[jonathankoren]

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff.

Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2].

[1] http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-ri... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tac...

[runjake]

> the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.)

1. Actually, the .223/5.56mm round has less penetration in residential[1] that most handgun rounds due to its tumbling characteristics.

2. I'd say the AR-15 is impractical for home defense due to its stigma of being an evil black rifle, and that it seems like "overkill" to uneducated people. That's a shame, due to point #1, that it has less drywall/wood penetration than most handgun rounds.

The AR-15 is a pretty useful and relatively economical system, due to its modularity. That said, I agree with a lot of your other opinions regarding elements of the gun/tacticool culture.

[1.] In the drywall/stick-built US, anyway.

[linkregister]

I started to look for sources to refute claim #1, but found several firearms manufacturers' websites that affirmed it. I was pretty shocked.

I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense, since that same search engine query returned many results of state and federal cases where houses football fields away were penetrated by stray .223 rounds. Buckshot won't have the range to maim or kill compared to the NATO 5.56 round.

[defen]

> I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but one thing I've heard from "gun enthusiast" family members is that this is fine if you're imagining an "ideal scenario" of being barricaded in your room waiting for the cops to show up, but it's worth considering what can go wrong - compared to a shotgun, an AR is much easier to operate with one arm (if you just woke up and one is asleep, or you were involved in a struggle that disabled one, or whatever); much less recoil (could be an issue if smaller family members need to use it); faster rate of fire and more rounds available before reloading (in case you miss or there are multiple attackers).

[runjake]

This isn't to confirm or refute your information, but rather some points:

- Houses that were penetrated by stray .223 rounds from football fields (aka multiple hundreds of meters) away probably weren't rounds shot through drywall. Maybe from outdoors, or through a window, who knows.

- .223 rounds that encounter no obstacles in flight have a flat trajectory of about 200 meters (2 football fields). .223 rounds that penetrate any substance of sufficient density have their flight path altered.

- In my limited experience with buckshot (none with residential materials), it's probably going to have a relatively flat trajectory, even through drywall. Something to especially consider if you have other people in your home.

[mapt]

My impression from what I'd read is that nearly anything that's got enough impact energy to penetrate clothing, soft flesh (denim & ballistic gel) and the hard bits of thorax, is going to get through perpendicular drywall very easily.

Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME3IEYoQXc

Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/sh...

[hatsunearu]

>Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:

22LR doesn't tumble.

>Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:

Frangible rounds are usually used so it doesn't ricochet and hurt someone. It just becomes dust when it hits something hard that would normally bounce a bullet.

[mapt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qgQoej5zE

Here's a 223 round going through 10 layers of drywall, a pine 2x4, and six inches of ballistic gelatin afterwards. While tumbling, I'm sure.

[Thriptic]

Mind explaining what you mean by tumbling characteristics?

[hga]

When a long spitzer (pointed) bullet like those used for .223/5.56 NATO rounds changes media, they start doing a 180, that is, tumble, so that the denser rear is in the direction of travel.

[runjake]

When a 5.56mm round strikes a solid object, it tumbles (aka "yaws", or rapidly changes orientation).

Contrary to popular legend, it does not tumble in flight.

[thecoffman]

I agree with almost everything you've said here with the one exception being that an AR-15 is actually an excellent home defense weapon.

Drywall penetration depends on which tests you're looking at but generally speaking it penetrates walls less than or at least not more than any standard pistol or shotgun round and its more likely to fragment on impact.

As a sibling pointed out, the overall length of an AR is actually less than that of the commonly recommended shotgun, making it easier to handle in tight hallways. (Though its arguable that you shouldn't be doing much moving at all in such a scenario).

I would also add that the recoil on an AR-15 is vastly more manageable than a pistol or shotgun making you less likely to hit things you don't intend.

I'm in 100% agreement with the other stuff however. The "tacticool" segment of the market is basically adult dress-up.

[twothamendment]

Impractical for home defense? That statement is a bit broad. It all depends on your home and you. Are you in an apartment in the city or multiple acres in the middle of nowhere? For some, home defense might start with the unknown drunk guy driving his ATV in a circle on the driveway while yelling crazy things. Home defense isn't always a bump in the night inside your house.

I won't tell anyone they shouldn't use a handgun or shotgun or AR-15 for their defense - they all have their place, but I know which one I wouldn't want my wife to have if I were the bad guy. It has something to do with being light weight, very low recoil, fast follow up, multiple rounds and the way the steel silhouette made a "ding" each time she pulled the trigger.

[ptomato]

The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers.

Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.

[wyager]

It is not illegal to hunt small game with an AR-15. Many people on Texas ranchland use ARs and similar rifles for pest management.

ARs are a very reasonable general purpose rifle. Medium size rounds, cheap parts, lots of flexibility, highly standardized, easy to maintain.

It's also disingenuous to ignore recreational shooting. Hunting and home defense are not the only uses for firearms.

In the case of militiamen, it's also a perfectly good combat rifle. The US military has been using it since Vietnam with mostly success (excepting a few early issues).

[alricb]

re: Throat mic, they have their use! Specifically, being able to properly do the "Ah-ah" in "Da da da": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtMThVUpc-U

[hga]

The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways.

All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings).

Too powerful for drywall.)

I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.

and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.

They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington

ADDED: So, given all the real civilian world civilian utility they have, for a lot of men you could view them as modern versions of accessorizing a car.

[pavel_lishin]

> Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.

Genuinely curious: when have people used an AR-15 rifle outside for self-defense?

[laotzu]

Against zombies

[hga]

Maybe by virtue of being on drugs, but it's a real thing, try for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=ar+15+used+in+self+defense or substitute home for self.

[pavel_lishin]

With the exception of the LA riots, every result I'm finding talks about home defense.

[hga]

It's an inherently difficult thing to search for. "AR-15" is a registered trademark of Colt, but it's been a while since they made the majority of civilian AR-15 pattern rifles (for that matter they lost the M16 contract to FN years ago, and now aren't the exclusive M4 carbine manufacturer).

You might have better luck substituting "assault rifle" or maybe "assault weapon".

I can remember reading at least one, I think two cases with AR-15 pattern rifles being used outside the home, a few more if you extend this to general civilian versions of assault rifles, like in the LA riots.

[eaandkw]

An AR-10 (7.62) would be an excellent hunting rifle. It would be quicker and easier to take follow on shots if you miss or only wound the animal.

[nordsieck]

LA riots

[RyJones]

The data you seek on penetration is on The Box of Truth. I am on a phone or I would link directly to it, but here is the website.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/tag/original-chapters/

[hga]

Thanks, although it's not data I seek.

Handguns have a lot of advantages in home defense, such as maneuverability and much better retention if things get up close and personal (the lever arm of a long gun is necessarily much longer, an adversary can grab it outside of your grasp and twist it out of your hands, as I demonstrated to my stronger and fitter nephew before he went to college, a bit to his surprise).

[eaandkw]

A handgun is surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately past 7 meters in a life or death situation. Look at all of the stories of police shooting up to one hundred rounds at a suspect and still missing them.

[hga]

Police aren't a good example for talking about civilian handgun marksmanship:

They are under an obligation to use their guns in many situations a civilian wouldn't, or could trivially avoid (either by not being in that sort of place, or safely retreating).

Few get much training or practice, and this is particular true for ant-gun Blue cities, with NYC being the extreme case of having extinguished its gun culture and the force being run by hoplophobes at critical times (details on request, but that includes police who care about marksmanship having a difficult time practicing on their own).

They simply don't pay any serious penalty beyond maybe their city paying a civil settlement for such examples, usually of contagious fire, which also simply can't be a problem in the usual civilian self-defense case where only one good guy has a gun. If we civilians were to pull those sort of stunts, we'd rightfully end up in prison.

They seem to be more prone to completely lose their shit like with Chris Dorner, which caused one of those cases against two total innocents in a pickup truck that bore little resemblance to Dorner's, except it being a pickup truck. And, again in a Blue part of the country.

7 meters is way too long as a general metric for this domain, as of ... the '70s or '80s the average distance for police use of handguns was 7 feet. 7 meters is 23 feet, which is close to the Tueller Drill 21 feet metric, and is a distance you'll find in home defense, but it still generally works out for civilians defending themselves in their homes. And weapons retention doesn't become an issue until an adversary closes the distance, which per the Tueller drill gives you an opportunity to fire a shot or three if you've already got your gun out and pointed.

[eaandkw]

I agree with you about the example of police. I was just pointing out that under stress it is difficult to shoot accurately. I won't talk trash about the police because I don't know enough police to talk it. However, in the military I have seen how hard it is to move, shoot, and hit your target. And we get tons of training.

I can't really tell from your reply if your are arguing for pistols or rifles being better. I think it comes down to using whatever you are good at. If you train with a rifle then use a rifle if you use a pistol use a pistol. I actually think retaining a rifle is easier then a pistol. Maybe because I train that way. For the pistol I mostly just keep the pistol away from the bad guy. If the bad guy can get his hands on the pistol he would have more leverage then if he got his hands on my rifle.

Back to the original argument. For the militia type individuals that like to play like they are in the military. It is all fun and games until you get shot at.