The Sig Sauer MCX is an AR-style rifle
Yes, the media are idiots, we all know that. But, there’s a rumor floating around on our side of the discussion which claims that the rifle used in Orlando wasn’t an AR-style modern sporting rifle. That the media are generally idiots for calling it such. Well, they’re idiots alright, but not because they call the Sig Sauer MCX an AR rifle. Yeah, it’s different in some ways – it doesn’t have a buffer spring housing in the butt stock and the bolt carrier is different than most of us are accustomed to seeing. It operates on a piston system instead of the traditional gas operation – so does the AR pistol I built last year, but even Sig calls MCX an AR rifle;
In the video, they even tout the easy transition from a traditional AR to the MCX design – how easy it is to put an MCX upper receiver on an AR lower receiver.
It doesn’t do us any good in this discussion to put out false information on the blogs, Lord knows that the media does that enough on their own without our help.
Category: Guns
yeah…in this case I would have to agree. If the guy used a mini-14 or another weapon obviously not of the AR family, that would be different at least for clarification sake….it’s hard to convince folks that any semi-auto 5.56 could essentially deliver the same performance…black guns just do more damage
But their premise that this is a “soldier’s” weapon is also patently false.
So does the Sig Sauer bruise your shoulder and make excessively loud exploding noises when it’s fired?
These details are important, y’know, especially to wussy bad news writers.
DON’T FORGET about the hypnotizing effect of brass flying in front of one’s face if they’re an effeminate mega-wuss like Kuntzman
I hear it also can cause temporary PTSD, but they don’t advertise that. I just heard from some other source.
I just got back from the range where I was creating the smell of sulfur and destruction. I love the smell of sulfur and destruction in the morning! Along with a strong cup of coffee it is a great way to wake up.
I thought the smell of sulfur & destruction came from those chili dogs you et…
Tomato, Tomahto
Can we add splodeydope to someone’s bio?
To me, if it is not a direct gas impingement type operating system, than it is not an AR-type rifle, but that’s because I (and most everyone here) knows quite a bit about firearms. As for the unwashed masses out there, I guess this would qualify as an “AR type” rifle.
And you’d be correct…but to make that a point of contention almost adds legitimacy to the anti-gun argument. Like the actual make of 5.56 semi-auto even matters. Other facts regarding the shooter and his actions are what matters.
Wasn’t the original AR-10 a pistol design?
According to wiki it wasn’t, but I dunno personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10
No, the AR-10 was essentially the AR-15 but chambered in 7.62×51 NATO. Definitely not a pistol.
They actually have a lot of Stoners original prototypes to include the AR-10 at the National Infantry Museum at Ft Benning. Pretty cool if you ever get down that way.
Yep..home sweet home
Meant to say piston…
Just the same as saying Glocks are an “HK USP” type pistol.
Well, they are both pistols and come in black. There’s some fancy plastic in them too as I recall.
I have friends and an old company commander of mine who could tell you what factory a spring for a firearm was made in and why for weapons from WW2. Me, if its comfortable and feels good for me to shoot and I can hit the target, I consider it a good firearm. lol
Reporters and writers tend to use generic brands like Colt, Glock, Browning, or Uzi when they don’t know any better. “Assault Weapon” is probably preloaded in their spellcheckers.
I more or less agree. Definitely not an AR-15, though it is AR-ish.
Is an “AR-ish” rifle the same as a “military-style” rifle? {innocent look}
Well hell, a Mauser model 98 is a military style rifle! ?
So is a Trapdoor Springfield.
From the articles I read, they were calling it an AR-15 which it is not. The point I was taking from the articles is that the uneducated are saying anything that goes boom is an AR-15. So of course anything that is an AR-15 should be banned. They should do their homework before denigrating firearms and firearm owners. It is ARish but it is not an AR-15.
“so does the AR pistol I built last year”
Same with mine, but only folks like the one’s around TAH would be convinced it wasn’t an AR.
Not my idea of an AR either. But for someone with minimal-to-no experience with firearms (e.g. 98% of NYC residents, 99.999999% of talking-head media types) it is an understandable confusion.
Part of being open to a real dialogue is working to understand the other guy. What we need in the US is real dialogue rather than the shut-up-and-listen-to-me-you-idiot stuff. It can be frustrating listening to obvious lies (like the wuss who claimed to have fired an AR and got temp-PTSD), but baby/bathwater here.
Make no mistake, Feinstein’s proposed legislation if passed would eliminate a large percentage of weapons in common ownership. Such differences that we like to have interesting conversations about are moot.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
I know that page seems dated (several years old)…but it is her template (by name) I am seeing resurrected online in the calls for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
When is that senile bovine going to be put out to pasture where she belongs?
If she got attacked with a spoon and seriously injured (soooo tempting), she’d be calling for spoons to be banned as an “assault weapon”.
The assault weapon shtick really is annoying. It is purely a political term and they keep using it because it fits their MO.
Always wondered how the KelTec SU16 made that list… it has none of the “evil” features she listed, and is only a removable magazine 5.56….
To be fair, while the externals remained similar for ease of transition to the MPX/MCX platforms, the internals and how most of the weapon is designed is completely different from an AR.
The AR-15 designation is actual the registered trademark name giving to the Colt version. Any other manufacturer not Colt cannot use AR in the model number. They all would be classified AR-15 type rifles unless it was a Colt then it would be an AR-15. I know that splitting hairs but trademark infringement is frowned upon. I’m sure the MSM does not understand that unless they are talking about the Redskins football team.
I dont think that is true, as the original is made by Armalite not Colt (AR stands for Armalite Rifle among other things) and they still use the AR designation for all of their weapon platforms.
But, Armalite sold the AR-15 copyright to Colt. So, Colt owns it and the designation.
My assigned weapon in basic (1987) was stamped AR-15/M16 MOD GENERAL MOTORS HYDRAMATIC DIVISION
And here I thought it was a bow n’ arrow. Hail Caesar!
Do you recall the serial number? I remember mine, an M-16A1, serial number 777377. Three sevens, followed by a three, then two more sevens. Serial numbers for my weapons in the fleet? No idea, too many to recall.
Here’s a radical idea which could either simplify the conversation or make it more difficult, depending.
An assault weapon is anything used in an assault. Doesn’t matter if it is a car, a putty knife, or a baseball bat. The implement used to commit an assault is just whatever it is until it is used in an assault.
My steak knife, tire iron, and lawn mower have the potential to become assault weapons, but until I use any of them, or a scrap piece of 2×4, to actually assault someone, they are not assault weapons.
Same principal applies to all those Sigs, Colts, Remingtons and everything else generally covered by the term “gun” folks are carrying, keep in their vaults or have stored in their nightstands. They are not assault weapons until they are used to assault someone.
Legislators who insist upon defining a few rifles as assault weapons while ignoring screw drivers and can openers are just silly. It is how something is used which defines it.
There you go being logical.
You think that is going to work with a bureaucrat?
The question is where you draw the line on “similarity”. To a gun guy, the fact that the Sig upper can be mounted on an AR lower is interesting but doesn’t change that with a different gas system, bolt group, etc. it’s not the same gun. To a non-gun guy, probably the fact that you can mount the Sig upper on an AR lower makes it “close enough”.
Another question begged above “it’s a piston gun” – do we exclude any gas-piston guns from the AR family because they are not direct? With the answer to that being ‘no’, the reverse is probably also true.
Me, I would say to call it an AR-type is inaccurate – but probably close enough to let slide. The target audience cant tell a M70 from a M700 from a M98… this is probably ‘way too esoteric for them to grasp.
Probably would have to phrase it in their terms… Is Kim the same as Chloe? They’re all Karedashians (bet you would get a thoroughly reasoned detailed list of differences back from most, unfortunately)
Which is the one with the milkshake that brings all the boys to the yard?
Huh????
dunno, I had to ask someone for a name of one who didn’t do a sex tape. I only knew one name.
I never understood what anybody sees in those fucking tramps. Braindead stupidity aside, they don’t play in the same league as Kate Upton, Blake Lively (who names their daughter Blake?), Grace Park, Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, Gabrielle Union, or dozens of other female celebrities I could name off the top of my head.
As Denis Leary said of Paris Hilton, “What the fuck exactly is her contribution to this Goddamn fuckin’ Earth, huh? She can’t act, she can’t model, and anybody who’s seen her sex tape knows she can’t fuck to save her life, so what the hell?”
Sadly I know that Chloe has a different father from the rest of the girls. So, that does fit your example as well. The two have different “parents” that made them.
I don’t know where I knew that from, but I’m talking to my therapist about it so I can reconcile and try to move on.
The MCX is an amazing adaptation of the AR design. I consider it part of the AR family of rifles and even if it were not it is functionally equivalent in every way relevant to the debate.
I am more annoyed with the unwillingness to accept that the right to bear arms is a protected constitutional right for individuals.
If we could establish that as a mutually agreed fact then we could at least negotiate on how that right should exist in a society in balance with the public good.
I consider an armed populace to be essential to the preservation of the social contract and government overreach.
As a liberal I like most of what government is SUPPOSED to do for the public good, however, I do not blindly trust the government to do it and feel that the threat of violent rebellion is the last defense against a government that is not accountable and does not operate in the interests of the public good or the people.
Without the threat of violence how could we possibly maintain accountability once the government begins to ignore the will of the people?
As stated in Atlas Shrugged: I do not recognize the public good. Plain and simple, that phrase covers a multitude of egregious government overreaches that never shold have been allowed. You want welfare? YOU give it. You want to support those who are unwilling (not unable) to work? YOU give out of YOUR pocket
Atlas Shrugged is a shit source.
The public good is the justification for the existence of government. So without notions of the public good than we have no basis for government.
If you want to claim to support anarchy then be my guest.
I choose to deal with real world situations.
At the same time, I gotta say, I’m impressed with your reasoning. It’s not very liberal at all
Thanks. I agree with your healthy mistrust of government.
“A public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.
The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual.
Public goods include fresh air, knowledge, national security, common language(s), widespread and high public literacy levels, flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting.”
All taken directly from Wkik, but that explains the concept clearly enough. Don’t confuse what might subjectively be “good for the public” with a “public good”.
Yeah, economic public goods and the notion of public good in political theory are not the same thing.
But you are correct that in economics that is how a public good is narrowly defined. It is more broadly defined in political theory and social contract theory.
That the “A”in AR stands for Armalite is a huge public relations probem in the gun control debate. I’ll wager any man-on-the-street survey would find that most folks honestly believe it stands for “assault” or “automatic” and therein lies a major part of the problem for our side.
That the “scary” design and increased ammunition capacity of so many “AR” style rifles today is simply the culmination of the design improvements that came with the development of the AR-15 and have been incorporated by most manufacturers since. Non-shooters don’t appreciate the advantages in weight, recoil and carrying handles that regular range rats do. They just see a scary rifle.
Likewise, they don’t understand that higher capacity magazines mean less time and less hassle at the range for folks like us, not greater killing capacity. If more of them had had to stand in the bitter cold or wilting heat reloading multiple low capacity mags with very sore thumbs, they’d have a better understanding of our side of the issue. They see such things as high capacity mags as being totally unnecessary, something that gun “nuts” want only for the legitimately scary reason of having greater killing capacity. They don’t have a clue that exponentially more rounds are expended at firing ranges than in hunting.
The information gap is great and we could be doing a better job of closing it by pointing such things out in our comments at liberal web sites and letters to editors, etc.
I agree with a lot of what you say, especially with respect to the lack of knowledge that many on the anti-gun side have. You see article after article claiming an AR-15 is fully automatic, or can shoot 600-700 rounds a minute, or by it’s shiny black color just induces heart-attacks in liberals and puppies, thus killing without bullets.
But on the issue of magazine capacity, can’t it be both? Sure, the higher capacity magazine means less time and hassle for the vastly overwhelming majority of people who use these weapons legally, but it also does give greater killing capacity when used illegally. So I think it’s valid to ask two valid questions:
1) Would a reduced mag size cause a noticeable improvement in survivability in incidents like this?
And 2) Is that uptick in survivability in these rare isolated incidents worth inconveniencing the millions upon millions of people who are not doing anything wrong?
All in all, I don’t think it is, but being able to have that discussion, to step back from the mocking attitude each side shows the other because we’re entrenched in our views, is infinitely worthwhile in my opinion.
Well put, LC.
And in how many cases has the magazine capacity been a real factor? I only know of one in which a reload was pivotal, when Laughner was shooting up Gabby Giffords et al. I know of no case when the lack of a magazine change was cited as a failed opportunity to take action, nor of any case where running dry was a factor. In almost every case, though, if not police shooting the perp, the knowledge that the police were there and taking action causing the perp to suicide was. There has been at least one case (in OKC if I recall) where someone with mass lethal intent was taken out by an armed citizen. The key factor is not perps’ ammo capacity, it is the rapidity of effective armed response.
“That the “scary” design and increased ammunition capacity of so many “AR” style rifles today is simply the culmination of the design improvements that came with the development of the AR-15 and have been incorporated by most manufacturers since.”
Should have ended with “is something else they don’t know or understand.”
“Boomstick make people die” is about the education level of the average person and the media.
What pisses me off is when the Dim-o-craps say that he used the death machine to hose the crowd with bullets. They seem to think it’s a fucking machine gun, not realizing that it’s one bullet per pull of the trigger.
They just want the public to think that. They want to make it a military grade death machine, so they can ban it and its ilk and bask in the adoration of their supporters. Facts don’t enter into the equation.
I still haven’t heard a conclusive figure on how many were shot and how many were trampled. Even if all he did was blow some holes in the ceiling, people would still die.
So, they think is a Thompson submachine gun, do they? Well, this is a short scene from ‘Public Enemy’. The gunner on the platform was an ex-Navy Gunner’s Mate. Don’t know what the bullets-per-second rate was, but it’s not an AR-15.
https://youtu.be/n59j_bO_Q2U
When you see Robert Stack hosing the area with a Tommy gun, he was a former instructor during WWII – he knew what he was doing. Was also a championship shotgunner, I believe in skeet.
Holy shit. Actors today are just plain pussies. “We got shot at with real bullets….”
Remember now – he had 10 fingers Flagwaver. ..
By the way, that MCX comes in a shortened version that has a 13″ barrel which could have made it easier for the shooter to conceal.
tease
If it only had a 13 inch barrel, he could not have purchased it without going through the ATF rigamarole to register it with them as a “short barreled rifle.” I doubt he would have done so, even if you could get it done in two weeks. However, the MCX can sport a folding stock, which would have made the 16-inch barreled weapon only about 25 inches long with the stock folded.
well…my 5.56 pistol has a 9 1/4 barrel and takes AR style mags anyway…I’m good with that
You can get it with the short barrel and no stock, thus “pistolizing” it. No SBR requirement.
I also have yet to hear the caliber of it. The MCX can come in 5.56/.223 but it is designed for .300 AAC
Yeah, mine has a 7″ barrel, but putting a tube on it instead of a buttstock makes it a pistol and not an SBR.
yeah……no.
You’ve going to give them an inch and they are going to take a mile. They want to subscribe “AR style” with the most common of features on rifles today such as pistol grips, rails, muzzle devices, and the thing that flips up.
You’re giving the benefit of doubt to scumlords and falling right into their intentionally misleading talk. For shame, John.
I dunno…I can’t speak for Mr Lilyea, but I take it more like saying this (precise nomenclature)isn’t the point we need to get stuck on out of the gate in a discussion of mass shootings and what can be done to prevent them while not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Agreed. If the Right just tunes out and mocks people by saying, “LOL. That ain’t an AR-15, dumbasses!”, then the Left simply points out that the response was to argue minute details and not the larger issue.
Ignore the details, talk about the principles, the statistics and politely point out the misconceptions -eg, firing 600+ rounds a minute with an AR-15- instead of name-calling and you do more to support gun rights than by seeming unwilling to discuss things in the wake of an emotional response to a tragedy.
You’ll never get the fanatics on board with anything, but you’ll bring in enough of the middle that you don’t need the fanatics.
What I detest the most about this is the media’s tendency to circle like hyenas and vultures around the dead and wounded, milking every last drop of angst out of them until it’s enough to make you puke.
If it’s so awful that someone has committed a violent act like this anti-social scumbag did, then why is it so necessary for the media to get right in the face of everyone who was affected by it?
The lack of respect for those who were injured or died from this heinous act by a flaming coward is enough to make any decent person wonder what the bloody hell IS wrong with reporters? They wallow in it, like maggots wallow in blood. They don’t report facts; they exaggerate, get numbers wrong, give reports that are as close to hysterics as you can get. At some point, they are more responsible for the increase in violence than people like this scumbag (may he rot in his own feces forever). It’s an opportunity to be on TV and talk about it with a big smile pasted on their insipid pasty faces, or something equally gross.
They deplore it loudly, but they feed on it before the corpse has even stopped quivering. Sometimes I wonder just how much they themselves contribute to these events.
‘If it bleeds, it leads.’
Ex, that’s been one of my biggest beefs with the media lately as well. They are too busy trying to “make” the news instead of being impartial and just report it. I know we all have opinions and differing thoughts of what goes on, but their total lack of courtesy now days is beyond disgusting. It’s all about who can get the biggest scoop and the best ratings now.
I’m beginning to view reporters as far more bloodthirsty than these criminals and terrorists they so avidly pursue.
The pablum suggested by liberals as the cause for this horror run the gamut from climate change (no shit), Republicans (this is the default argument for everything), hateful Christians (also a default), the NRA (don’t think any of the scum doing these atrocities are members) and a host of other ridiculous assertions. In passing a few have obliquely glossed over the fact that he was a Muslim PoS with an evil heart who singled out homosexuals, but that possibility is mostly discounted. And really, folks, do the liberals even care if they correctly identify the firearm? No, they don’t. Why? Because the ignorant masses don’t care. The lies resonate with the low information citizen. All they know is it’s a black firearm (the worst) and goes boom, so it must be an assault firearm. The liberals could call a 22 single shot Marlin an assault rifle and the uninformed dolts would agree and retreat to their safe space for a group hug and an aromatherapy session. The liberals don’t care. The message from the conservative side, which rightly corrects their errors, never sees print and is not acknowledged on the evening news or Meet The Depressed. Ours is an almost impossible struggle. The typical soccer mom probably doesn’t hear the truth and everyone else is at the mall or is glassy eyed as they stare at the marvel that is their newest smart phone. Is ours a lost cause? The insanity so common in this country will destroy it.
It’s still black and scary looking. I’m terrified so it should be banned.
There are big, black birds coming to my feeding station that will stare at you accusingly. They’re a lot scarier than those black plastic GUNNZZZZ!
Well yeah, birds go for the eyes. I’d rather be shot than have my eyes plucked out.
Well, it does use those high-powered clips,
So there is that.
This article about Sig Sauer should gladden your hearts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-sigsauer-idUSKCN0Z12EA
Expanding rapidly in the US.
Perhaps the quivering masses, currently huddling in fear, will come out of their little cubby holes some day, but I don’t count on that. They’ve been raised from birth to be completely passive.
From the article: “While Sig Sauer’s MCX rifle could receive similar treatment, its starting retail price of about $1,900 could dampen demand. By contrast, a Remington Bushmaster .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle costs less than $500.”
Fekking press can’t even manage to make a relevant comparison.
But they have nothing else, IDC_SARC. Limited mentality.