Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
HISTORY
INVENTIONS
Q:
Who invented the M16 rifle?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Eugene Morrison Stoner is credited with inventing the American M16 while working as chief engineer for ArmaLite. The M16 became the standard-issue assault rifle of the U.S. military in 1963.
CONTINUE READING
KEEP LEARNING
[paste:font size="4"]LEARN MORE ABOUT INVENTIONS
Sources:
nytimes.com
en.wikipedia.org
I've done a bit of research on the AR15 today. Some of the things I thought were wrong. However, the fact that the AR 15 is a slightly modified clone of the military M16 assault rifle has not changed. We don't need military assault rifles on the street. even those that are slightly modified
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
Who's "We"? You gotta mouse in your pocket?
No, that's not a mouse, but I didn't expect you to be staring at my crotch anyway. We is the citizens of the US.
No, it's just and your non-common-sense opinion. Dismissed!
QU Poll Release Detail
Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:
AR-15 was the prototype to the M-16. The AR-15 didn't have a forward assist assembly and the Army wouldn't buy it. A forward assist assembly was added, the Army bought it and the AR-15 was re-designated M-16 because Army weapons have an M preceding the number. I was issued one of the first M-16s in July 1965.Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
Bottom line, the AR15 is the same design as an M16 with the multiple fire disabled. The US military chose that design as it's goto combat weapon. If it's just like any other semiauto, why did the military pick that particular design over any other simiauto?
Dip shit.....a semi auto rifle takes a magazine, and fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger without having to manually reload after every single shot.......every single semi auto rifle......the AR-15 is no different from any of those other rifles...which is why you want to ban it...if you get the AR-15 that gives you the momentum to go after every other rifle and pistol that also takes a magazine and fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger...and that is your goal.....
The AR-15 is a civilian rifle, that the police also use....it is no different than any other rifle that is also a semi auto rifle....or a semi auto pistol.....
They picked the look of the rifle because it was the cheapest contract......the government bought it......you are such a doofus...
If it is no different, why are you so adamant that it is needed? The AR is a slightly modified clone of the M16. It's not the same as any other simi.
And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?If it is no different, why are you so adamant that it is needed? The AR is a slightly modified clone of the M16. It's not the same as any other simi.
Moron...you know it is exactly the same thing as any other semi auto rifle......the exact same mechanism.....which is why you need to get it banned......then you can come back and state the other rifles need to go too......and the pistols......
You morons have already stated on various threads that you want all semi auto weapons banned....you let the truth out.....we already knew it, but the uninformed didn't know....
Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Moron...you know it is exactly the same thing as any other semi auto rifle......the exact same mechanism.....which is why you need to get it banned......then you can come back and state the other rifles need to go too......and the pistols......
You morons have already stated on various threads that you want all semi auto weapons banned....you let the truth out.....we already knew it, but the uninformed didn't know....
Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoAnd you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
No, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
I've done a bit of research on the AR15 today. Some of the things I thought were wrong. However, the fact that the AR 15 is a slightly modified clone of the military M16 assault rifle has not changed. We don't need military assault rifles on the street. even those that are slightly modified
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
Who's "We"? You gotta mouse in your pocket?
No, that's not a mouse, but I didn't expect you to be staring at my crotch anyway. We is the citizens of the US.
No, it's just and your non-common-sense opinion. Dismissed!
QU Poll Release Detail
Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:
You post that poll as if it is important.....the people who said yes have no idea what they are saying yes too........the pollster lies to the uninformed and gets that number....try telling them the truth and then tell us what that number is.
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
You have to take in consideration of the root of the problem which is the angle of the dangle. Solved that real quick.Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
Paddock would have been able to kill and injure the same amount of people with an automatic shotgun?
Here is the REAL gun issue in the US:
I'm asking you.And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Moron...you know it is exactly the same thing as any other semi auto rifle......the exact same mechanism.....which is why you need to get it banned......then you can come back and state the other rifles need to go too......and the pistols......
You morons have already stated on various threads that you want all semi auto weapons banned....you let the truth out.....we already knew it, but the uninformed didn't know....
Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoAnd you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
No, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Moron...you know it is exactly the same thing as any other semi auto rifle......the exact same mechanism.....which is why you need to get it banned......then you can come back and state the other rifles need to go too......and the pistols......
You morons have already stated on various threads that you want all semi auto weapons banned....you let the truth out.....we already knew it, but the uninformed didn't know....
Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
AR-15 was the prototype to the M-16. The AR-15 didn't have a forward assist assembly and the Army wouldn't buy it. A forward assist assembly was added, the Army bought it and the AR-15 was re-designated M-16 because Army weapons have an M preceding the number. I was issued one of the first M-16s in July 1965.So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
Bottom line, the AR15 is the same design as an M16 with the multiple fire disabled. The US military chose that design as it's goto combat weapon. If it's just like any other semiauto, why did the military pick that particular design over any other simiauto?
Well, take two folks. Let’s say for modern times so we have one adult woman and one adult male of a rage fitness.
So the task is to arm these folks with a mass produced weapon that they can learn to shoot and maintain With a minimum amount of training. The M16 is a dummy’s weapon. Recoil is a huge issue. Weight, and ease and cost of production was part of it to.
It’s always been the trend in America that the rifle the military issues end up being population civilian sporting weapons. This was the case when muskets were issued just like now.
We have a people problem, not a a gun problem.
That will probably make sense to a gun nut, but not so much for gun owners with common sense.
But see? That’s where you miss it. Responsible gun owners with common sense compleatly get it. They are the ones who own the AR15. Maybe because that was the first rifle they got acquainted with when they did ROTC or joined the military? It’s those who are not responsible and lack common sense who cause all the trouble. 20 years ago it was AK’s. That was the monster under the bed waiting to jump out and eat a litter of deep fried pit bull puppies. There is nothing common sensical about how this conversation is happening.
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoDid the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
No, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....
Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoNo, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Very often that is the case.
In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoNo, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Very often that is the case.
In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoYes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Very often that is the case.
In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.
The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....
I'm asking you.And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire
That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.
If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded
It is not a more effective killing tool than any other .223 semiautoDid the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
No, the M-16 was picked for practical reasons. It is shorter than the M-1 by 4'' (better for going thru jungle) and lighter by 3-4 pounds. ( better for being in hot climate) plus carrying more ammo.)
Yes,those are 2 of the reasons it is a more effective killing tool than other rifles.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?Liar. Post a link to me saying all semiautomatic rifles should be banned, or admit you are full of shit.
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
Wrong...the AR-15 never saw combat...the select fire version...the M-16 has, and the M4 Carbine, but the AR-15 has never been used in war...it is not a war weapon...it is not a select fire weapon.....you can keep lying all you want, you just keep showing us why we can never trust anti gunners...
