Watching a tv show on the old Military channel. (Not sure what it is called now). They have this series called ”Ultimate Weapons”. Its an old show first having come out in 2009 or so. This episode is about Sniper Rifles.
The first Sniper Rifle featured is a then upgrade to the AR-10, with decent optics and new “high tech” brown paint finish (excuse the sarcasm) and apparently is a decent rifle, chambered in .308. (An AR-10 chambered in .308 is my choice for hunting hogs).
Here is the gripe. Do these screen writers ever do any research? Do these screen writers even know what the word research means, much less how to do same?
Paraphrased. if the AR-10 looks familiar it was designed by the same man who designed the M-16. He saw the need for a more powerful rifle than the M-16 so he designed the AR-10.
This is so blatantly wrong, one wonders how these people ever graduated from kindergarten.
Quoting John Lachuk in an article in the 1964 issue of Gun Digest,
“…it began in 1954 with three gun buffs who believed that stable, light weight missile aged plastics and alloys could be applied to firearms. ……….. Later the trio turned their attention to military rifles. Uninhibited by what a rifle should look like they made their objective of producing a practical weapon of the least possible weight. The AR-10, a 7 1/2 pound, 7.62 NATO caliber, full and semiautomatic rifle resulted. ……… In 1956 the AR-10 was submitted to the Ordnance Board for testing at the Springfield Armory. ……….. Despite Ordnance turndown, the AR-10 brought ArmaLite a reputation for functional innovation. It also brought General Wm. G. Wyman, Chief of the Continental Army Command at Fort Monroe, VA to California in mid 1957 with a suggestion that a .22-caliber automatic rifle that could penetrate both sides of a GI helmet at 500 yards might prove interesting to the Army. …….. The AR-15, a scaled down version of the AR-10 was developed to fire the new centerfire.22.”
Understood, I did not include the full text of that part of the article but did not skip any portion that would change any part of what I had written.
This folks is information that can be found in any library that features firearm materials. While it is true, I grew up during these times and this actual article is in my copy of the 1964 Gun Digest. It is also true that I have extensive experience shooting the M-16. In our time, the bugs of the rifle had been worked out, the ammunition reverted back to pre McNamar standards (so it and the rifle worked, worked fine.). However, none of this excuses a screen writer from doing the minimal research. This was not a movie, this was supposed to be a documentary of historical and current, factual events
Still, I wonder, is the current blatant lack of honesty among large groups of people something new or did they pick it up from rambling authors who can’t be bothered by doing just a bit of research.
Last thought. Why is the AR-10 in .308 my choice for hunting hogs? The .30 caliber bullets in the 150-175 grain weights have far more anchoring power than the .224 bullets used by the .223. Plus, the AR-10 allows Quick follow up shots. Sometimes large hogs don’t get the point that when they are shot, it is good form to fall down and die. All to often, the keep running, running right at the 180 pound two legged guy who keeps shooting them. With razor sharp tusks, and a generally mean disposition to began with, now made more intense by that piece of lead sticking in them, a stout and Quick follow up shot(s) is good insurance. Hogs can kill, one sow nearly killed my father-in-law years ago.
The first Sniper Rifle featured is a then upgrade to the AR-10, with decent optics and new “high tech” brown paint finish (excuse the sarcasm) and apparently is a decent rifle, chambered in .308. (An AR-10 chambered in .308 is my choice for hunting hogs).
Here is the gripe. Do these screen writers ever do any research? Do these screen writers even know what the word research means, much less how to do same?
Paraphrased. if the AR-10 looks familiar it was designed by the same man who designed the M-16. He saw the need for a more powerful rifle than the M-16 so he designed the AR-10.
This is so blatantly wrong, one wonders how these people ever graduated from kindergarten.
Quoting John Lachuk in an article in the 1964 issue of Gun Digest,
“…it began in 1954 with three gun buffs who believed that stable, light weight missile aged plastics and alloys could be applied to firearms. ……….. Later the trio turned their attention to military rifles. Uninhibited by what a rifle should look like they made their objective of producing a practical weapon of the least possible weight. The AR-10, a 7 1/2 pound, 7.62 NATO caliber, full and semiautomatic rifle resulted. ……… In 1956 the AR-10 was submitted to the Ordnance Board for testing at the Springfield Armory. ……….. Despite Ordnance turndown, the AR-10 brought ArmaLite a reputation for functional innovation. It also brought General Wm. G. Wyman, Chief of the Continental Army Command at Fort Monroe, VA to California in mid 1957 with a suggestion that a .22-caliber automatic rifle that could penetrate both sides of a GI helmet at 500 yards might prove interesting to the Army. …….. The AR-15, a scaled down version of the AR-10 was developed to fire the new centerfire.22.”
Understood, I did not include the full text of that part of the article but did not skip any portion that would change any part of what I had written.
This folks is information that can be found in any library that features firearm materials. While it is true, I grew up during these times and this actual article is in my copy of the 1964 Gun Digest. It is also true that I have extensive experience shooting the M-16. In our time, the bugs of the rifle had been worked out, the ammunition reverted back to pre McNamar standards (so it and the rifle worked, worked fine.). However, none of this excuses a screen writer from doing the minimal research. This was not a movie, this was supposed to be a documentary of historical and current, factual events
Still, I wonder, is the current blatant lack of honesty among large groups of people something new or did they pick it up from rambling authors who can’t be bothered by doing just a bit of research.
Last thought. Why is the AR-10 in .308 my choice for hunting hogs? The .30 caliber bullets in the 150-175 grain weights have far more anchoring power than the .224 bullets used by the .223. Plus, the AR-10 allows Quick follow up shots. Sometimes large hogs don’t get the point that when they are shot, it is good form to fall down and die. All to often, the keep running, running right at the 180 pound two legged guy who keeps shooting them. With razor sharp tusks, and a generally mean disposition to began with, now made more intense by that piece of lead sticking in them, a stout and Quick follow up shot(s) is good insurance. Hogs can kill, one sow nearly killed my father-in-law years ago.
