Article on AR-15s Not Completely Awful for CNN

There is a lot of sensationalist nonsense in this article on AR-15s, like “As gun sales kept climbing, so did the body count,” and a lot of crap about the AR-15 being designed for spray fire, but for the most part, this isn’t so badly done for agenda driven media, and reflects a lot of my memory of the issue. The big question I have, because I wasn’t in the issue at the time, is when high-power competitors made the jump from mostly using Garands and M1As to using AR-15s: did that transition start happening before the ban? Or did the ban culture of the late 80s and early 90s trigger competitors to give ARs a second look?

10 Responses to “Article on AR-15s Not Completely Awful for CNN”

  1. Matt says:

    I remember it being when barrels with fast twists and heavier bullets (for 600yds) became more available was when the switch happened. It went quick too because for the rapid strings the AR is way better than the M1/M1A. So once the AR could hack it at 600 everybody switched.

  2. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    When heavier bullets and faster twists became available, competitors switched.

    Tangentially, I used my AR to qualify for my CMP Garand.

    • Geoff says:

      CMP’s purchase requirements are ridiculous. I bought my M1 from Collectors Firearms with my FFL03 and even got a 10% Veteran discount and it was shipped right to my house. $1525 and FREE Shipping.
      If you’ve seen the CMP requirements for buying one of those surplus 1911s, IF they ever become available, you will have to jump through their hoops even to be selected to buy one. EVEN for a FFL03 C&R collector.
      I’ll pass.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        Agreed. Their requirements are stupid. TWO background checks? NO C&R?? Dumb.

      • Scott in Phx says:

        I bought my Garand(s) for less than $1,000 from the CMP.

        When I qualified (late 80’s) all I had to give them was my DL, proof of membership in the AZ Rifle and Pistol Association and evidence of participation in 2 “high-power” matches.

        But I guess they call them “intermediate power” rifle matches now.

  3. Murphy's Law says:

    I was a high-power shooter back then and one of the last to switch over. the change was led by the military service rifle teams switching to the M-16 with the heavier bullets and shellacking those of us still trying to shoot .30. The M-16/AR-15 can be accurized to a greater degree than the M-14 can (blasphemy, I know…) and the heavy .22 bullet with the fast twist just exceeded what the 7.62 could do. Politics had nothing to do with it.

  4. Mark says:

    From what I read in one of zedikers books from the late 90s civilians
    Started using the at because ammo was cheaper. The market developed parts and ammo
    That allowed them to beat the 30 cal competitors and people jumped on the winning side.

  5. Roger says:

    As noted above, the AR platform with heavier bullets was cheaper to shoot. Far easier & cheaper to accurize or to change barrels with no gunsmith required, required less demanding maintenance (no wood stocks & glass bedding), easier to shoot with far less recoil. It was also faster & easier than the Garand to reload during the rapid fire strings.
    With today’s rules, it is much easier to install an optical sight.
    As far as accuracy is concerned, a sub moa Garand or M1a is both finicky and rare, while a sub moa AR is both common and easy to live with.

  6. Stephen says:

    I was only very sporadically participating in high power rifle matches back in those days. But I do remember very clearly from the early 90s to the early 2000s when garands were suddenly replaced. And when I was talking about buying my own rifle, I remember one of the old-timers telling me with all the things you had to do to an M1 Garand to make it accurate, like bedding the stock and so forth, you can buy an AR-15 for half the price and an M1 Garand with a lot of money invested would never be as accurate as a stock AR-15

    And the AWB was meaningless, because we didn’t want collapsible stocks or bayonet holders or Flash suppressors or 30 round magazines. We wanted the shorter magazines anyway, and the fixed-length stocks, so a ban era rifle was just fine for us.

  7. John Mathew says:

    In my opinion AR 15 is a great gun,it comes in low price, it’s easy to maintain and accuracy is satisfying.


  1. Episode 174 – What Caliber for Taylor Swift’s Husband? | GunBlog VarietyCast Radio - […] Article on AR-15s Not Completely Awful for CNN – […]