Before 2000, was it considered werid to own an AR 15 when they were not yet ubiquitous in the US?

>I'd say they became ubiquitous in the late 1980s.
I’d say you did zero research before making that statement. Colt made only 36K Sporters for domestic sale in 1990. They were the only manufacturer in the AR business at the time. The public wasn’t even aware you could buy such a thing until the Stockton school shooting in 1989. Popularity started gaining traction after the 1994 AWB. I’d say ARs didn’t become ubiquitous until the early 2000s.

I bought mine in 1977, people acted like I’d just given birth to a 2 headed calf whenever I took it out plinking. They would literally line up to watch me shoot it. That was when 30 round mags were standard. After I’d picked up a few 30 round mags at the pawnshops in Oceanside, you would have thought the Reds were rolling into Santa Rosa from the way people reacted.

*that was when 20 round mags were standard

No, but it was weird to accessorize, customize, and build rifles.

i think i’ve seen you in other threads california old user. just wanted to say youre an asset to the board and i like your posts

Attached: 47B9BF9B-5B58-41AA-AE2D-DFBDCC86D64C.jpg (960x570, 32K)

I think you might mean both him and me. I should just keep this around as a copypasta.
>Before 2000, was it considered werid to own an AR 15 when they were not yet ubiquitous in the US?
It's hard for people under 30 to really appreciate how different things were back when the 1994 AWB passed. That was just after Waco and Ruby Ridge, and before Oklahoma City, 9/11, the Bush Wars, the surveillance state, the polarization we see in politics now, and the time when you'd have some big mass shooting every few months. Just as importantly, it was the era before the rise of alternative media - people believed what ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the New York Times told them about events like Waco and Ruby Ridge because there was no alternative source of news. All of those alternatives were in their infancy in the 90s - Alex Jones started broadcasting locally in Austin in 1995, the Drudge Report went live in 1998, Jow Forums wouldn't exist until 2004, and Twitter and YouTube not until 2006. Even Rush Limbaugh was a new phenomenon in that age.

The point is that we had just come off winning the Cold War, the mid-90s economy was great, the biggest problem we seemed to be facing was Bill Clinton getting a blowie from a pudgy intern, and pretty much everybody still believed what the media told them and trusted the government. That's so very different from today... again, hard to explain to anyone who didn't live through it and see the change.

So back then, people wanted guns for hunting and home/personal defense, but they didn't want ARs. You all know as well as I do that you can handle home defense with a shotgun or a pistol; you all know as well as I do what the people who buy ARs want them in case of. And these days, that's not an unreasonable thing to see coming down the road, sooner rather than later. I'm just saying that in 1994, it seemed a lot more distant a possibility.

>You all know as well as I do that you can handle home defense with a shotgun or a pistol; you all know as well as I do what the people who buy ARs want them in case of.
In case I want the best, most reliable, most accurate, intermediate caliber semi rifle available on the civilian market, with the biggest third party market, top ergos, cheap magazines, and the ability to reach out to 600-700 yards?

Not entirely true. In grade school, my friend's mom was a hardcore conspiracy theorist that had roped my mom into it too. Despite being in grade school, I got to hear about all the weird stuff with Waco and Ruby Ridge. The stuff was out there, but it wasn't common or sought out like now. The internet was fledgling, but there were still resources for finding out "alternative truths".

Back to guns, the AR's popularity surged after the AWB expired in 2004. Why? Servicemen were just getting out after having used the thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, having it commercially available didn't make it different from the guys buying Garands and Carbines after WWII. Also, the market on it opened up. Prior to expiration, you had Colt, Armalite, and Bushmaster putting out AR-15 pattern rifles, that may or may not have had parts commonality, Colt used different sized pins in their commercial rifles. With expiration, more companies opened up, making not only rifles but accessories too.

In the 80s and 90s, I think battle rifles were more common than ARs. There was little difference in cost, so might as well go big. That changed when the market was flooded with SKS's, which were probably the most common selling semi auto rifle of the 90s. Then again, I was only a teenager in the 90s, so maybe the old guy can correct me.

God, imagine the smell.

I had a detailed response typed up but lost it. TL;DR: ARs were already being made domestically by many companies by 1990. "AR owners" were just part of the "military style rifle owners" culture and not a separate thing. These people had more of a survivalist reputation then they do now. You also had a lot more variety, since you could get factory HKs, Galils, Uzis, etc until 1989. The AK and to a lesser extent the SKS had the bad-boy reputation in the 1990s. But ARs were already a Big Deal by the time the ban rolled around in 1994. Olympic and somebody else had even been making AR pistols for a while.

I grew up in the per-internet world and the 1990s weren't THAT different. Waco and Ruby ridge were huge controversies and the US government hadn't been trusted since Vietnam, or at the least the Iran-Contra stuff in the 1980s. Janet Reno was not a popular person. The 1990 Gulf War was a national high, though. Same with Clinton being the cool president on Arsenio Hall around the time he was elected.

its for killing communist both foreign and domestic, dumb cunt

My dad was part of gun culture and he said everyone was a fudd including him and often repeated the why would you need that line. Things changed after the awb sunset. something not allowed became allowed again.

I was online for more than half of the AWB (remember joining AK-47.net in 1999) and the sunset wasn't as big a deal as people think it was now. At the time the first reaction was just "good, I can have unmodified barrels and cheap 30 round mags again." The gun community was more affected by the 1989 import ban than anything. The 1994 AWB was full of political crowing and exposure in popular media, though.

Attached: ScanImage002.jpg (1507x2073, 1.14M)

Attached: ScanImage001.jpg (1457x2113, 972K)

Im that user, and I may not have been browsing at that time but recalling back then I guess it was more the moves to ban them again that did it. I didnt really start seeing ARs at my range until a few years after the sunset.

>battle rifles were more common than ARs
Yes, and milsurp everything was still available. You could get a bandoleer of 200 .303 rounds for $18 or so. Unless you went to a gunshow, then it cost $25. Big 5 used to sell pallets of spam cans for around $200. They were only stacked 2 deep, but that’s still a lot of ammo.

I remember that AR accessories were slowly becoming a thing. Brasscatchers were probably the first thing sold, followed by those little spring loaded clip-on bipods. Then optics happened. Most of this stuff was only available from ads in the back of SOF magazine, although Easy Rider ran them for a few years. I think the paradigm shifted when Glock hit the market. Having another plastic gun out there was huge. That was the first step toward mainstreaming them. Hell, now schoolkids are faxing plastic guns to each other and zoomers are texting guns to work.

This is why we need the CMP back.

The more memes change, the more they stay the same.

Attached: ScanImage003.jpg (1457x1101, 338K)

>no ffl needed
>direct delivery

What the fuck

Yeah, someone who knows 1982 firearms laws will have to fill me in on that. Direct sales were outlawed by 1968, so that's either a honeypot or the B&M requirement for a receiving dealer changed later.

I think this was 1966. Not sure.

Attached: $T2eC16RHJIUFHHUB0,seBSKmE1Y66Q~~60_57.jpg (1198x1600, 654K)

>muh harmonics!

>Today on Forgotten Magazines, we see big titty bitches with guns are, frankly, not a new development

Attached: ScanImage004.jpg (1585x2110, 1.18M)

jap is just short for japanese its not offensive you retarded commie newspeaker

Do you have any 600-700 yard long hallways in your house? No? Then you aren’t really buying that AR with home defense in mind.

Again, you don’t have to make excuses to me. We both know what’s likely to be coming in the next 20 years or so, and we both know that the 2nd Amendment was written with exactly that kind of thing in mind. And I have an AR, too. All I’m saying is that I didn’t have one in 1994 because the kind of thing you’d need one for didn’t seem anywhere near as likely as it does today.

Is this legit? The prices are way to high when adjusted for inflation. I mean, a garand for the equivalent of more than $2,000? In 1982? An FAL for double that? Also, how were they able to ship without an FFL?

Attached: 1545085804331.jpg (480x475, 22K)

The Valmet M76 in that ad is priced $25 over US MSRP at the time, for what it's worth.

early war on terror was what made ARs cool. like really cool. I love the ACUs in UCP camo aesthetic.

my gf can't shoot a G19 for shit. she flinches and pulls the shot even at 5y. meanwhile with a M4gery she can nail a guy at 100y. don't discard a gun for a given purpose, different people have different limitations. 223 rifles ahve been used for home defense plenty of times and it's my GOTO as well.

I never denied that there was always a fringe who didn’t buy the “official story” of stuff like Waco and Ruby Ridge back then. But that was a much smaller group of people than you’d find today. Most people were normies and that meant they believed what the government and media told them.

People buy and keep AR-15's because it's a light, handy, modular firearm that can accurately put a number of shots onto a target in a short space of time. In addition it, and it's spare/replacement parts and ammunition, are commonly found and cheap.
These qualities are useful to anyone looking for a firearm, be it for recreational or competative target shooting, hunting, home defense, self defense or even civil defense. People will also want a firearm that can fill multiple roles if possible.
That is why people own AR-15's over other types of firearm, not because they are gearing up for some war with the government (although they could be used for that).

You giant fucking fudd faggot.

>Do you have any 600-700 yard long hallways in your house? No? Then you aren’t really buying that AR with home defense in mind.
Maximum range isn't the same as minimum range, homie.
>Again, you don’t have to make excuses to me. We both know what’s likely to be coming in the next 20 years or so, and we both know that the 2nd Amendment was written with exactly that kind of thing in mind.
If you're talking about some kind of civil war or massive unrest, that's not really why I have an AR. Granted, it would come in handy for that, but I'm not really expecting it to need to.

ARs are pretty much the perfect "one size fits all" rifle. Good enough for CQB work/home defense, but equally useful for hunting deer or other medium game, varminting and predator deterrence duties, range plinking, competition shooting, and most other things short of really long distance shooting, or really small game hunting.

Jap wasnt considered offensive, until like the 70s or 80s. And of course it takes conservatives longer to get hip with PC newspeak. Jap was just short for Japanese, like Yank is short for Yankee or Aussie for Australian. Its not a formal address, but Jap was particularly popular in the newspaper heyday because it was short.

Before 2000 everyone owned Mini 14s
Before the 80s everyone owned M1 Carbines

If she’s recoil sensitive, she could as easily use a pistol caliber carbine, a .380 pistol, or a 20 gauge shotgun.

They started to really gain in popularity after the sunset of the AWB in Sept. 2004. After that you saw a lot more manufactures get into and stripped lowers and parts kits grew in popularity. They built up until like 2009-2010 then by that point they were everywhere.

>she could as easily use a pistol caliber carbine, a .380 pistol, or a 20 gauge shotgun.

but why should I buy that shit when the M4gery will do just fine?

Okay but the average range of a home defense encounter is under 10 yards, which you don’t need an AR to reach.
You’re giving me a list of features, not a philosophy of use. These are not the same things. What philosophy of use do those features make the AR good for? What do they make it significantly better got than, say, a 12 gauge shotgun in your closet or a .357 Magnum on your bedside table?
Pretty much. Or, again, they just kept a Remington 870 in the closet - a solution that’s completely adequate for home defense.

I didn’t say you shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR if you want one. I said that it’s not at all necessary, or even ideal, for home defense. You don’t need one to handle Tyrone - the aforementioned Remington 870 or .357 Magnum will do that just fine.

He's providing context and framework to the rise in popularity to salt raffles, take your underage snek shit back to calguns

>or even ideal, for home defense

that your opinion and I disagree.

>not a philosophy of use

my PoU is that i want a handgun and a rifle and want to maximize my proficiency with both. I'm not wasting time and money on a R870/12ga/357mag because outside of home defense these are lacking. I'm not a priofessional gunyoutuber who gets all that shit for free. you still haven't provided one reason why the AR is bad for home defense. the AR is cheap, effective and can be used by even scrawy individuals and all that from 0-300yards.

AR15 were owned by a lot of people before 2k, with a lot of them being pre 1986 machineguns.

>philosophy of use
Pic related
>What philosophy of use do those features make the AR good for?
Holy fuck dude, don't over think it, if we are talking about self defense in particular, you are putting holes in people, it's not rocket surgery.
>What do they make it significantly better got than, say, a 12 gauge shotgun in your closet or a .357 Magnum on your bedside table?
Maybe I don't want to own a whole itinerary of guns, maybe I just want to spend my money on 2 or 3 really high quality guns rather than 6+ mid or low quality guns all with their own special use

Attached: nutting.jpg (424x325, 74K)

I think they were pretty underground and niche in the 1990s. TV shows like cops, the militarization of the police, normies getting a glimpse gee whiz military tech watching the Iraq war, gun crime and culture of the 1990s all played a part in bringing military style rifles into the public consciousness

>my PoU is that i want a handgun and a rifle and want to maximize my proficiency with both
That’s a preference, not a Philosophy of Use.
Same.

Jap has been an insult since 1941.

>mini 14
Everybody owned an SKS and was "considering" sporterizing it.
>80's
mini-14's were actually new.

>mini-14's were actually new.

They came out in 1976 and were big business by 1979-80.

The POU is home defense. It carries more ammo, uses a more effective cartridge than pistols, recoils less than rifles, better options for optics and lights/lasers, can penetrate soft armor, and can be used at distance if needed. These are a list of features but these features make it a more effective home defense option. There is a reason entry teams use ARs for CQB and not pistols/shotguns. I want it for HD for the same reasons. Quit being a fag and acknowledge why they are good

>the average range of a home defense encounter is under 10 yards, which you don’t need an AR to reach.
True. But it’ll do the job just fine.
>What do they make it significantly better got than, say, a 12 gauge shotgun in your closet or a .357 Magnum on your bedside table?
Lighter recoil than either, larger mag capacity than either, considerably less muzzle flash than either, better ergos for women/youngsters than either. That’s just off the top of my head.

Now, about philosophy of use; features drive the PoU. Secondly, it’s going to be different for each person. If somebody is comfortable with a particular firearm in a particular role, and they’re reasonably proficient at it, that’s their business. I had a friend who was insanely good at skeet shooting with an AR. It’s not something I would ever consider doing, but people are different.

Ok, I get it. We’re not hitting all of the checkboxes on your arbitrarily chosen term, therefore we’re all wrong. You capitalizing it tells me that you’re way too vested in the terminology, and that you would rather argue why people are wrong instead of listening to what they have to say.

Wrong. Nip was the insult. Jap was just verbal shorthand. People didn’t start getting touchy about it until the rise of the participation award culture in the 90s.

>those shirts
Get on it patchfags.

>The POU is home defense. It carries more ammo,
Irrelevant for home defense. As Paul Harrell pointed out in his “Shotguns Don’t Suck For Home Defense” video, home defense encounters simply don’t have rounds fired counts that go over the capacity of a pump shotgun or revolver. Inb4 “But what if one does?” They don’t.
>uses a more effective cartridge than pistols
Not enough to matter in a home defense scenario. This board’s paranoid fantasies aside, tweakers and teenage dindus don’t break into houses wearing Level III body armor.
>recoils less than rifles
So your rifle recoils less than a rifle? Fascinating.
>better options for optics and lights/lasers
If you can’t hit a target at home defense distances without all that bullshit bolted onto your gun, you shouldn’t own a gun.
>can penetrate soft armor
See above
>and can be used at distance if needed.
Good luck explaining to the DA why you shot someone 600 yards away in “self-defense”.
>These are a list of features but these features make it a more effective home defense option.
Nope.
>There is a reason entry teams use ARs for CQB and not pistols/shotguns. I want it for HD for the same reasons.
You’re not an entry team. Totally different PoU.
>Quit being a fag and acknowledge why they are good
I didn’t say they weren’t good. I said that they’re unnecessary for effective home defense.

The fuck is with the contrarian butthurt that this comment generated?

literally a "no one needs" faggot.

Why dont you go suck start a flintlock because you "dont NEED" more then one for that task

oof that +11% federal excise tax
and that garand price(~1k after tax) seems expensive compared to cmp offerings in 2018 money even for a like new rifle. Otherwise I would buy out most of that stock.

>literal boomers
>on my Jow Forums

Nip, short for Nippon, the dutch pronuciantion of the native name for Japan in Japanese "Nihon".

Attached: japanese shitment.jpg (560x304, 18K)

>I didn’t say they weren’t good. I said that they’re unnecessary for effective home defense.
Yet you haven't offered one reason they're worse for home defense than your proposed shotgun or revolver.
They're just as good in every aspect relevant to home defense, and better in some ways that you insist are irrelevant to home defense, but could be relevant to other uses that the same gun might also be used for. These other uses include violent revolution, as you suggest, but also hunting and sport shooting.

And regarding body armor, while it certainly remains a minority in (non-government) home invasions, it's only getting cheaper and more widespread. Even if you currently consider that minority too small to plan for, it's a matter of time till it's enough to worry about. Why not buy a gun that's just as good in every relevant metric, and better in a metric that's irrelevant today (by your reckoning) but will eventually become relevant?

>Okay but the average range of a home defense encounter is under 10 yards, which you don’t need an AR to reach.
It's like you ignored what I said about "minimum range". There is no minimum range. 10 yards, AR works fine.
>What do they make it significantly better got than, say, a 12 gauge shotgun
Oh fuck, we've got Joe Biden up in here. Have you ever used a 12 gauge shotgun in combat? I wouldn't want to go up against multiple assailants at close range with a pump shotgun. Split and reload time is kinda terrible with those and short-stroking can happen even if you're highly practiced, which most of us aren't.

Besides, overpenetration is a much greater risk with a shotgun loaded with either buck or slug rounds, and precision with buckshot is not that possible even at point blank ranges, there's some amount of spread that comes into play. What that means is that you cannot use one to shoot the guy who has just grabbed your daughter.

Yes, and it was used as an insult or derogatory term.

JFC, BOTH were insults. What is wrong with you?
Richard O'Kane would refer to survivors (of his submarine's attacks) as 'japs', 'nips', and 'other debris'. It was definitely an insult since forever, but nobody had a problem with insulting the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

He didn't say you shouldn't have one. Quit spazzing out, m'kay?

I'm 34 and grew up in Orange County, Ca.
Back in the day..... More white people, less demographic replacement. Less talk of "America sucks, fuck wipipo, colonizers" etc.

go anywhere and you would trip over full blown battle tested ww2, Korea and nam vets. American Culture was still the ugly American.

What I'm getting at is.... Guns were a part of the life and no one assumed the hardcore leftist would go full commie. There was tons of gun stores and no one could see 2008-2018 craziness. There was no fear of buy now or it's too late.

Also, tons and tons of Milsurp everywhere.

Lastly, people like projects. When AR parts kicks came out it was the cool new thing.

So I would say the mid 2000's they became the rage.

A slur is a derogatory term applied to a particular group of people and language, especially English, has always been defined by common use.

Jap is still used often when describing guns and ammo. I see it all the time on online stores and gunbroker.

>I don't know what I'm talking about

ARs started getting popular in CA in 2006, because at the end of 2005 the folks on Calguns figured out that some court cases had made some AR lowers legal, after they'd been banned since 1989.

Part of it was due to the already growing popularity of ARs outside of California causing a number of new lower manufacturers to pop up, producing models that weren't explicitly banned in CA.

I don't see how Jap is hateful

>It's like you ignored what I said about "minimum range". There is no minimum range. 10 yards, AR works fine.
Okay but there isn’t a “minimum range” to any gun so I really don’t know what the fuck you’re getting at with that.
>Have you ever used a 12 gauge shotgun in combat?
No but I don’t live in Fallujah so how a weapon does in a war zone really doesn’t matter. Home defense isn’t like what soldiers do, and if you think it is, you’re living in a world of operator fantasies.
>I wouldn't want to go up against multiple assailants at close range with a pump shotgun.
Great. Another one of you paranoids who think the cops from Jin-Roh are going to break your door in the middle of the night.
>Split and reload time is kinda terrible with those
Irrelevant. You’ll never need to reload in a home defense scenario. Read what I said above about that. And even if you did have to, you could just top off from a side saddle, which takes a split second. You wouldn’t wait until you were empty and then reload the whole tube. Learn how to run the gun you’ve got.
>Besides, overpenetration is a much greater risk with a shotgun loaded with either buck or slug rounds,
#3 or #4 buck provide for minimal over penetration problems
>and precision with buckshot is not that possible
Who gives a shit? I’m blasting Tyrone at 15 feet, not trying to win a three-gun match. The increased hit probability from shot over s single bullet is a plus in home defense, and far outweighs any concerns about precision.

I've seen that label in the current year though

whatever we get it brown people get butthurt easily

To mag capacity, just because you don’t use that many rounds doesn’t make it a negative. My carry gun holds 6+1 but 17+1 is objectively better if I have both options. Again with body armor and being more powerful than pistols. Just because you don’t “need” it doesn’t make it a negative, it’s still a potential advantage. I also had a typo and meant recoils less than shotguns.

Regardless, you’re either a fudd or a commiefornian. You’re saying because you don’t “need” something that you shouldn’t have it. You are literally the worst type of gun owner. At least grabbers admit they want to get rid of them.

It's still called "7.7 jap." It's not a slur. the slur for Japanese is "nip." "Jap" is analogous to "Brit."

You are outnumbered here and keep repeating the same things. Why don’t you fire back with WHY ARE AR-15s WORSE OPTIONS? Holy shit you keep going on about why they aren’t necessary and have failed to provide 1 reason why other options are better (except for shotguns are more powerful). Please elaborate on why they are worst or just quit talking

From a jury's perspective, my wood stocked shotgun makes me look much more harmless than my AR. It sucks that that is a consideration, but given the near identical effectiveness in home defence scenarios I reach for my Mossberg every time. I prefer to look like a Fudd to a jury, and a single 12 guage will end most encounters pretty neatly. I have another 4 coming if that first one fails. Also, penetration is much less of an issue.

>Yet you haven't offered one reason they're worse for home defense than your proposed shotgun or revolver.
“Unnecessary” and “shitty” are not the same things. To use an extreme example: a Bentley Continental GT is unnecessary for commuting back and forth to work. But that doesn’t mean it’s a shitty car. It just means that if you tell me that the reason you bought the Bentley was because you needed a nice reliable car to commute with, I reserve the right to be skeptical of that answer no matter how much you try to convince me - or yourself - that it’s true.

The same kind of butthurt AR fanboys who sperg out every time someone mentions the Mini-14 are at it again in this thread, screeching like teenage girls who just heard someone smack-talk Nick Jonas. Calm the fuck down. I never said the AR is trash. It’s an excellent combat rifle. All I said is that it’s unnecessary for the task of home defense, which it is. Tacticool blowhards on YouTube aside, literally nobody who knows what they’re talking about believes that a pump shotgun or a revolver or semiauto handgun isn’t perfectly suitable for that task. Let’s keep it real here.

>You are outnumbered here and keep repeating the same things.
Protip: A thing isn’t necessarily true because a lot of people believe it.

That dude is not quite on the mark. The AR was still breddi well outnumbered by a lot of guns. The M-14 was still seeing a lot of respect. FALs were prevalent, as were AKs.

Just an aside. Jow Forums should ban concern trolling:

i.e. ATF will catch you if you posses illegal stuff in secret, the FBI will infiltrate your low key self defense militia so you shouldn’t start it, nobody is going to resist tyranny.

That shit is demoralizing and it’s designed to do that.

Attached: 95C859DB-9954-43B9-AEA9-FAF202327CB1.png (640x1136, 599K)

>Colt... they were the only manufacturer in the AR business at the time [1990].
Bullshit. Olympic Arms was making ARs way back in 1982 and Bushmaster was cranking out XM-15s by the truck load. There was a saying going around gunstores, "Don't buy a AR unless there is a animal on it." Refering to Colt's Horse, Bushmaster's snake, and Oly Arms' Lion.

So pretty much exactly what I said.

My point was that there are tons of people who panick bought, which added to the overall popularity.

We all know the mini 14 isn't on the politicians chopping block... So no need to rush out and buy it... It'll be ready for us to buy when we want.

>They were the only manufacturer in the AR business at the time.
Holy fuck:
>Hesse Arms
>Olympic Arms
>Eagle
>probably even BFI (maybe a year or two out for them)
Colt was still the big dog but they were not the only dog.

>It’s an excellent combat rifle. All I said is that it’s unnecessary for the task of home defense, which it is.
No, it's actually the most ideal weapon for home defense, far better than any pistol or pump shotgun. People in this thread have explained why to you many times now, and you're just ignoring it all.

Oh my god, I remember Wades Eastside Gunshop in Bellevue Washington was selling Norinco SKSes for 90 bucks and you would pull the one you liked out of the trash can they had shoved them in.

Also the MAK-90 was considered the best gun to have when the inevitable war against the ATF/FBI and Bill Clinton started.

Attached: tres 90's.jpg (171x350, 11K)

Not him but still, such a small percentage of gun owners were buying ARs. The SKS was more popular in the 80-90s mostly because you could get it and a few hundred rounds + fold out stock for $90-100. I knew several people back then that had a SKS. I didn't know anybody that had a AR. Those were just in the movies.

The fuck is wrong with you people in this thread? Being contrarians for the point of being contrarian. His original point was not the utility of the rifle, which actually does well with not over-penetrating, bu the landscape of the firearms industry. Can you guys fuck off or something?

His original point literally involved saying that AR ownership wasn't to fill needs like home defense. I'm literally pointing out that if you need a gun for home defense, an AR should be your first choice.

>Okay but the average range of a home defense encounter is under 10 yards, which you don’t need an AR to reach.

Shotgun has uncontrollable spray, AR has precision - better than your handgun at any range. So unless you're ok to spray your loved ones with pellets (in case of one of them being held by a culprit) AR is your absolute best friend for home defense. At any range. There is nothing better today.

Attached: CaPNOOWWwAAj9HT.jpg (500x623, 67K)

Stop being a fucking fanboy. It’s a tool, not your high school sweetheart. It’s okay to say that it’s good for some applications, bad for other applications, and fine but unnecessary for yet other applications. You’re not stabbing it in the back. Getting this defensive about it makes no more sense than getting defensive about your favorite power drill.

I swear, AR fanboys are worse than WRX fanboys - and that’s really fucking saying something.

Yes, ARs didn't start out for home defense instruments. I don't see why you faggots keep saying, "But they are good for home defense," even though that was not his point at all. Annoying, derailing, chudmonkeys.

>Shotgun has uncontrollable spray,
I’d bet every dollar I have that you’ve never actually touched a firearm in your life.