What Does AR stand for in AR-15?

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 5/1/2018 | J Hines

[w1n1]

AR stands for "Armalite Rifle", named after the company that developed this firearm. Contrary to popular beliefs it is not "assault rifle" or even "automatic rifle". Brief History of the AR
The rifle was first used during the Vietnam War as an alternative to the M-14 rifle. Ok, lets back up a bit here’s a short history of it.
In the late 1950s, the gun manufacturer Colt purchased the rights to the rifle but had difficulty selling it to the U.S. military.
The ArmaLite Division of Fairchild is the first phase of the company’s history and where it built the first AR-10 Rifles.
In 1959 the ArmaLite company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16.

Differences between an AR-15 and Military version
The military version is currently the M4, AR’s are the civilian version. What’s the differences?
AR-15-style weapons are semiautomatic, the shooter must pull the trigger to fire each shot from a magazine that holds 30 rounds.
On the auto side, a shooter with a fully automatic assault rifle can pull and hold the trigger and the firearm will keep firing until the ammunition is gone. Read the rest of "What does AR stand for" story here.

[T-Bone Texan]

Armalite
Rifle

Too easy, Mr. “I am Shooting Journal”.

[raccoonradio]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7xtltFBAMw

Inspired this punk song by Britain’s Gang of 4 (”breaks down easy, a child could carry it...do you damage..I disapprove of it”)

[Lurker]

M-16 rifles were originally issued with 20 round magazines.

L

[Yo-Yo]

Linkies to the original story are brokie.

[MUDDOG]

in the late 1950s, the gun manufacturer Colt ... had difficulty selling it to the U.S. military ...

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle

If you wanted to sell something to the Kennedy Defense Department, you blackmailed JFK.

E.g., the F-111. General Dynamics had the goods on Judith Exner.

[w1n1]

sorry, piss poor timing, I’m with the host tech awaiting for them to reboot the server.

[OldSmaj]

Why do we, as gun-rights advocates, conservatives and people with a good sense of logic and sound mental processes continue to try to explain this term?

Call it what you will...the stupid left will label it in any way they can to achieve the maximum negative response.

Call it a damned Carrot Cake with Clip Frosting for all I care...the left will call it some damn stupid something or other and if we ridicule them for it, they'll take that and point it up as an example of the fact we are all fixated and agitated over the description as opposed to the mechanics of the actual device...which, in their narrative, is simply a sentient machine that forces any one within it's sphere of influence to take it up and enable it to search out school children to kill.

To hell with these people.

It's a damned rifle...it is designed to do the task I require of it, from putting meat on my table, to defending my country, to defending my family...yes, even to put a smile on my face when I look at the 1.5 inch grouping it does on a piece of paper at 200 yards.

Ignore this crap...ignore the left.

I hereby designate it: "Longy thingy-that-go-bangy-from-one-end-and-thingy".

You may label it as a rifle...if it pleases you.

But I will no longer argue the AR crap.

It is meaningless and has nothing to do with the fact that regardless of what it is called...the left and all the sycophants (that's a fancy word for ass-kisser) will never stop trying to keep you from owning one...or any other "Thingy-that-goes-bang".

To hell with them.

We should just look beyond their dumb asses, smile, and continue to do what we do.

[stylin19a]

that we were taught to load with 19 rounds - supposedly the 20th round caused jams ( something about bad\weak spring in the magazine ?)

[Lurker]

“that we were taught to load with 19 rounds - supposedly the 20th round caused jams ( something about bad\weak spring in the magazine ?)”

Same here. Springs are much better these days. I’ve used 30 round MagPuls that I’ve loaded to capacity and let sit for months with no reliability issues at all.

I used to make the last two rounds tracers. Gave me a heads up I was almost dry.

L

[Who is John Galt?]

AR stands for "Armalite Rifle"...

AR9 - shotgun

AR17 - shotgun

AR22 - blank firing device

AR24 - handgun

And before Mr. Westrom sold ArmaLite to the current ownership, the official ArmaLite website noted repeatedly:

"AR Stands For ArmaLite: Accept No Substitutes."

If AR ever meant "Armalite Rifle," it ceased to have that meaning when the AR9 shotgun was developed, a long, long time ago...

[sjmjax]

you should add the AR-7 .22 cal survival rifle.

[Buffalo Head]

"that we were taught to load with 19 rounds - supposedly the 20th round caused jams ( something about bad\weak spring in the magazine ?)”

The real reason for only loading 19 rounds in a 20 round magazine or 29 rounds in a 30 round magazine is quite different than the old wives tale you reference.

The actual reason relates to the difficulty of inserting a fully loaded magazine into the firearm deep enough until the retaining latch engages when the bolt carrier group when in the closed position. The top round in the magazine must push the other cartridges, resisted by the spring force, down until the latch engages. If not properly secured, the magazine will drop from the firearm, possibly at a very inopportune time.

The magazines are easily inserted and retained when the bolt carrier group is locked in its rearward position. Now you know the truth but that old urban legend will probably continue to be retold and retold. P.S. I have many G.I. 20-round M16 magazines that have been fully loaded since 1972 and they function perfectly. There is and was nothing wrong with the original spring design or materials from which they were fabricated.

[Nip]

A tidbit o the AR-15/-16 story.

If you find back copies of the National Geographic magazine from the early 1960s look for the issue spotlighting the USAF.

While there were loads of excellent photos of aircraft and people there is one that caught and kept my attention. It showed a line of Air Commando NCOs dressed in fatigues wearing their official Aussie-style hats (fold-up brim). The caption said they were on a small arms firing range shooting their AR-15 rifles.

This was a few years before wide-spread involvement in Viet Nam.

Just an interesting historic photo from the past.

[Lurker]

Thanks for that. Always good to see a false myth take one on the chin.

Best,

L

[Buffalo Head]

Were they semi-auto or full-auto versions?

[schurmann]

The summary fails to include several key points.

1. From the end of World War Two until well into the 1960s, the armed forces endured many disagreements about what direction ought to be taken, in developing small arms for individual issue. Various “centers of power & influence” inside the US Army itself mired themselves in squabbles over branch missions, doctrine, training, R&D, and logistics. That was before the never-ending competition between bureaucracies, and national politics, entered the mix.

In struggling to make sense out of data on small arms effectiveness from WW2, the Army found divergent schools of thought had come into existence within its own ranks.

The high count of fired rounds per enemy casualty drove some to believe that random shots were as important as aimed fire; thus, the Army redefined “firepower” as shots per minute. The change was supported by further analysis conducted by the Army’s Operations Research Office.

2. Various prominent people wanted to hold onto the power & long range embodied in the 30-06; they insisted that America (and thus NATO) had to adopt a rifle cartridge equally powerful. NATO was forced to follow the Alliance’s dominant partner (bad consequences for the UK government ensued).

Other Army entities wanted select-fire rifles in the hands of every infantry troop. It was already obvious that a rifle light enough for individual issue could not be controlled on full auto, if it chambered a full-power cartridge. The M14 had been set up to fail.

3. Ordnance technicians and supply managers pointed to the logistic headaches bedeviling US ground force units during WW2: three cartridges (45 ACP, 30 Carbine, 30-06) had to be supplied for six standard-issue small arms (M1911A1 pistol, M1/M2 Carbines, Thompson and M3 submachine guns, M1 Garand rifle), plus maintenance & repair support. Supply folks hate multiplicity of types (this does not count substitute-standard arms like M1917 revolvers, M1903/ M1903A3 rifles, M141 Johnson rifle etc. Then there were 38 Special revolvers for aircrew, and 38 Super Auto for some special-agent applications. Might be more.).

Out of all this hubbub, the M14 was officially selected to be the standard-issue rifle across all of DoD. It was sold to the armed services as a large simplification of supply and maintenance: it replaced the M1 Garand, all M1/M2 Carbines, all submachine guns, and the BAR M1918A2.

4. Some tactical-expert operator types pointed to the advent of the assault rifle and wanted equivalent guns for US troops; the M1/M2 Carbines had in the interim been performing in the reduced-power role, but serious doubts concerning the effectiveness of the 30 Carbine cartridge were already on record. The 222 Remington cartridge - a totally new development from outside the military - debuted in 1950, taking the sporting world by storm with its accuracy and range, and effectiveness all out of proportion to its size.

For reasons the memory won’t give up at this moment, in the mid-1950s Army Ordnance did start up the Small-Caliber High-Velocity program, to investigate the feasibility of developing very light rifles firing projectiles of about 22 caliber (5.56mm). Some researchers suspect that operators at CONARC (Continental Army Command) were behind the effort.

SCHV considered a number of designs, of cartridge and rifle - some quite innovative. Winchester submitted a candidate for field trials, but dropped out when it failed to meet minimum accuracy requirements. At some point in here, ArmaLite downsized its AR-10 to handle the 222 Remington. The resulting experimental model occasioned intense interest; the cartridge was modified at Ordnance’s to provide higher remaining velocity at range. Out of several configurations, what was to become the 223 Remington was chosen.

Some “pre-AR-15” rifles were sent to US advisory units in Southeast Asia, where they caused great excitement for their effectiveness. Official Army enthusiasm began to increase, just at the time the M14 experienced delivery delays. Since the ArmaLite firm had no production capabilities, they licensed production to Colt’s.

The M14 failed to deliver on the promise of controllable full-auto fire, but some hoped the new “pre-M16” might to the job.

5. US Air Force officials took note at the same time. They were being forced to give up their M2 Carbines for the M14, about which they were not pleased, as they did not need a full-power battle rifle for air base security and similar missions. Gen Curtis Lemay, then USAF Assistant Chief of Staff, a noted gun enthusiast, and the most respected flag officer in USAF, took steps to acquire some 20,000 of the new rifle from Colt’s.

US Army Ordnance complained, citing their authority as executive agent for military small arms (given them in 1903). The Air Force contract was put on hold, but interest within Army circles increased, and the opportunity to arm advisory troops in SEA as taken, leading to more and more use of the “pre-M16” in that theater.

USAF did get its rifles eventually. It still uses a version of the original.

6. Along about 1965, Colt’s introduced a semi-only version to the civilian market, billing it as “AR-15.” Early models were also marked SP-1. Sales were slow; serial number 35,xxx did not come off their line until 1974.

[MileHi]

That history was great. Thanks for that.

[schurmann]

“That history was great. Thanks for that.”

Thanks for such a courteous reply.

It helps to recall that military rifles are a weapon system that the military develops, tests, and acquires in much the same way as they do other weapon systems.

And rifles are not the only weapon system on the battlefield; troops never fight alone unless there is no choice.

Citizens tend to forget all this. No military system is employed in isolation - very, very different compared to civilian use of a rifle.

To add to the confusion, the history of modern individual rifle development, acquisition, support, and employment is muddled: chroniclers don’t always approach the topic with any sort of emotional detachment. Lots of ire, half-truths, and flung accusations pretending to be “the real story.”

[schurmann]

“...While there were loads of excellent photos of aircraft and people there is one that caught and kept my attention. ... a line of Air Commando NCOs dressed in fatigues wearing their official Aussie-style hats (fold-up brim). The caption said they were on a small arms firing range shooting their AR-15 rifles.
This was a few years before wide-spread involvement in Viet Nam...” [Nip, post 14]

“Were they semi-auto or full-auto versions?” [Buffalo Head, post 16]

Footage of those Air Commando NCOs - bush hat and all - appeared last week on American Heroes Channel. Every shot was full-auto; they massacred small piles of cinder blocks.

Never heard of any AR-15-style rifle in US military use that was anything but select-fire (burst fire in the M16A2).

The footage in question was made before Colt’s began selling its semi-only clone dubbed the AR-15 (a trade name it purchased rights to, from ArmaLite).

There were three systems (at least) of nomenclature involved then: official DoD nomenclature, manufacturer nomenclature inside the factory, and marketing nomenclature the manufacturer used in material revealed to the public. They rarely match and sometimes overlap.

Just what official nomenclature was used by DoD to designate experimental and test rifles of what we now think of as the “M16 pattern” furnished to the military has not been brought to my attention.

Despite orders from the Secretary of Defense and other high officials, each branch of the armed services still uses its own internal nomenclature for some equipment. It was much more the case circa 1960, when each branch was still getting used to being subordinated to one single Cabinet Secretary, and still sorting out an administrative/bureaucratic legacy that dated back to 1790 at least.