Skip to comments.Breaking: Jim Sullivan, AR-15 Designer, Makes Some Controversial Statements on HBO Tonight
Posted on 05/26/2016 8:47:26 PM PDT by DarthVader
Jim Sullivan helped design the AR-15 back in 1957, and later the Ruger M77, the Stoner 63, Ruger Mini-14 and the crowd favorite Ultimax 100. Most recently he was the brains behind Surefires 60 and 100 round quad-stack AR-15 magazines.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefirearmblog.com ...
He's been an anal sphincter for about 50 years. News to you?
No but this is a new low for him.
I don’t care who the dude is, he’s full of $h1t.
Sullivan looks and sounds senile...
Ruger M77. Fun stuff.
I just ask them: do you think we are providing our military personnel with the most effective weapons possible? I mean, along with some other constraints and priorities in addition to effectiveness/efficiency: like easy of manufacture, service life, maintenance, etc. The obvious answer to this is yes, we spend a lot of money on design and manufacturing...
So then, why wouldn't I similarly want the most effective tools to defend myself and my family? If/when I need a firearm for defense, I'm going to want to be as effective as possible. So why wouldn't I want to take advantage of all that R&D and use "military style" weapons to defend my life? You don't buy a fire extinguisher that is "good enough" if there's a better one available. You don't say "nah, seat belts alone are good enough for my passengers/family, skip the air bags" - as if we had a choice anyway.
Of course I want the best tools to defend loved ones. So the M-16 and it's civilian counterpart the AR-15 were designed to be brutally effective? Bravo! Sign me up! While I might carry a handgun out and about, my rifles stay home. So if I'm using a rifle in a defensive role...that means the brown stinky stuff has hit the air circulation machine at home and myself and possibly family members are in grave danger. I'm all-in at that point, give me the most effective weapons.
So... he’s designed a bunch of not very good guns and some magazines that often won’t run in mil-spec ARs? He’s not a very good designer, then; I don’t see why I should listen to him.
Sullivan’s comments about 5.56 lethality are absurdity that’s for certain. The 30-06 and 7.62 are unquestionably more lethal.
Things designed and intended for military use:
Prepackaged sterile bandages and dressings.
Antibiotics and antiseptics.
Modern canned and preserved foods including anything made under the Chef Boyardee brand.
Strike anywhere matches.
Anything made of rayon, nylon, polyester or related synthetics.
Trauma techniques like triage.
Many medical procedures.
Radar, which means the microwave oven.
The list goes on and on. Let’s see these people who ask this question go without all of these.
This is the old lark about the .223 being so deadly... its old marketing propaganda so im not suprise to hear one of the designers regurgitate it
Indeed. The AR was designed to help Vietnamese handicapped by small bodies. Why would then a woman or an elderly be forbidden from accessing these features?
The war on the AR is a direct assault on the dissabled and violation of ADA accessibility rules, but somehow no one wants to interprete it that way
.223 is basically a hopped up varmint cartridge.
I don’t know how much truth there is to it, but have been told more than once that when you wound someone on the battlefield, it often takes a couple more soldiers out of the fight trying to save their wounded comrade. So a cartridge that would be nearly 100% fatal would not necessarily be such a huge advantage.
That is true but only if that particular side cares about their wounded. In the Korean war, the Chinese didn’t.
In the event of a human wave attack, the 5.56 isn’t going to cut it for very long. Not without some good indirect fire support and a good supply of claymores!
I wonder of the person who designed the first Car (Benz?) had any idea that his invention would have caused the deaths of so many innocent people?
That depends on the mission profile.
A more lethal weap will tap you farther out, preventing you from coming close enough to be a threat.
In anything other than close up fighting think about range
Now that is a post that makes sense! Finally, a sensible response to the critics.
Exactly. And it’s not like those military weapons are orders of magnitude more expensive, they cost about the same as any other suitable home defense weapon. Do I opt for the slow cycling low capacity long hunting gun, or the auto loading high capacity AR15 made for CQB? comparable price, and not having a round ready to go can be lethal.