What is the Difference Between a Remington 742 and an AR-15?

[dilligaf]

May 29, 2022 18:00:59 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

May 29, 2022 8:08:24 GMT -5 Walter said:

The difference is virtually nobody uses the 742 to kill kids in a school, or shoppers at the store, or worshippers at their church.

That is quite a BIG difference.

And BTW, according to the US Army, they are not functionally identical. The AR is far more lethal. It was intentionally designed to be more lethal in a shorter amount of time.

Not entirely true or correct. Only the military version is offered with a fully automatic option. The civilian version, which fires only one shot with a trigger pull, is barely deadlier than a .22 rifle. It only "looks" deadly to the Loony Liberal Leftist Democrats. It is not as deadly as a .30-06 rifle or a .38 revolver.

Wow.  There is a lot of misinformation here.

The military weapon is the M-16, or the M-4 carbine, which is nothing but a shortened M-16, and is capable of select fire from single shot per trigger pull to full auto.   The civilian version is the AR-15, which is actually the COLT name, but has now been applied generically to all semiautomatic sporting rifles that look like the AR.   The "AR" is one-shot only, unless it has been illegally modified.

The .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO round is MUCH more powerful than a .22 rimfire rifle.   It won't match the .30-06, but it will wipe the floor with a .38 revolver.

The muzzle energy of a .223 ranges from approx. 1500 ft/lbs. to 1650.

A .38+P is generally less than 300 ft/lbs.

The .30-06 will give you anywhere from 2800 to 3000 ft/lbs.

The AR is simply a fancy looking hunting rifle.


Why do criminals use them?

MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO.   Yes it is THAT simple.

Back in the day, AK-47's and SKS's were dirt cheap, so criminals used THEM.

We never found empty AR shell casings at shooting scenes back then, but you could sure find 7.62x39MM.

[dilligaf]

May 30, 2022 8:45:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 29, 2022 20:15:04 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Maybe they think like the stupid Loony Liberal Leftist Democrats that look at gun magazines and exclaim, "Oooh. That gun is scary! Put it on the ban list!"

Address the Q.
Why is the AR the gun of choice for mass murderers?

Monkey see, monkey do.

In the older days, it was always an AK-47 or SKS.

Criminals follow fads, too.

You seldom see criminals using Mini-14's, which work EXACTLY the same as the AR.

It was a Mini-14 that did most of the damage in the great Miami/FBI shootout back in 1986.

[Walter]

May 30, 2022 19:21:51 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 29, 2022 11:03:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

I just love it when gun nuts like Fred tell us that the US Army doesn't know anything about guns.

Maybe not said in the context of what you are quoting from, but the Army would not disagree w me if I said lethal involves the sit rep. And if you say a Army distribution paper compared the AR to a 742, I guess I gotta believe you but why they would compare the two is beyond me. I can think of a few sitreps where the AR isn't very lethal incl compared to 100 yr old pump shotgun technology that was used in my lifetime V the also available AR. If you think soldiers used the pump because it was less lethal than the AR, you bumped your head and the Army would agree w me. I can think of commonplace situations where the AR is not lethal at all. What's the sitrep? IS a .30-06 in a semiautomatic rifle lethal? Well the venerable M1 Garand with it's .30-06 8 shot 8-round en-bloc clip is said by many to be the rifle that won WWII. More or less than the AR? Depends on the situation.

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

[dilligaf]

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 30, 2022 19:21:51 GMT -5 daleko said:

Maybe not said in the context of what you are quoting from, but the Army would not disagree w me if I said lethal involves the sit rep. And if you say a Army distribution paper compared the AR to a 742, I guess I gotta believe you but why they would compare the two is beyond me. I can think of a few sitreps where the AR isn't very lethal incl compared to 100 yr old pump shotgun technology that was used in my lifetime V the also available AR. If you think soldiers used the pump because it was less lethal than the AR, you bumped your head and the Army would agree w me. I can think of commonplace situations where the AR is not lethal at all. What's the sitrep? IS a .30-06 in a semiautomatic rifle lethal? Well the venerable M1 Garand with it's .30-06 8 shot 8-round en-bloc clip is said by many to be the rifle that won WWII. More or less than the AR? Depends on the situation.

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

Why is ANY semiautomatic sporting rifle allowed on American streets?

They ALL operate in the exact same manner, knucklehead.

The AR exists to shoot bullets, like any other SSR.  Those bullets can be aimed at paper targets, tin cans, rocks, feral hogs, coyotes, and many other legitimate targets.

Your total ignorance of firearms and our RIGHT to own them never ceases to amaze me.

I don't get to choose which car you can own; you don't have the right to choose what firearm I own.

[dilligaf]

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 30, 2022 19:21:51 GMT -5 daleko said:

Maybe not said in the context of what you are quoting from, but the Army would not disagree w me if I said lethal involves the sit rep. And if you say a Army distribution paper compared the AR to a 742, I guess I gotta believe you but why they would compare the two is beyond me. I can think of a few sitreps where the AR isn't very lethal incl compared to 100 yr old pump shotgun technology that was used in my lifetime V the also available AR. If you think soldiers used the pump because it was less lethal than the AR, you bumped your head and the Army would agree w me. I can think of commonplace situations where the AR is not lethal at all. What's the sitrep? IS a .30-06 in a semiautomatic rifle lethal? Well the venerable M1 Garand with it's .30-06 8 shot 8-round en-bloc clip is said by many to be the rifle that won WWII. More or less than the AR? Depends on the situation.

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

The Army doesn't use AR's.

Your ignorance of guns is amazing.

[daleko]

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 30, 2022 19:21:51 GMT -5 daleko said:

Maybe not said in the context of what you are quoting from, but the Army would not disagree w me if I said lethal involves the sit rep. And if you say a Army distribution paper compared the AR to a 742, I guess I gotta believe you but why they would compare the two is beyond me. I can think of a few sitreps where the AR isn't very lethal incl compared to 100 yr old pump shotgun technology that was used in my lifetime V the also available AR. If you think soldiers used the pump because it was less lethal than the AR, you bumped your head and the Army would agree w me. I can think of commonplace situations where the AR is not lethal at all. What's the sitrep? IS a .30-06 in a semiautomatic rifle lethal? Well the venerable M1 Garand with it's .30-06 8 shot 8-round en-bloc clip is said by many to be the rifle that won WWII. More or less than the AR? Depends on the situation.

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

Would you like a list of things developed for the mil used in everyday life? So your sit rep says nothing. The military automatic rifle is generally not for sale to the general public. But if a mil design is your criteria does time change things?

[Walter]

May 31, 2022 13:59:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

Would you like a list of things developed for the mil used in everyday life? So your sit rep says nothing. The military automatic rifle is generally not for sale to the general public. But if a mil design is your criteria does time change things?

Go ahead and sit-rep all the military items studied for maximum lethality that are used in everyday life.
Thanks in sit-rep advance.

[Panama pfRedd]

May 31, 2022 13:59:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

Would you like a list of things developed for the mil used in everyday life? So your sit rep says nothing. The military automatic rifle is generally not for sale to the general public. But if a mil design is your criteria does time change things?

NO military automatic rifle mfr'd after 1986 can be owned by the general public. Anybody, in a state that allows it, and can legally own firearms, can own a pre-'86 auto with background check and paying of the $200 tax stamp and long wait, and can afford to buy the firearm, which START at around $10,000.
otbfirearms.com/nfa/transferable-machine-guns/

[daleko]

May 31, 2022 15:01:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 31, 2022 13:59:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

Would you like a list of things developed for the mil used in everyday life? So your sit rep says nothing. The military automatic rifle is generally not for sale to the general public. But if a mil design is your criteria does time change things?

Go ahead and sit-rep all the military items studied for maximum lethality that are used in everyday life.
Thanks in sit-rep advance.

Fat Man and Little Boy. Your welcome. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 determined how the United States would control and manage the nuclear technology it had jointly developed with its World War II allies.. And from the original technology that created Fat Man & Little Boy, today, we harness the atom to produce a total of 809.41 terawatt-hours of electricity. Instead of crushing two cities in Japan, ending WWII. Is that lethal enough for you. The downstream by-products also includes, after electricity generation, which perhaps has contributed to managing GW,  advances in medicine, science, agriculture and food, space exploration, water desalination, ............., even shoe sizing.

[dilligaf]

May 31, 2022 15:01:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 31, 2022 13:59:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

Would you like a list of things developed for the mil used in everyday life? So your sit rep says nothing. The military automatic rifle is generally not for sale to the general public. But if a mil design is your criteria does time change things?

Go ahead and sit-rep all the military items studied for maximum lethality that are used in everyday life.
Thanks in sit-rep advance.

Just so you get your information correct, the military is not necessarily interested in lethality.  A dead soldier is simply left behind on the battlefield.
A WOUNDED soldier, OTOH, ties up several of his comrades getting him to safety, medevac'ed, etc.

Which one is more effective in reducing the size of the enemy force?

Now if I am a sniper, and I want maximum lethality and accuracy to take out a certain target, like an enemy General, I am NOT going to use an M-16.
Currently the Army uses the M2010, which is a really souped-up version of the Remington Model 700 HUNTING RIFLE.

Just stop talking about things you know nothing about.

[Panama pfRedd]

May 31, 2022 18:37:08 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

May 31, 2022 15:01:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Go ahead and sit-rep all the military items studied for maximum lethality that are used in everyday life.
Thanks in sit-rep advance.

Just so you get your information correct, the military is not necessarily interested in lethality.  A dead soldier is simply left behind on the battlefield.
A WOUNDED soldier, OTOH, ties up several of his comrades getting him to safety, medevac'ed, etc.

Which one is more effective in reducing the size of the enemy force?

Now if I am a sniper, and I want maximum lethality and accuracy to take out a certain target, like an enemy General, I am NOT going to use an M-16.
Currently the Army uses the M2010, which is a really souped-up version of the Remington Model 700 HUNTING RIFLE.

Just stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Pretty sickening that we have to keep telling him the same things over and over year after year.
Stupid has everything all figured out 24/7.

[dilligaf]

May 31, 2022 18:40:04 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

May 31, 2022 18:37:08 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Just so you get your information correct, the military is not necessarily interested in lethality.  A dead soldier is simply left behind on the battlefield.
A WOUNDED soldier, OTOH, ties up several of his comrades getting him to safety, medevac'ed, etc.

Which one is more effective in reducing the size of the enemy force?

Now if I am a sniper, and I want maximum lethality and accuracy to take out a certain target, like an enemy General, I am NOT going to use an M-16.
Currently the Army uses the M2010, which is a really souped-up version of the Remington Model 700 HUNTING RIFLE.

Just stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Pretty sickening that we have to keep telling him the same things over and over year after year.
Stupid has everything all figured out 24/7.

Of course, the Marines DO go for the "one shot, one kill" mentality, which is why they resisted the M-16 for so long.

The M-16 encourages spray and pray, which is basically wasted ammo.

It is estimated that there were 50,000 rounds fired for each single kill in Vietnam.   Was that due to poor marksmanship, or spray and pray?

The individual soldier should be limited to semiauto, with a few SAWs thrown in, and an M-2 for heavy suppressive fire.

[Panama pfRedd]

May 31, 2022 18:50:30 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

May 31, 2022 18:40:04 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Pretty sickening that we have to keep telling him the same things over and over year after year.
Stupid has everything all figured out 24/7.

Of course, the Marines DO go for the "one shot, one kill" mentality, which is why they resisted the M-16 for so long.

The M-16 encourages spray and pray, which is basically wasted ammo.

It is estimated that there were 50,000 rounds fired for each single kill in Vietnam.   Was that due to poor marksmanship, or spray and pray?

The individual soldier should be limited to semiauto, with a few SAWs thrown in, and an M-2 for heavy suppressive fire.

Agreed. Kids drafted to fight and thrown into a maelstrom having never used firearms was probably a factor in wasting ammo I imagine.

[dilligaf]

May 31, 2022 18:54:00 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

May 31, 2022 18:50:30 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Of course, the Marines DO go for the "one shot, one kill" mentality, which is why they resisted the M-16 for so long.

The M-16 encourages spray and pray, which is basically wasted ammo.

It is estimated that there were 50,000 rounds fired for each single kill in Vietnam.   Was that due to poor marksmanship, or spray and pray?

The individual soldier should be limited to semiauto, with a few SAWs thrown in, and an M-2 for heavy suppressive fire.

Agreed. Kids drafted to fight and thrown into a maelstrom having never used firearms was probably a factor in wasting ammo I imagine.

If you can only fire one round per trigger pull, that waste is mostly eliminated.   In an emergency though, pulling that trigger over and over to empty a 30 round mag doesn't take much time at all.

In other news, someone here said that the Army compared the M-16 to a Remington 742.  That is NOT true.
I am the one who made that comparison, and I chose that particular gun purely out of thin air by googling "Remington semiautomatic rifles."  I chose Remington because it is a well-known brand, but I could have picked a bunch of others.

It probably would have been better if I had chosen something else, because Remington does not make a semiauto chambered for such a low powered round as the .223/5.56 NATO.

[AlaCowboy]

May 31, 2022 7:46:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 30, 2022 19:21:51 GMT -5 daleko said:

Maybe not said in the context of what you are quoting from, but the Army would not disagree w me if I said lethal involves the sit rep. And if you say a Army distribution paper compared the AR to a 742, I guess I gotta believe you but why they would compare the two is beyond me. I can think of a few sitreps where the AR isn't very lethal incl compared to 100 yr old pump shotgun technology that was used in my lifetime V the also available AR. If you think soldiers used the pump because it was less lethal than the AR, you bumped your head and the Army would agree w me. I can think of commonplace situations where the AR is not lethal at all. What's the sitrep? IS a .30-06 in a semiautomatic rifle lethal? Well the venerable M1 Garand with it's .30-06 8 shot 8-round en-bloc clip is said by many to be the rifle that won WWII. More or less than the AR? Depends on the situation.

What does "sit-rep" stand for?

And the fact you are using military 'sit-reps' tells us all we need to know about WHY the AR exists. It just doesn't explain why it is allowed on American streets.

The AR-15 IS NOT and never has been a military weapon. AR-15 is the designation for the civilian, single shot weapon that is physically similar in look to the M-16, which was the military weapon of choice during the Vietnam War.
It exists and is popular because (until recently) was inexpensive and "Saturday Soldiers" used it to play army at the target range.