the proposed NFA/Class 3/machingun section. I would be happy to make these changes myself...But I will not do so unless there is a serious consenus to do it...And, I have multple users who would be willing to back me up...We should also divide this article into two separate articles one devoted ONLY to the select-fire ARMALITE AR-15 and the other devoted ONLY to the semi-auto COLT AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

short bolt conversions do exist, usually for pistol caliber conversions. the short bolts allows the use of an internal recoil system, bypassing the buffer assembly altogether. because of the lack of a buffer a folding stock can be installed. indy_muaddib (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2010 (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. &mdash; Dan MP5  13:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the AR-15 was not derived from the M16. It is the other way around. The AR-15 was created by Armalite who then sold the rights of the system to Colt Firearms. In turn Colt proceeded to sell the idea to the U.S. Military, who in turn bought the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAngle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (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.

Wrong it is feet. LOOK IT UP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.163.82 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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
 * Leave it in and include other manufacturers
 * 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)


 * But as a ‘general’ rule, if it’s legal in CA it’s legal everywhere throughout the US (and many other countries). This is NOT an absolute, but in this case, it would be legal everywhere.

The Legal section for Australia reads terribly. Semi automatic rifles are not banned outright in Australia; their ownership is just heavily restricted, and while regular sporting shooters or hunters cannot own them, primary producers and professional hunters can under the appropriate permit. I'll rework the entry. 58.167.40.86 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (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)


 * ¿WHERE? Show one example of a semi-auto .5Ø caliber AR-15 upper receiver.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Andering J. REDDSON

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)

In addition, there is .500 Beowulf, .502 Thunder Sabre --Pyrewyrm (talk) 22:12, 15 October 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)

Magazines are intergral to the operation of any magazine fed weapon and should be considered part of the operating mechanism. Just as poor replacement bolts or badly staked gas keys can result in consistant malfunctions, so can a bad magazine. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (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. 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 TalkContrib 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 TalkContrib 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)


 * Just to chime in here - Dachannien was way off the mark, as was the person who originally complained here. AR15 rifles are available in selective fire, but semi-automatic versions are produced for sale to civilians. Bushmaster et al all make fully automatic AR15 rifles for sale to law enforcement and military customers. The fact that many people can't legally obtain these doesn't mean the article shouldn't describe them. 118.208.155.113 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyclic rate (rounds per minute) is valid for machineguns; it is not valid for semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15, and may not even be valid for select fire assault rifles like the M16. For generations (40+ years), "AR-15" referred to the semi-auto-only version of the M16.
 * Armalite first developed the AR-15 as a selective fire service rifle. When manufacturing was assigned to Colt for the military version adopted as the M16, Colt began using the AR-15 model designation for the semi-auto only version for hunting, service rifle competition, and law enforcement applications. Since the mid-1960s, it has been customary to refer to the select fire version as M16 and the semi-auto version as AR-15.
 * In military reference books (such as W.H.B. Smith "Small Arms of the World") cyclic rate of fire is the speed of operation in full-automatic fire. Theoretically, the number of rounds that could be fired in one minute with a one minute ammo supply. Realisticly, it is the speed of operation of the mechanism. A select fire M16 on full-auto could maintain a cyclic rate of 800 rounds per minute until the (typical) 20 or 30 shot magazine was depleted (for a detachable magazine full-auto weapon, cyclic rate of 800 rpm should be thought of as a cyclic rate of 13.3 rounds per second or a cycle of 1/800th of a minute; only in a cheap action film can one fire 800 rounds from a M16 w/o reloading). While there are belt-feed water-cooled heavy machineguns with linkable belts that could be fired continuously for a minute, in practical terms no assault rifle could be fired continuously for a minute (a) due to time for magazine changes and (b) due to the simple fact they are not designed to handle the heat of firing continuously for a minute. Select fire rifles are designed to handle heating/cooling issues for short bursts of automatic fire only.
 * The cyclic rate of a semi-auto rifle may actually be higher or lower than the cyclic rate of a full auto rifle. In a semi-auto the rate of fire is controlled by the reflex of the trigger finger. Select fire rifles often incorporate rate reducers to make the cyclic rate lower to make the gun controllable on full-auto or to prevent the mechanism from cycling so fast as to produce jams. Since semi-auto rate is dependent of trigger finger reflex, a rate reducer is not necessary in a semi-auto only design. There are differences in M16 and AR15 buffer spring assemblies for that reason (the AK rate reducer is in the fire control group). Naaman Brown (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The specification Cyclic Rate is more descriptive than Rate of Fire, but even that is useless in ref to a semi-auto-only. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerns Section
.223 Remington is the same as 5.56x45 nato is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.163.82 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

.223 Remington is NOT the same as 5.56x45 NATO. The shoulders of the two are slightly different as well as the 5.56 has a higher max breach pressure. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * A .223 can safely be used in a 5.56; A 5.56 can NOT safely be used in a firearm designed for the .223. (It’s very much like the difference between the .38 and .357.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 June 2011 (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, 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. — Dan MP5  00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done — since there were no objections. — <font color="#002FA7">DP <font color="#78866B">5 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean this as nicely as possible, but I think this article suffers from too many 'Fanboys' and has too much overlapping information with regard to the M-16, M-4, and to some degree, the AR-10. In my unsolicited opinion, perhaps the main article should be the M-16 and this AR-15 article only address the difference exhibited by the civilian versions of the rifle?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThornEth (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 May 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)

This gets into what is and is not an AR-15. There are "look-alike" ARs which are not Stoner gas-impingement systems at all, but look like Stoner AR-15s. I am of the opinion that these visual copies belong with the ARs as a side-show, instead of an independent group, since they are not common and are meant as a alteration, much like some of the various of the M1911, such as the series 80. These ARs, for note, generally work off a gas-piston system and have much, functionally, in common with such rifles as the M-14. Due to their internal differences, they are capabile of mounting a folding stock. --98.195.223.130 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

there are a number of short bolt conversions for the AR family, most if not all are for pistol caliber conversions. the bolts length is there to allow it to reach the buffer assembly, it can be much shorter. indy_muaddib (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2011 (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

Unsourced and Inaccurate material in "History"
The article currently says "While a skilled machinist with the proper schematics and equipment could most likely perform such a conversion, this scenario does not fall within the realm of "easily convertible." In fact, many law enforcement officers have publicly stated that they know of no such weapons ever having been confiscated." No source is given for such claims, or to the law enforcement officers making such claims. Through use of a lightning-link or a drop in auto sear, anybody could convert an AR15 (depending on the bolt carrier version) to fully automatic or selective fire. A lightning-link could easily be made by any somewhat handy person. As for claims that no such weapons have been recovered - one of the rifles used in the North Hollywood shootout was an illegally modified AR15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.155.113 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK nobody replied here or made changes, so I'm removing the offending portion.118.208.155.113 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've completed the edit. I substituted this text:
 * The semi-automatic AR-15 and its fully-automatic military cousin, the M-16, though nearly identical in appearance, are quite different internally. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a completely different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of the AR-15 are milled differently from those of the M-16, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done specifically to satisfy BATF requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to fully-automatic. Despite these facts, there remains a widespread public misconception that semi-automatic rifles can be easily converted by criminals to fully-automatic weapons. While a skilled machinist with the proper schematics and equipment could most likely perform such a conversion, this scenario does not fall within the realm of "easily convertible." In fact, many law enforcement officers have publicly stated that they know of no such weapons ever having been confiscated.


 * Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three round burst, depending on model. Civilian AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector. In semi-automatic only variants, the selector only rotates between safe and semi-automatic.
 * The pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock was also considered an accessory feature under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and was subject to restrictions. Some AR-15 were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place.


 * for this text:
 * Semi-automatic AR-15 for sale to civilians and fully automatic versions for sale to law enforcement and military customers, though nearly identical in appearance, are quite different internally. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a slightly different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done specifically to satisfy BATF requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to fully-automatic. Despite this, through use of a "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring slight modification to the bolt carrier.  Such modifications, unless using parts made prior to 1986, are illegal. An illegally converted fully-automatic AR-15 was used in the North Hollywood shootout.


 * Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three round burst, depending on model. Civilian AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector. In semi-automatic only variants, the selector only rotates between safe and semi-automatic. Due to this, weapons modified to fully automatic using a lightning-link are capable of fully automatic fire only unless a fully-automatic fire select switch is substituted.


 * The short paragraph about pistol grips I removed, as it didn't relate at all to the section (perhaps a remnant from a previous version?).118.208.155.113 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraq War Usage
Is the AR-15 used in Iraq? It isn't mentioned in the article. Comments Anyone?--Coffeekid (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Limited numbers have been used by PMCs and the US Military as DMR platforms. These hand-assembled weapons feature high-tolerance parts and, sometimes, free-floated barrels. They are typically flat-tops w/ a modest scope. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos
this article would be improved by providing some historical photos of the original AR 15, and any other early variants, not just modern versionsNfe (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you looking for? The firing diagram appears to depict an A1, there are two photos of SP1s (one 1973 original Colt, another Colt SP1 carbine), the main article picture depicts a rifle with an A2 upper receiver, another photo shows an A3 carbine, and another shows an "M4gery" type rifle with a VLTOR MUR upper.  It seems like the page has a fairly good range of pictures from the AR15 history but kind of lacks the A4/M4 "modern versions."  (Steelerdon (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

use of pronoun "you"
on several occasions the pronoun "you" is used in reference to the gun's capabilities and availability. i.e. "You can also get a barrel with a smaller ratio of boring", "You can also upgrade the firing to with a titanium pin", (the grammar of this sentence doesn't make sense anyway.) Call me a novice, but... is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.216.158 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

differences between the AR-15 and M16A1
I think that the differences between the fully automatic version of the AR-15 and M16A1 should be included in this article. Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I agree that most readers may have misconceptions about the differences and be led to incorrect assumptions by the indistinguishable outward appearance of the two systems shown in photos.Digiphi (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Things that make thing customizable
" There are numerous variants and the rifle is available in as many as 40 different calibers making it highly customizable" In my opinion being available in different forms does not make it customizable, being standar does. I dont know which if ither of these points belongs in the introduction.CombatWombat42 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

AR15s in California
I'm proposing that this section should be broken out into its own article. There's too much information and nuances for this to be contained here, and it needs to be referenced.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

AR-15 alt caliber cleanup
The caliber list needs to be organized. I propose that rifle and pistol calibers be separated and organized by bore size/length. Blackdawn451 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturer list
Do we really need to name every company that produces an AR-15 rifle? I notice many of the companies listed do not have wiki pages, and many of them are not much more than small machine shops (hardly notable by themselves, anyway), and some of them smell of little more than advertising. If there's no responses, I'll let this go for few days before taking unilateral action and slimming down the list.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No comments? OK, its gettin' chopped.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Modifications
There is too much detail here about specific variants and modification kits. The common types of modifications should be concisely described, as is already done in the article. However, a specific list could go on and on for many thousands of words and still not cover what is available. If this subject is important, it should have its own article. At the present time it is almost like a series of advertisements for kits. Dratman (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially since there's a main article (as mentioned at the top of the section). I think a lot of it could be condensed, or simply removed. There's just too much detail there - no need for 5 or more paragraphs.
 * I think one or two paragraphs noting the availability of various barrel lengths, chamberings, stocks, sights, flat-top upper receivers, and rail systems should be perfectly adequate. Any more extraneous detail can go in the main 'AR-15 variants' article.
 * I might add that I have been thinking about doing a similar thing with the "calibers" section, as well. it just looks like hell as it is right now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Top selling
Can a list be compiled of the top selling caliber sizes (after .223/5.56), sort of like cars are ranked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.81.109 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pistol/Rifle legal issues in the "Legal Aspects" section
This entire section needs to be reviewed and rewritten. There is no "once a rifle, always a rifle" policy at BATFE. BATFE ruling 2011-4 makes it quite clear that the Thompson/Center Arms case applies to all long arms, not just TC Contenders.

www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

Further it does not matter if a new ("virgin") receiver is listed as a rifle---or even shipped as an assembled lower receiver assembly, including a shoulder stock---so long as it has not been assembled into a COMPLETE rifle fitted with an upper receiver, barrel, bolt group, etc, then it can be legally assembled into a pistol. BATFE Form 4473s have had the "Receiver" option for several years now, which should be (must be) selected if a stripped lower receiver or partially assembled lower receiver assembly is transferred, since such an item would be neither a rifle nor a pistol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.62.58 (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"High capacity" magazine
The term high capacity, when applied to a magazine of 30 rounds, is incorrect. This is the result of the anti gunners lobbying over the past several decades. In proper terms and usage, a 30 round magazine is actually standard. A 20, 10, 5 or other amount less than 30 is actually a low capacity magazine.--Degenret01 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

New gun and hunting laws in Sweden.
Just wanted to point out that as the new laws are being formed the old war-guns ban will be changed this means rifles like AR-15 will be fitted for hunting purposes however hunting associations may still have their own rules forbidding most semi-autos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.109.245 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

lock, this, the rem 870 and the glock article until the denver shooting dies down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.80.123 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sights
The picture of the sights is out of focus. If anyone has a better picture, please upload. --157.98.76.31 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Calibers
I am pleased to see that the calibers section is been restored, but some preface to the effect that the list is not, nor can be absolutely comprehensive to to variant designs, would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.163.79 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New method of Manufacture.
L1A1 FAL keeps removing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15&oldid=516347380 where I introduced home manufacture. He / she cites it as a commercial link.

The referenced link is not commercial but a non-profit initiative who cite a method of manufacturing an AR-15 at home. http://defensedistributed.com/products/

'Printing' the controlled part at home is the point of the referenced article - to circumvent current legislation. The advance of 3D printing technology and the information published by Defense Dist. creates a new means of manufacturing an AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks too commercial to me. Though, if it is an advocacy group instead, I am not sure that is much better. In addition, what makes this notable? How is it any different from producing a lower receiver with machine tools in one's garage or workroom? Do we need to mention that any 'ol Joe can go out and buy a mill and machine one themselves?
 * Are you affiliated with this source?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No I have no affiliation - found the website after reading BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382). http://defensedistributed.com/products/ specifically talks about manufacturing an AR-15. Whether they are commercial / advocacy / non-profit seems irrelevant. If they publish information relevant to wiki topic then can it not be used a reference?.. If a third party article described a method of milling the lower receiver of an AR-15 at home then it too could be referenced.

The project's key focus appears to be circumventing legislation and they use the AR-15 as a specific example. The Wikipedia page lists the manufacturers and then goes on to detail, at length, the global legislation controlling the distribution of the AR-15. Both these sub heading seem directly effected and relevant to the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I will take your word on it for being non-commercial, but I still think the notability of home-made weaponry is questionable. Again, I don't see how it is really any different than someone machining an AR-15 lower in their garage. It's still a way to circumvent firearms legislation, depending on one's intentions.
 * However, if you feel it is absolutely necessary to include this, I think putting it on the main firearms page might be a better idea, especially since this applies to a LOT more than just AR-15's (for example, FN FAL upper receivers, M1 Garand and M1A/M14 receivers, pistol frames, and other usually milled or hammer-forged receivers. Feels like it would fit in more with gunsmithing in general than just on the page for a particular firearm.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you do put this on another page, it might be a good idea to include both it and the original BBC news story about it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gunsmithing may be a more appropriate category though the referenced page is very specific, giving digital blueprints of only this rifle. I guess someone looking up the AR-15 would be interested to know a method of making it at home (by whatever means) exists. I would. It did not cross my mind to refer to the BBC article. It does focus on the printer supplier repudiating the project though, and does not mention gunsmithing or the AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We should leave the link off of any articles other than their own. It is relevant that this has just occurred and indeed there has been some violations. We are not a how-to guide and there doesn't need to be the wrong sort of encouragement here.
 * By that login, teh "how to" section on PUIT manuvers (especially the "how to get out of a pit manever") should be removed. Whcih is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.252 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wylde Chamber?
Why is the information on the Wylde chamber listed under "Malfunction?" If there is a specific malfunction associated with the Wylde chamber, that needs to be made clear in the text. Otherwise, the information on the Wylde chamber should be moved elsewhere in the article. 0x539 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of fully automatic variants
Currently there are two paragraphs at the end of the "history" section that discuss the difficulty and legality of converting an AR-15 to fire fully automatically. These paragraphs are in obvious need of revision. I propose the following.

First, move these paragraphs from history to a new subsection of variants. The fully-automatic conversions cited aren't the first such conversions, they aren't particularly notable technologies, and didn't particularly shape the development or public perception of the AR-15. Hence, this material should be moved from the history section to a more relevant section.

Second, remove statements about the ease of doing a full-auto conversion. Point one- an encyclopedia should not be making subjective judgements as to the ease of the conversion without suitable source material backing it up. The current sources do not make this judgement at any point. Point two- neither of the mentioned full-auto conversions are "easy." To use them, one must identify what kind of rifle internals they have, verify they are compatible, and then adjust the weapon timing to ensure safe operation. Application requires at least an intermediate knowledge of the gun and it's operation, and doing it improperly can result in very dangerous conditions (i.e. your gun can explode). One of the linked sources specifically describes the timing adjustment process as "difficult." Point three- the two conversions mentioned specifically in the current wording (the lightning-link and the drop-in auto sear) are both regulated as fully-automatic weapons under the 1934 NFA and restricted under the 1983 FOPA... thus, no matter how technically simple the conversion might be, acquiring one of these devices starts with months of paperwork and paying thousands of dollars. I don't see how that can be called "easy."

Third, remove extraneous descriptions in this section. Examples of this are "Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. (The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machinegun to include individual components where a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machinegun parts.)" While these are all true statements, they're the same regulations that apply to all machineguns as regulated by the ATF. Thus, these statements should be replaced with simpler language and a link to the relevant articles.

Fourth, properly source the remaining factual statements. The two linked sources appear to be someone's personal website, who is a self-described guns enthusiast.

I will leave this notice here for a few days for interested parties to comment. In particular, this gun is a very hot topic right now, and the exclusion of the "easiness" statement changes the message of the full-auto conversion section. The contradictory language that is there right now indicates some disagreement over this in the past (such as saying the conversion is easy and then immediately following with a statement about how one needs a lathe to make the conversion), so I want to address that disagreement head-on before any edits are made.

128.252.20.193 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done a little research on this edit. First, I have been unable to substantiate most of the factual claims of this section outside of the single already cited source. Unfortunately, this appears to be a hobbyist's website, and is not a reliable source for statements concerning what the ATF believes, and why different manufacturers design guns the way they do (such modifications might be directly meant to prevent modification to fully-automatic, but we cannot assume this is the intent). Furthermore, it appears that manufacturers are actually moving back towards using the M16 style bolt carrier and bolt in order to simply production.


 * The ATF makes no requirement about how difficult it must be to convert a firearm to fully automatic. They do state that a collection of components that can be readily assembled into a machinegun is considered a functioning machinegun, but the test is whether the actual held components are the components of a machinegun. For example, an AR-15 with an M16 bolt carrier and bolt is not considered a machinegun, because no combination of those parts can be used to make a machinegun. In contrast, an AR-15 alongside an autosear does constitute a machinegun because the autosear can be combined with the AR-15 to make a machinegun, even if they are not currently assembled as such. Meanwhile, an autosear by itself (not with an AR-15) does not constitute a machinegun because the autosear by itself is not a firearm. In one more twist, a drop-in autosear (DIAS) by itself IS a considered a machinegun, essentially being considered a full-auto conversion kit.


 * Second, the ATF has published at least one general guideline for the AR-15 within publication ATF P 5300-4 (page 155, in "Information Concerning AR-15 Type Rifles"). The ATF recommends that M16 components not be used in AR-15 to safeguard against the possibility of violating the National Firearms Act (NFA), but does not say that one cannot use M16 parts in an AR-15. They do reiterate the definition of a machinegun under the NFA, which is a firearm capable of firing more than once with a single pull of the trigger. The implication is that M16 parts are not recommended, but legal, so long as one does not actually create a machinegun. This is made explicit in several later requests for clarification (a clarification from 2008 is the most recent I'm aware of, http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf there is an older letter from 2005 for which I am unable to find a good source, but it can be viewed in many forum threads such as at http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=509073 ).


 * The current wording suggests that the AR-15 is made deliberately differently from the M16, but many sources online contradict this. Even if it is true, there are many AR-15 manufacturers which may or may not use M16 parts or make their rifles incompatible with such. Differentiating all the different manufacturers of the AR-15 with respect to their suitability for conversion to fully-automatic is obviously not something relevant to an encyclopedia article.


 * Ultimately this is not a huge part of the AR-15 rifle and shouldn't be that big of a deal on this page. I would propose something like the following wording:


 * "The AR-15 is mechanically different from the military M16 and is not capable of firing fully automatically, despite their similar appearance. The AR-15 can be modified to fire fully automatically, but doing so is nontrivial and regulated the same as the creation of any other automatic firearm."


 * I hesitate to use the word "nontrivial" but the combination of regulatory hurdles and gunsmithing skill necessary really does suggest that converting an AR-15 is not a simple thing. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note use in recent shooting incidents?
"The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, magazine-fed, air cooled, semi-automatic rifle"... NO, it isn't. It is a fully automatic weapon, long out of production.

Considering the examination of this weapon's role in the recent tragedy, and gun control overall, would it be useful to have a section dealing with legal aspects of owning this weapon? Perhaps its use in other shooting incidents, etc? Just wondering. BabyJonas (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for three main reasons:
 * A - Recentism - This just happened and I don't see how part of, or even an entire section can be devoted to the weapon's use in a particular incident.
 * B - I think it falls under WP:UNDUE, as these (semiautomatic rifles/semiautomatic "assault weapons") really are not used in a large proportion of violent crimes overall. There would be a much better rationale for including a section in the MAIN handgun article if anywhere for noting gun violence incidents.
 * C - I think introduction of the section would result in a non-NPOV point of view being introduced into the article.
 * In addition, I think it is worth noting that the North Hollywood shootout (in which among other weapons, several AK-47s were used with dramatic effect) is not mentioned on the AK-47 or AKM pages.
 * My thoughts, take it or leave it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the inclusion of a section in this article that discusses the use of the AR-15 in mass shootings in the US. This was the weapon used by a number of the most notorious assailants in recent tragedies, including the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school assault on 14 December 2012. It is largely as a result of these mass shootings that Congress has begun to debate the validity of whether this weapon, and others like it, should have ownership restrictions placed on them. Here is an All Things Considered interview dated 17 December 2012 with Malcolm Brady, retired assistant director of what was then known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, discussing the use of this weapon in recent mass shootings: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167479065/one-gun-used-in-conn-attack-has-rambo-effect. I think the notorious aspect of this weapon warrants inclusion in this article. --Saukkomies talk  13:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose -- No changes to gun laws have occurred due to the recent mass shootings. It is too early to speculate what the outcome, if any, will be.  Wikipedia policy is not to speculate, but to only include information that is verifiable.  It is too early to know (or verify) what the effect, if any, will be on AR-15 rifles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is information available. This rifle has been the #1 choice among mass murderers in the US in recent years, and is the subject of debate currently in Congress. This is already happening, we don't have to wait for it to happen. Mentioning this controversy should be done in the article, since it is relevant and important to the topic. --Saukkomies talk 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That would violate the guidelines at WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:GUNS, so no we aren't going to do that. This is an encyclopedia, not a Brady Campaign fansite. Enough with the coatracking. ROG5728 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It violates none of those guidelines. The use of this rifle as the weapon of choice among many mass murderers is a well-documented fact. It is not controversial, since it is a factual piece of data that does not draw any conclusions by including it. It also is not violating the NPOV to state this fact, since there is no point of view it favors one way or the other. To NOT mention it is actually violating the NPOV. --Saukkomies talk 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it violates WP:OR because you're speculating about the long term notoriety the weapon will have as a result of this. Second, it violates WP:GUNS because it doesn't meet the notability criteria laid out there. Third, it violates WP:NPOV because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Brady Campaign "weapons of mass murder" gun control blurb. ROG5728 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The massacre of children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., appears to be profoundly swaying Americans’ views on guns, galvanizing the broadest support for stricter gun laws in about a decade, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.


 * As President Obama tries to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass new gun laws, the poll found that a majority of Americans — 54 percent — think gun control laws should be tightened, up markedly from a CBS News poll last April that found that only 39 percent backed stricter laws.


 * The rise in support for stricter gun laws stretched across political lines, including an 18-point increase among Republicans. A majority of independents now back stricter gun laws.


 * Whether the Newtown shooting — in which 20 first graders and 6 adults were killed — will have a long-term effect on public opinion of gun laws is hard to assess just a month after the rampage. But unlike the smaller increases in support for gun control immediately after other mass shootings, including after the 2011 shooting in Tucson that severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the latest polling results suggest a deeper, and possibly more resonating, shift.


 * In terms of specific gun proposals being considered, the poll found even wider support, including among gun owners."


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/poll-shows-school-shooting-sways-views-on-guns.html?_r=0


 * There is no speculation here. The weapon has been used repeatedly in multiple mass murders. The notoriety is irrelevant: this can be stated simply in the article without any opinion or bias. It could be something like this:
 * The AR-15 has been used in multiple occurrences in mass shootings in the US, including the 11 December 2012 shooting in the Clakamas Shopping Mall in Portland, Oregon; the 20 July 2012 shooting in the Century 16 movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado; and the 14 December 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
 * There is nothing in that text that is biased or pushing any agenda. It is simply reporting facts. IF these facts are deliberately kept out of the article, then that action of not reporting them is a violation of the NPOV. Why are you trying to impose censorship on what should be a simple statement of an important aspect of this weapon? You are free to discuss its colors and various options, but you cannot discuss how it is used by criminals? I believe that is a very biased philosophy that does not adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Saukkomies talk 04:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you're speculating about the long term notoriety the weapon will have as a result of this, which is original research. Unless you can establish that notoriety with an actual source that clearly states it (which at this point you obviously can't), then it's also a violation of the guidelines at WP:GUNS. It's far too early to say whether this incident will have a real long term impact on the notoriety of the weapon; it most likely will not. The mere inclusion of something like this in the article (fact or not) is most certainly still a violation of WP:NPOV because it serves to advance an agenda and nothing more. Just because content is "factual" doesn't mean its inclusion in any given article would be neutral. We aren't going to clutter gun articles with "mass murder" blurbs. The WP:GUNS guidelines were created with this kind of nonsense in mind. ROG5728 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Establish notoriety? Cerberus, under pressure from its stockholders after the Connecticut shooting, is ridding itself of Freedom Group!  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/benevolent-billionaires-should-buy-out-bushmaster.html


 * This is not the first nor the second nor the third time in just recent years that this rifle has been used in a mass shooting. There are numerous instances of it being used in this way, stretching back for years. Hardly is this a short-term phenomenon! And yes, most definitely there has been a long-term record of its being used by mass shooters. I will go now and collect an extensive list of all the occasions that the AR-15 has been used in mass shootings, but I want to make note now that the reasons being given for its non-inclusion in the article about this subject are unfounded. --Saukkomies talk 06:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't factuality, it's relevance (and neutrality). It's far too early to say whether this incident will have a real long term impact on the weapon. ROG5728 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which incident are you refering to? The incident last Friday was only the latest in a long series of incidents in which this weapon has been used in a mass shooting. The first dates back several years. The attempt at preventing the mention of this rifle as being the weapon-of-choice of mass murderers is nothing more than a biased perspective - it is a violation of the NPOV. --Saukkomies talk 19:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any verifiable references claiming that AR-15 rifles have been, or even are, a weapon of choice for mass murderers. Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't use one. Neither did Charles Manson. Neither was it the weapon of choice for Jim Jones. Neither was it used in Austin, TX, from the clock tower, as I recall. Nor in Bath, MI. Between dynamite, fertilizer bombs, kool-aid, and a host of other weapons that have been used by mass murderers, and in just the sheer numbers of body counts, the use of AR-15 variants is actually quite rare. I agree with ROG5728 in that it is entirely too early to speculate on anything regarding AR-15 rifles, which, I should point out, wasn't even what was used at Newtown. The rifle used there was a Bushmaster XM-15, which is noticeably different than a Colt AR-15. The XM-15 Bushmaster rifle also wasn't even an assault weapon by CT law. By the sheer numbers of dead, I would think that the weapon of choice for mass murderers is actually explosives, and not firearms at all. I certainly don't understand any attempt to pin the weapon-of-choice of mass murderers title to the Colt AR-15 rifle, especially in the absence of verifiable references. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First: I suppose when you say that you haven't seen a "verifiable source", you are not refering to the NPR interview that I referenced above in this very thread, in which former director of the ATF said specifically that the AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass murderers. It would help in this discussion if you could follow along.
 * Second: The reasons that Timothy McVeigh didn't use the AR-15 are because 1) he didn't use a rifle, he used a bomb, and 2) the AR-15 was not a legal firearm for non-military people to own until 2004. The reason Jim Jones didn't use it was because he used Kool-Aid. He did, however, have his thugs armed with M-16s when they attacked Congressman Ryan's party at the runway, but that was not in the US - it shouldn't count. The reason that Charles Manson didn't use the AR-15 in the mass murders he orchestrated in the 1960s is already noted above.
 * Are you serious? If you read the posts in this thread, you will note that there have already been instances mentioned when the AR-15 was used by mass murderers. All you have to do to verify these instances is to check the Wikipedia article for each one, and you'll find the information there in front of you.
 * Since the AR-15 was made legal for the US consumer to own in 2004, sales of this weapon have gone through the roof, and it has become the weapon used by most of the criminals involved in mass murders since then. Verifiable facts have already been mentioned in this thread about several such instances, and I am getting further data together to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone who is objective and is unbiased. However, it is my suspicion that you and others who are so adamantly objecting to this fact being mentioned in the article are anything but objective and neutral on this subject, regretably. --Saukkomies talk 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The AR-15 is the "weapon of choice" for millions of Americans who use it for hunting, sport shooting, and self defense, but you don't see that mentioned in the article either. Actually, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and it's almost never used in homicides. Actually, as that article points out, rifles as a whole are very rarely used in homicides. Face it, you're not going to slant this article with Brady Campaign talking points. By the way, I'd like to point out that your comments about AR-15 availability/sales/usage are also completely wrong. The rifle used by Lanza in this shooting was completely legal during and before the 1994 AWB, and even if it hadn't been legal he would have achieved the same results with a handgun. The most deadly shooting in U.S. history was perpetrated with a handgun, after all, not a so-called "assault rifle". ROG5728 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There you go, ROG. That's better. Now we're having an intelligent discussion about this. --Saukkomies talk 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited NPR interview does not state the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass murderers -- it just states the AR-15 is the most popular selling semi-automatic rifle sold today, and is very popular with shooters in general. Also, AR-15 legality has nothing to do with civilian vs. military users. AR-15 rifles have always been legal for civilians to buy and own, save in just a few areas due to local restrictions. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the crux of the argument is a question of notoriety of this type of gun in regard to the Newton Massacre, as outlined in WP:GUNS. Here are three articles focusing on this specific gun in connection to the most recent incident (one from a conservative publication, one from a liberal publication, and one from main stream publication) It's not my original research linking this weapon to this recent mass murder, it has already been shown that this is being discussed in the media in major broadcasts (above and mentioned through out the talk discussion). The WP:GUN guide does mention laws being passed due to a gun's major role in violence, but it is not qualification, just that it has to be notably connected to certain events, and I don't know how this gun could be more connected then the national discussion which has already taken place. Moreover, wasn't WP:Guns written by WikiProject? I might be missing something, but I saw the WikiProject site explicitly says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." I think it's very safe to say that this gun's connection to the Newton Massacre is far more notable then anything else listed on this page, which seems to have an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Understanding that this is a heated topic, I propose we mention the use of this weapon in the Newton Massacre, but also mention that this a very popular gun sold in the USA. This way we are not censoring a discussed issue regarding this gun, yet at the same time we are showing the gun itself is popular, so as not to imply violence is more common with this type of gun. If anyone has data on the number of guns sold in the USA vs. other guns, that could help keep the usage information balanced. It also may be useful to mention if this gun is used for a specific shooting competition, etc. to show the large amount of uses, outside of violence. I don't care about the gun debate, but I am interested in how Wikipedia works so I Strongly Agree that the national discussion of this gun in reference to the Newton Massacre should be included. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-firearms-purchases_n_2318599.html
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884#.UN-6ZncsGfa


 * The fact that the gun is being discussed in the media right now doesn't really mean anything. That is always the case following any mass shooting, regardless of what type of gun is used. Why does it matter that the killer used an AR-15 rifle, when he just as easily could have done the same thing using a handgun like the Virginia Tech killer? The brief blurb of media coverage you see right now is irrelevant. If there is any lasting impact on the AR-15 rifle (i.e. some type of legislation), that's notable. But at this point it's far too early to say if anything like that will happen. ROG5728 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rog, thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it. I agree with you, discussion on this event is going to be highest right after the event.  That's generally the case with every event.  But the issue is if something is notable, not when it's notable.  There are a ton of Wikipedia pages about things that were really important in the past, but that we don't talk about much today.  Even though discussion waxes and wanes, we don't just delete history when it's no longer popular.  People makes pages for Dexter episodes right after they air, and yet we aren't having this "popular fading" discussion there, when you know the episode is going to far less important 7 years from now.   I don't see why there is a double standard here, where we have to wait for the discussion to die down, to prove that events are most popular right after they happen.  The "malfunction" section of this page references a case that was never very popular, and decreases in popularity dramatically after it happened, yet it's allowed to exist. Let's not let there be a double standard here, just because the topic is uncomfortable to discuss Robin the Bobbin (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I don't think it's notable that the gun is being discussed in the media right now. As for the argument about what has been done in other Wikipedia pages, other stuff exists. Wikipedia doesn't operate by precedent. Just because something has been done in some other article doesn't mean it should be done here. The same goes for your comment about the "Malfunction" section of this article. This article isn't perfect, you know, and it's certainly possible that there are bits of info in it that aren't needed (but that doesn't mean we should add more of the same). Anyway, I wouldn't call it "deleting history" to not mention the Sandy Hook shooting in this article. So far, it's not an important event in the history of the AR15 because it hasn't affected its legality (or had any other major impact on its history). Remember, this is an article on the AR15; there is a dedicated article for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. ROG5728 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rog, you make a good point, that we could not look at Wikipedia as a complete picture (thus not comparatively) and also that we should not since the site is fallible. You're right that just because we have X there, doesn't mean we need to have Y here.  But I was only trying to respond to the "time" argument, saying that things are (almost always) more popular at the time they happen.  If we put up a test for any event to see if it is as talked about more at the it's own time or later, then there would only be a handful of pages on Wikipedia.  I don't see your time test being very useful or widely used.
 * There is already a site regarding the shooting, and I don't think this should duplicate that information here at all. But the great value of Wikipedia is its cross-referencing.  I think it would be as simple as saying, "The AR-15 was brought to national attention for its use in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting".
 * I do see a dramatic difference in notoriety, where it seems that nothing else on regarding this gun has made national attention except the one discussion of it's misuse. Do you disagree, are the other other aspects on this page discussed more widely at a national level? Or are you saying that nothing on this page is notable and that it should completely be deleted? Robin the Bobbin (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, the main content in the article is directly relevant to the AR15, and that makes it noteworthy. The incident in Connecticut, on the other hand, is not directly relevant because it doesn't really have anything to do with the AR15. It hasn't affected its legality and it remains to be seen if it has any lasting effect on the rifle's history at all. The brief publicity doesn't really matter. Actually, on that note, it seems the media attention directed toward the AR15 has already started to die down considerably. ROG5728 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rog, I'm sorry but I'm really not understanding your viewpoint here. I don't know why you keep bring up that idea that lack of a law created due to this gun is important.  That's an example, not a qualification and it's not even in a binding document.  WP:GUN
 * Of course things are talked about most right after they happen, that's the case with this tragic event as it is with almost every other event that has ever happened. Saying the conversation is dying down is only natural regarding the conversation to any event.  This page is about this type of gun.  But even now there are still articles being written about the connection, like this one that I stumbled across yesterday (written on the 2nd).


 * http://animalnewyork.com/2013/banning-assault-weapons-is-a-band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound/
 * If a series of national news stories focusing on the connection of this type of gun to this specific event over the course of weeks isn't notable, I really don't know what is.
 * Wikipedia is many things, as any encyclopedia should be, discussing history, technical aspects, biographies, etc. I don't think you have the right to say that the gun section is only allowed to have technical information and ignore the other, widely discussed, aspects of encyclopedic knowledge.   The press that this connection has received has already made history (being written about very widely) and I don't see why you're so against the site reflecting that, being that it has far more weight and importance then anything else on this page. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion on the effect of media on peoples opinions of assault weapons should occur at assault weapon or gun politics in the United States. It doesn't look like it is currently covered adequately at assault weapon.  It should not be covered here, since it is not relevant to encyclopedic coverage of the gun. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fact is there are many articles regarding this specific gun, AR-15, in relation to murder. Including from papers of record such as the NY Times, which is cited as a source regularly on this website. These references mention: this gun, it's popularity and the correlation between this gun and murder. Regardless of the legality of this gun, this needs to be mentioned. We have to be objective here, this article mentions users of this gun who uphold the law so it should also mention users of this gun who break the law.
 * As for if these references are just reactionary to the recent killings, the so be it, the proposed content on this subject can be moved to the historical section of the article.
 * Also it seems the people who revert this page are acting in bad faith by trying to muddy the arguments put forward on this talk page with gun control issues. Does Wikipedia have a way of dealing with these people? Timteka (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fact is, even though the AR15 is the most popular rifle in America, it is almost never used in crime according to the FBI. Stop trying to twist reality. ROG5728 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are being disingenuous, many of major news outlets talk about an increase in killings in relation to this gun. Here are preliminary references to 130 murdered in relation to the AR-15:

Timteka (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, in a country of 310 million you were able to come up with a little over 100 people that were murdered with the AR15, and in how many years (or even decades) did that all happen? Way to prove my point. ROG5728 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, IF this POV drivel is allowed to be passed as encyclopedic, one must also include the number of AR-15s legally used in defense. When a thug uses a weapon like this, carnage ensues.  When law-abiding citizens use the same for defense, often the perp isn't shot - he either flees or is arrested.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.253 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone else notice that this debate, while "NPOV" has more or less identified how most people feel on this issue? People who strongly disagree won't openly admit it, but they're against gun restrictions. People who strongly agree won't openly admit it, but they're for gun restrictions. When you cut through their rhetoric that becomes pretty obvious. At least to me it did (I'm sure there ARE exceptions, but I'm guessing this is still true for most of them). Anyways, the gun debates I've seen have included the name of this gun with increasing frequency, to the point where someone such as myself (who is very bad at remembering random things like gun names and numbers) has memorized the name of the AR15. I see people on both sides of the debate on the news, etc. bringing it's name up again and again. Is that a veritable source? No, but frankly, you can say anything through "veritable sources" on this website because almost anything can be twisted or distorted to be a "fact". I don't care what the article ends up including or not including, but I think it's time to admit that this gun is becoming prominent in discussions both on and off the news related to gun control, for better or worse. 67.10.113.37 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose : This motion to add the uses of a AR-15 in crimes is politically motivated. Wikipedia is a objective source of information. There are no Pro firearm statements, statistics or history in this article although several instances of such firearms being used legally can be surfaced and the fact that a few rifles were used in crimes illegally should not motivate editors to insert their bias. 132.3.41.68 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)