What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud

[The Marshal]

Quick! We need to get him to a Safe Space with a blanket and possibly a warm glass of milk.

What a piece of work.

[TVGuy]

He wrote a follow-up because of all the hate mail he was getting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2674555

[rotor]

Maybe they secretly gave him a DPMS .308 or .338 instead of a .223. Poor thing. Where did I put that darn violin.

That's what I was thinking too.

[RoyGBiv]

My youngest was 8 the first time shooting an AR.
After about 20 rounds getting a feel for it, here's the result of 15 rounds at 100 yards.

Not sure where that last round went (looks like low and to the right)... but 14/15 isn't too shabby..

OP article writer is making stuff up out of whole cloth or pure ignorance.

[Soccerdad1995]

A rifle does not sound like a cannon. Only someone who has never been near a cannon could say such a thing.

I spent most of my 34 years in heavy armored divisions with the M109 howitzer. The projectile is 6 inches in diameter and weighs nearly 100 pounds. When she fires, you feel the concussion in your chest before you realize you hear it. Even with a hydraulic recoil system and double baffle muzzle break, the 28 ton chassis bucks and rocks.

There are several good videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHa2izgkQw

Just understand that even if the audio blew out your computer's speakers, it could not come near to accurately reproducing the sound or concussion.

As General Patton said, "God help me, I do love it so."

I was only in for 4 years, but spent 2 of that with 8 inch guns. When I transferred to an M109 unit, it was like child's play by comparison. I do recall the one time I got too close to the firing line with the 8 inchers. The shock wave knocked me onto my backside. That's a mistake I only made once.

[ScottDLS]

I was in a battle group with the USS Iowa (BB-61) in the 80's. They fired volleys from the 16" main guns...a >2000lb projectile coming out of each gun...

Wow....only you have to be close enough to shore to get hits. Otherwise it's cruise missiles from our DDG...

[Skiprr]

He wrote a follow-up because of all the hate mail he was getting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2674555

And that's just as hilarious as the first "article."

In all my years in journalism — coming up on 30 (thanks) — I have never received so much angry mail as I did after yesterday's story...

I don't mind spirited debate, but many correspondents told me that even expressing an opinion about today's high-powered weaponry is off-limits to those of us who don't own such guns.

Um, Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 was first manufactured in 1959 by ArmaLite? The design was sold to Colt, and the first semi-automatic civilian model began sale in 1963. Your "today's high-powered weaponry" has been on sale to civilians for 53 years, and uses what is termed an "intermediate cartridge," which by definition is a cartridge that is less powerful and has significantly reduced recoil than a typical full-power battle rifle cartridge.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

To reiterate, the goal of the story was simply to share with readers my experience of firing an AR-15, which very few of them have done. I found the sheer power of the weapon horrifying. I found the noise deafening and anxiety provoking. I was frightened by its potential for rapid, catastrophic, Orlando-like carnage with similiar [sic] weaponry. Using an AR-15 made me irritable and jittery for hours afterwards. To me, it felt like a bazooka.

Mr. Kuntzman, first, as a journalist with 30 years of experience, I'm sure you know you don't need the extra "i" in the word "similar." Second, you do realize that many prefer the AR-15 as a home defense tool over even a 9mm handgun because the .223 round from the AR-15 is much less likely to over-penetrate sheetrock walls in homes and apartments? And you do realize that a bazooka is completely recoilless because it fires a rocket-propelled payload? Propellant gases escape out the rear of the tube at the moment of ignition, mitigating any recoil.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

Yes, this weapon scared the [mild profanity deleted] out of me. And it should scare the [mild profanity deleted] out of all of you, too. An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops. I don't think there's anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.

Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 is strictly a civilian firearm? It is incapable of automatic fire. One trigger pull, one round goes out the front (called the "muzzle," by the way). The U.S. military uses the M16 rifle, which is capable of select fire, also known as automatic fire. The AR-15 only looks like the M16. Our military does not use the AR-15 rifle, and for a civilian to obtain an M16 is extremely difficult and extremely expensive. We're talking a purchase price of well over $10,000 and special federal government licensing and registration. Too, automatic firearms that were manufactured after 1986 cannot be sold to a regular civilian, period.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

But what if a weapons manufacturer could fashion a handgun that would fire a nuclear blast — an atomic version of an AR-15, if you will. It would look like a gun, but it could kill thousands instead of dozens. Like a rifle, it's one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear. But would we really stand idly by as people buy a nuclear gun in the name of the Second Amendment?

Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that, under current law, a civilian must go to extraordinary lengths to obtain and license many types of firearms? Google the National Firearms Act. Existing federal (and don't forget individual states) laws do, in fact, provide very strict regulations based upon type and function of weapons and accessories. Your frightening AR-15 fires a projectile that is a massive and devastating three one-thousandths (0.003) of an inch thicker than the .22 plinkers you may have shot at balloons at a carnival in your youth...well, not you, but a kid of your generation who grew up somewhere in the other 97% of the United States. Yet even it cannot be purchased in an automatic model unless the gun was manufactured before 1986, unless your state permits the purchase with laws that may be stricter than federal, unless you are willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the purchase, and unless you obtain all licenses and registrations required by the federal government and your state. There are already restrictions by weapon-type in place in federal and state laws.

To jump to an analogy of a handgun that shoots an atomic bomb as a way to illustrate the Second Amendment as flawed? To make the baffling fail in logic that it would be "one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear"? Well, Mr. Kuntzman, that finally did peg my idiocy meter all the way into the red. And I leave you to your own devices, misspellings, misprisions, and blatant stupidity.

Good luck with that.

[mayor]

I only loaded 1 cartridge when I was teaching my kids, at least until they got the hang of what it was like when they pulled the trigger. Then they got multiple rounds.

[krieghoff]

He wrote a follow-up because of all the hate mail he was getting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2674555

And that's just as hilarious as the first "article."

In all my years in journalism — coming up on 30 (thanks) — I have never received so much angry mail as I did after yesterday's story...

I don't mind spirited debate, but many correspondents told me that even expressing an opinion about today's high-powered weaponry is off-limits to those of us who don't own such guns.

Um, Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 was first manufactured in 1959 by ArmaLite? The design was sold to Colt, and the first semi-automatic civilian model began sale in 1963. Your "today's high-powered weaponry" has been on sale to civilians for 53 years, and uses what is termed an "intermediate cartridge," which by definition is a cartridge that is less powerful and has significantly reduced recoil than a typical full-power battle rifle cartridge.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

To reiterate, the goal of the story was simply to share with readers my experience of firing an AR-15, which very few of them have done. I found the sheer power of the weapon horrifying. I found the noise deafening and anxiety provoking. I was frightened by its potential for rapid, catastrophic, Orlando-like carnage with similiar [sic] weaponry. Using an AR-15 made me irritable and jittery for hours afterwards. To me, it felt like a bazooka.

Mr. Kuntzman, first, as a journalist with 30 years of experience, I'm sure you know you don't need the extra "i" in the word "similar." Second, you do realize that many prefer the AR-15 as a home defense tool over even a 9mm handgun because the .223 round from the AR-15 is much less likely to over-penetrate sheetrock walls in homes and apartments? And you do realize that a bazooka is completely recoilless because it fires a rocket-propelled payload? Propellant gases escape out the rear of the tube at the moment of ignition, mitigating any recoil.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

Yes, this weapon scared the [mild profanity deleted] out of me. And it should scare the [mild profanity deleted] out of all of you, too. An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops. I don't think there's anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.

Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 is strictly a civilian firearm? It is incapable of automatic fire. One trigger pull, one round goes out the front (called the "muzzle," by the way). The U.S. military uses the M16 rifle, which is capable of select fire, also known as automatic fire. The AR-15 only looks like the M16. Our military does not use the AR-15 rifle, and for a civilian to obtain an M16 is extremely difficult and extremely expensive. We're talking a purchase price of well over $10,000 and special federal government licensing and registration. Too, automatic firearms that were manufactured after 1986 cannot be sold to a regular civilian, period.

Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.

But what if a weapons manufacturer could fashion a handgun that would fire a nuclear blast — an atomic version of an AR-15, if you will. It would look like a gun, but it could kill thousands instead of dozens. Like a rifle, it's one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear. But would we really stand idly by as people buy a nuclear gun in the name of the Second Amendment?

Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that, under current law, a civilian must go to extraordinary lengths to obtain and license many types of firearms? Google the National Firearms Act. Existing federal (and don't forget individual states) laws do, in fact, provide very strict regulations based upon type and function of weapons and accessories. Your frightening AR-15 fires a projectile that is a massive and devastating three one-thousandths (0.003) of an inch thicker than the .22 plinkers you may have shot at balloons at a carnival in your youth...well, not you, but a kid of your generation who grew up somewhere in the other 97% of the United States. Yet even it cannot be purchased in an automatic model unless the gun was manufactured before 1986, unless your state permits the purchase with laws that may be stricter than federal, unless you are willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the purchase, and unless you obtain all licenses and registrations required by the federal government and your state. There are already restrictions by weapon-type in place in federal and state laws.

To jump to an analogy of a handgun that shoots an atomic bomb as a way to illustrate the Second Amendment as flawed? To make the baffling fail in logic that it would be "one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear"? Well, Mr. Kuntzman, that finally did peg my idiocy meter all the way into the red. And I leave to your own devices, misspellings, misprisions, and blatant stupidity.

Good luck with that.

I would hope that you sent that to him. His knowledge is just short of half baked when it comes to firearms...But what can one expect coming from a writer like him.

[Countryside]

If your AR-15 bruises your shoulder you might be a ... feline.

LOL...oh, how we are avoiding that word. Ralph Peters had no problem with it on live TV.
This wimpy journalist needs to go join the other "puddy-tat" in the White House.

I tawt I wat a puddy-tat!

I did! I did! I taw TWO puddy-tats!

[Countryside]

The journalist, like many, are into sensationalism. To stir the emotions of the readers. To the modern liberal who bases everything on emotions and what they want to hear, articles like this work. We live in a day and age when there are no "real" facts or truths as far as liberals are concerned. It is all about feelings and perception. Yes, I could point out that my youngest daughter was surprised at how little the felt recoil of an AR15 was, but it would make him no difference. Manhood, manliness...it's all been redefined to the point of irrelevance in the modern, liberal mind. Personally, I don't really think he was that traumatized by it...I believe he is simply trying to stir up emotions...."oh, the poor thing! How he sacrificed himself to shoot that horrible gun and share it with us!" I don't believe him because of the overall dishonesty throughout the article...how he spins and misrepresents things...stating perceptions and "feelings" as fact which he knows that his fans will not filter through nor research what he says.
I feel sorry for the ones who rely on this male person to protect them.
Hopefully no one is relying on him.
Bad guys really do not care how much of a wuss you are.
It doesn't discourage them.
Unfortunately, it's guys like us who have to rise above out emotions and disgust to protect and defend journalist like this.
Their fans won't.
They'll all be hiding in the gun-free zone under the deranged illusion that it is a safe zone that Satan himself wouldn't enter.

[Beiruty]

Good thing he did not try to shoot this rifle:

[Beiruty]

For the the author of fear mongering:
Here is my son Ryan, so excited about loading his first 223

[Syntyr]

Here is how you fire a full auto like a WOMAN!

[Syntyr]

And this would probably give the wussie a heart attack

.308