3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands...and now the current stock just sold out...

[2aguy]

Yes...Americans understand that the anti gun extremists are nuts.....so...after San Bernadino..where 14 unarmed people in a gun free zone were killed by 2 muslims with guns....in a gun free zone....Americans bought out the entire stock of AR-15s...

Post San Bernardino Gun Sales Surge Drains U.S. AR Supply - The Truth About Guns

TTAG’s reached out to some of this country’s largest firearms wholesalers and learned that the sales channel is dry. AR’s they ain’t got. And no wonder. IWI US’s VP of Sales & Marketing, Michael Kassner, tells TTAG that IWI’s sold thousands of Tavors over the weekend. Folks, that’s a $2k rifle. You can imagine how many low-end AR’s are finding new homes in the rush to tool-up against terrorism, further fueled by the assault media’s decision to come out of the gun confiscation closet, ahead of Hillary Clinton’s potential election. There’s a lag between wholesaler supply and what you see at your local gun store. That means . . .

you’ll still see guns on the shelves for the time being. But for how long?

 

[Lakhota]

That will be sad - when they're all banned.

 

[Auld Phart]

That will be sad - when they're all banned.

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

 

[Pete7469]

Assault media...

I like that.

 

[Lakhota]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

 

[candycorn]

Eventually all of that impotent testosterone and frustration over their way of life becoming a thing of the past will be a public health concern.

 

[MikeK]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

 

[bucs90]

That will be sad - when they're all banned.

Who is gonna take 3.7 million assault rifles away???

 

[bucs90]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

 

[Old Rocks]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson. And if you are caught off your property with one of the assault weapons without that license, you get a felony conviction and all your guns confiscated and destroyed. Also, a three month waiting period to purchase a gun, whether private or commercial sale. And if you sell a gun without the paper work, same thing, felony conviction, and all your weapons are confiscated and destroyed, and you never can own another firearm. Not only that, if you do said sell, without the paperwork, and the gun is used in a crime, you own that crime.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

I bet you're just gagging for it - the break down of society. So you can fulfil your wet dream of being a weekend warrior....

 

[Old Rocks]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

And when you croak, your descendants are going to look at your arsenal, and wonder what the crazy old fart was thinking. I have 100 brass, and the makings of about the same number for my primary hunting rifle, that will more than likely last me the rest of my life. I really don't plan on going to war.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

The world's most popular weapon of war.

 

[Auld Phart]

They will either be banned or magazine capacity severely reduced. Duck hunters can only have 3 shells in gun at a time.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson. And if you are caught off your property with one of the assault weapons without that license, you get a felony conviction and all your guns confiscated and destroyed. Also, a three month waiting period to purchase a gun, whether private or commercial sale. And if you sell a gun without the paper work, same thing, felony conviction, and all your weapons are confiscated and destroyed, and you never can own another firearm. Not only that, if you do said sell, without the paperwork, and the gun is used in a crime, you own that crime.

I think the proper thing is to simply apply the same laws to them as to the .45 Thompson.

Why?

ARs, unlike the old Thompson, is not full auto.

Which is why the Thompson has the laws covering it's ownership it does.

 

[Lakhota]

They should be melted down to make something useful.

 

[bucs90]

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

I bet you're just gagging for it - the break down of society. So you can fulfil your wet dream of being a weekend warrior....

Ha. Not even close. It's why I'm voting conservative.

If society collapses....no more air conditioning or Whole Foods...2 things I just can't live without. And...no more football, which would be traumatic for me.

We don't want American society to collapse. It's why we are so anti liberal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes...Americans understand that the anti gun extremists are nuts.....so...after San Bernadino..where 14 unarmed people in a gun free zone were killed by 2 muslims with guns....in a gun free zone....Americans bought out the entire stock of AR-15s...

Post San Bernardino Gun Sales Surge Drains U.S. AR Supply - The Truth About Guns

TTAG’s reached out to some of this country’s largest firearms wholesalers and learned that the sales channel is dry. AR’s they ain’t got. And no wonder. IWI US’s VP of Sales & Marketing, Michael Kassner, tells TTAG that IWI’s sold thousands of Tavors over the weekend. Folks, that’s a $2k rifle. You can imagine how many low-end AR’s are finding new homes in the rush to tool-up against terrorism, further fueled by the assault media’s decision to come out of the gun confiscation closet, ahead of Hillary Clinton’s potential election. There’s a lag between wholesaler supply and what you see at your local gun store. That means . . .

you’ll still see guns on the shelves for the time being. But for how long?

Cant help but wonder if Obama is getting a commission from Colt, Glock and Smith and Wesson.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They should be melted down to make something useful.

Like a new brain for you Dhimmicrat dementos?

roflmao

 

[bucs90]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

And when you croak, your descendants are going to look at your arsenal, and wonder what the crazy old fart was thinking. I have 100 brass, and the makings of about the same number for my primary hunting rifle, that will more than likely last me the rest of my life. I really don't plan on going to war.

Yeah it probably will. Hope it does. I like having plenty of ammo while I can afford to buy it. AND I hardly have an "arsenal". An AR and AK. 2 shotguns. 3 pistols. 1 bolt rifle. Modest collection. Lots of ammo though.

 

[bucs90]

Why?

Because they look dangerous?

I believe that either is the main reason or has a lot to do with it. Resemblance to the M-16, which is seen in all contemporary war movies imparts a certain macho mystique to it.

I'm a relic from the M-1 Garand era, which was one hell of a weapon. Big and heavy, but it will take out an adversary right through a cinder block wall at 500 yards. But the present ideal is light weight and Buck Rogers imagery.

I've never seen an AR-15, which closely resembles the M-16 and probably accounts for its popularity. Based on all I've read and heard about both weapons my preference inclines to the AK-47, which is very sturdy, extremely reliable -- even in wet, sandy conditions, and is relatively simple to disassemble and clean. Plus a good AK-47 is priced at around $400, while an AR-15 costs $1,500. I don't know how much an M-16 costs but it must be around $2,000.

I'll be interested in hearing from those who have hands-on knowledge of all three of these weapons. Which is the better weapon, and why?

I have one of each. If society collapsed and I could only head to the hills with 1....no question it's the AK47. Never breaks. Never needs cleaning. Fires a 2x larger bullet. And...it eats the cheapest steel cased ammo you can buy... $4 for 20 rounds...and loves it. I can by 100 rounds for $15 in bulk packs every time I'm in the store and never hurts the budget. Have a great supply stocked up now. About 8 spare mags. Give me the AK any day over the AR.

The world's most popular weapon of war.

And for good reason. It's the Honda of fighting rifles. Extremely dependable and efficient. Nothing flashy. Easy to use.