Ok so I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone here wants to see the AWB go bye bye, including myself. But I keep thinking about one arguement that we use against it, and that is that the weapons banned are no different from any other semi-auto hunting rifle or the like. At first I bought into this as it sounded like it could convince some people. But then I thought about it some more. Of all the people that have SHTF rifles here how many of them are the "other rifles" that we compare the banned weapons to? I know I have an AR-15 and plan on puttin some other goodies on it and it would be just fine to take into battle. I also plan on picking up an HK91 and hopefully an M1A. Those seem to be the rifles of choice. Same goes for any AK-47, FN FAL, CETME, or the like. Are we really fooling ourselves into thinking that these weapons aren't better suited for battle purposes than other weapons? I mean I don't see anyone in any of the SHTF threads that says their go to gun is a ruger 10/22 or a Browning BAR deer rifle, or a Remington 7400. This is not to say that we shouldn't be able to own these weapons, as they have other purposes than just an "assault rifle" such as match shooting, varmint hunting, collecting, and plain just plinking fun. But are we approaching the defense from the wrong angle?
Been doing some thinking about the term "assault weapon"
- Thread starter Dbl0Kevin
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The only difference between an AR or SAR2 and any other self-loading rifle is that capacity can be higher, depending on what sort of magazine you use.
Other than that, I'm hard pressed to come up with any sort of major, obvious difference.
(There are, of course, minor ones, such rifles tend to be chambered in intermediate calibers that are weaker than full-blown rifle rounds like .30-06, as well as such rifles tending to be easier to field strip, clean, and care for.)
Other than that, I'm hard pressed to come up with any sort of major, obvious difference.
(There are, of course, minor ones, such rifles tend to be chambered in intermediate calibers that are weaker than full-blown rifle rounds like .30-06, as well as such rifles tending to be easier to field strip, clean, and care for.)
Not really. My AR can as you say accept mags for 10, 20, 30, and 40 rounds unlike some of the other guns. But it is also lighter, shorter, less reflective, and can accept a lot more accessories such as folding and telescoping stocks, weaponmounted lights, lasers, etc. I mean think about it. The rifle is mil-spec except for the fact that it isn't selective fire. If it wasn't suited for battle why wouldn't the military have gone with some of the other weapons and just made them select fire? See what I'm getting at here.
No, because balistically the guns are the same or weaker than a hunting rifle. In sheer objective functionality, they are no different than autoloading hunting rifles. And with the ban, a bayonette lug has absolutely no effect on the usefulness of the rifle. Anyone here hunt with a post-ban rifle? There you go, pre-ban and post-ban entirely 100% the same in terms of functionality.
It's not a false answer, just a bit of a semantics argument.
It's not a false answer, just a bit of a semantics argument.
To begin with the term assault rifle was not applied to all military style weapons until the media got ahold of that term and applied it to firearms that were in the past simply military carbines and rifles.
I believe originaly the term started to be used with light weight full auto fire weapons. From there the media and anti's started using it for all simi auto guns that they thought looked sorta mean. (like black and with those mean bayonet thingys on them.
The truth is that they all function using the same type design. That is to say, semi-auto Remington 742 is basically the same as M1A in that they are both gas operated auto loading firearms that within their magazine capacity have about the same rate of fire.
I believe originaly the term started to be used with light weight full auto fire weapons. From there the media and anti's started using it for all simi auto guns that they thought looked sorta mean. (like black and with those mean bayonet thingys on them.
The truth is that they all function using the same type design. That is to say, semi-auto Remington 742 is basically the same as M1A in that they are both gas operated auto loading firearms that within their magazine capacity have about the same rate of fire.
Jim March
Member
The REAL practical difference between a genuine semi-auto version of a battle rifle and a hunting rifle isn't "deadliness", it's *toughness*.
John Farnam posts "after action reports" from his various firearms classes:
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html
In his rifle classes, students shoot 500 rounds a day for one, two or three days. A *lot* of the guns can't handle this kind of duty cycle. The students who do finish the class with their own gun get more useful instruction.
The guns that survive are usually the least-modified, "plainest", and closest to their military origins in terms of "innards" and basics. Guns that were originally set up to handle full-auto stresses are tough as nails as a "civilianized" semi-auto.
"Functional near-clones" like the Ruger mini-series aren't as tough. They often fail the courses...they never had to meet true military testing.
Upshot: the main result of the various AW bans is a restriction on SKILLS, not equipment. Which will NOT accomplish anything except to harm US military effectiveness long-term, and cripple people's personal defense abilities.
It will NOT control crime - ask any cop how often they're attacked by people with actual skill in any fighting system, be it empty hand through guns. It's so ridiculously rare it's not funny - people who have the self-discipline to master ANY martial art don't pull random stupid street crimes.
American security will always need riflemen. Without tough guns that can handle the serious work cycles needed to gain those skills, we won't have near as many.
That's what this is REALLY all about - an attempt to enshrine practical military pacifism into America's culture, by claiming it's "for the children".
John Farnam posts "after action reports" from his various firearms classes:
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/quips.html
In his rifle classes, students shoot 500 rounds a day for one, two or three days. A *lot* of the guns can't handle this kind of duty cycle. The students who do finish the class with their own gun get more useful instruction.
The guns that survive are usually the least-modified, "plainest", and closest to their military origins in terms of "innards" and basics. Guns that were originally set up to handle full-auto stresses are tough as nails as a "civilianized" semi-auto.
"Functional near-clones" like the Ruger mini-series aren't as tough. They often fail the courses...they never had to meet true military testing.
Upshot: the main result of the various AW bans is a restriction on SKILLS, not equipment. Which will NOT accomplish anything except to harm US military effectiveness long-term, and cripple people's personal defense abilities.
It will NOT control crime - ask any cop how often they're attacked by people with actual skill in any fighting system, be it empty hand through guns. It's so ridiculously rare it's not funny - people who have the self-discipline to master ANY martial art don't pull random stupid street crimes.
American security will always need riflemen. Without tough guns that can handle the serious work cycles needed to gain those skills, we won't have near as many.
That's what this is REALLY all about - an attempt to enshrine practical military pacifism into America's culture, by claiming it's "for the children".
SHTF - meaning mass disruption and civil unrest requires different hardware than deer hunting. Your talking about self defense in that case.
I'm not personaly all that concerned about the SHTF thing but why should anybody be limited as to what they like in firearms just because someone who doesn't know the stock from the barrel thinks a particular gun is an "assult weapon" because it doesn't look like a standard deer rifle.
The higher magazine capacity is the only difference between them functionaly . They also are generaly easier to maintain ( military style ) and would obviuosly be a better choice for "defense" than a normal deer rifle because of those differences.
After all - when the police dept arms themselves for defense they typically choose a long arm (other than the shotgun) that is classified by the media and others as an "assualt rifle". Are the police using theirs for assaulting the public, or for defense ? The same rules should apply to all.
I'm not personaly all that concerned about the SHTF thing but why should anybody be limited as to what they like in firearms just because someone who doesn't know the stock from the barrel thinks a particular gun is an "assult weapon" because it doesn't look like a standard deer rifle.
The higher magazine capacity is the only difference between them functionaly . They also are generaly easier to maintain ( military style ) and would obviuosly be a better choice for "defense" than a normal deer rifle because of those differences.
After all - when the police dept arms themselves for defense they typically choose a long arm (other than the shotgun) that is classified by the media and others as an "assualt rifle". Are the police using theirs for assaulting the public, or for defense ? The same rules should apply to all.
joe sixpack
Member
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html
http://www.foxnow.com/44minutes/index.cfm?tv_id=1856&template=5&action=2
The above links detail the "North Hollywood Shootout" in which
guys using AK-47s with drums whack cop cars, and injure police.
When folks think of assault weapons in Cali, this is the picture that may be indelibly
etched in their minds.
And, no this does not look like an 30-06 or lever action 30/30.
cheers, ab
ps: perhaps I'm off base, living where I do a lot of weapons are off
limits to us.
http://www.foxnow.com/44minutes/index.cfm?tv_id=1856&template=5&action=2
The above links detail the "North Hollywood Shootout" in which
guys using AK-47s with drums whack cop cars, and injure police.
When folks think of assault weapons in Cali, this is the picture that may be indelibly
etched in their minds.
And, no this does not look like an 30-06 or lever action 30/30.
cheers, ab
ps: perhaps I'm off base, living where I do a lot of weapons are off
limits to us.
sturmruger
Member
For me the biggest pain in the ass is the 10 round mag restriction. The guns that were banned have had no effect on me what so ever.
B
boofus
Guest
The magazine and flash hider and threaded barrel portions severely piss me off. I paid good money and jumped through plenty of hoops for my SMG and suppressor. I want to do 30 round mag dumps and put the suppressor on any damn gun I want.
mfree
Member
The AK's in North Hollywood were fully automatic...a distinction I wish *everyone* would remember to make in these arguments, because as such they were and have been illegal since their production even without the AWB.
armoredman
Member
action barbi - I looked at your North Hollywood shootout links, and what I found STUNNING was they left out the vital contribution of Armored Transport inc during this situation. We had THREE armored trucks involved, one sheilding the SWAT team, another handing out Mini-14s to roadblocks, and another transporting wounded. Not one mention....what crap.
BTW, the movie 44 minutes is a load of hooey......
BTW, the movie 44 minutes is a load of hooey......
mainmech48
Member
Jim March nailed it: the only real differences are in the engineering criteria and the subsequent testing to prove functional reliability at the far edges of that envelope.
"Sporting" rifles, regardless of operating principle, were never designed nor engineered to be used under "military" conditions where sustained firing, lack of opportunity for detailed maintenance, and high exposure to hostile environmental conditions are the rule rather than the exception.
Personally, should the SHTF, I would prefer to entrust the well-being of Me and Mine to something designed, engineered, and rigorously proven to keep working when covered in s**t.
While I'm in no way disputing that there may well be some semi-auto "hunting" rifles which will perform under less-than-optimum conditions, I am saying that "maybe" isn't good enough when extremes are in the mix and my life may well be at stake.
A Remington 740, BAR, Mini-14/30, etc. is whole lot better than nothing. You can drive screws with a hammer, but it doesn't make it the right tool for the job.
"Sporting" rifles, regardless of operating principle, were never designed nor engineered to be used under "military" conditions where sustained firing, lack of opportunity for detailed maintenance, and high exposure to hostile environmental conditions are the rule rather than the exception.
Personally, should the SHTF, I would prefer to entrust the well-being of Me and Mine to something designed, engineered, and rigorously proven to keep working when covered in s**t.
While I'm in no way disputing that there may well be some semi-auto "hunting" rifles which will perform under less-than-optimum conditions, I am saying that "maybe" isn't good enough when extremes are in the mix and my life may well be at stake.
A Remington 740, BAR, Mini-14/30, etc. is whole lot better than nothing. You can drive screws with a hammer, but it doesn't make it the right tool for the job.
ny32182
Member
That first link was also talking about the "rapid deployment of the SWAT team" and how it saved the day... It took them, what? 44 minutes to get there? Thats not rapid.
I've HEARD they were sitting around outside the scene waiting for the red tape to clear before they could go in also. Not sure if that is true or not, but "SWAT team deployment" along with the lack of long guns in the normal cruisers is usually mentioned as the worst "tactical failure" of this incident.
I've HEARD they were sitting around outside the scene waiting for the red tape to clear before they could go in also. Not sure if that is true or not, but "SWAT team deployment" along with the lack of long guns in the normal cruisers is usually mentioned as the worst "tactical failure" of this incident.
Walking Wounded
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 30
There's no functional difference between the banned guns and the non banned guns at all. Flash hiders and collapsing stocks are of marginal use at best. The biggest thing is the magazine limitation and that's independent of the weapon itself. Imagine how stupid it is to send someone to jail over having a little knob of metal on their barrel. That's like sending someone to jail for having a spoiler on their car.
I'd bet $$ on a medium to well trained individual with a 30-30 lever gun and scout scope against a typical crook or 3rd world soldier with a tricked out M4 any day. That's not even the same action type. I read a gun rag article where they did room clearing drills with a short AR15 and a lever 30-30 and compared splits (same shooter). I don't remember the exact times, but the difference in splits between the two was a fraction of a second. And when you factor out the higher recoil of the 30-30 I bet they would be almost exact. The lower capacity of the lever gun would have ZERO effect on its crime, or civilian defense against crime, potential only on its sustained combat potential. Again, this is comparing different actions, switch the lever for a Mini14 and 10rd mags....
The military versions are more rugged, user friendly (take down, maintenence, parts) and handle a little better (still talking about versus hunting rifles not "post-ban" of the same rifle). This makes them the rifles of choice. The AWB is supposedly about crime though. Even if criminals followed it, the weapons they choose "post Ban" would in no way limit their effectiveness as instruments for committing crimes. That's why we say they operate the same because for all practical purposes they do and "post-ban" types are just as effective for crimes as pre-ban (and they are chosen less than 3% of the time anyway) and only marginally less so (if any) for civilian defense and combat.
So the AWB makes little sense even if ARs etc...were totally banned. Since the ban concerns only cosmetic features of same gun, it's totally silly. My short answer would be "They function the same and I plan to buy a "post-ban" version as soon as the AWB sunsets in hopes they'll be cheaper, cause the banned features add no real utility in my opinion, I prefer a full length stock and have no use for a bayonet lug or flash suppressor." -and 30 rd mags are simple and cheap to get either way-
The military versions are more rugged, user friendly (take down, maintenence, parts) and handle a little better (still talking about versus hunting rifles not "post-ban" of the same rifle). This makes them the rifles of choice. The AWB is supposedly about crime though. Even if criminals followed it, the weapons they choose "post Ban" would in no way limit their effectiveness as instruments for committing crimes. That's why we say they operate the same because for all practical purposes they do and "post-ban" types are just as effective for crimes as pre-ban (and they are chosen less than 3% of the time anyway) and only marginally less so (if any) for civilian defense and combat.
So the AWB makes little sense even if ARs etc...were totally banned. Since the ban concerns only cosmetic features of same gun, it's totally silly. My short answer would be "They function the same and I plan to buy a "post-ban" version as soon as the AWB sunsets in hopes they'll be cheaper, cause the banned features add no real utility in my opinion, I prefer a full length stock and have no use for a bayonet lug or flash suppressor." -and 30 rd mags are simple and cheap to get either way-
Zak Smith
Member
Splits as in shot-to-shot times, between shots in a double-tap/hammer or while transitioning between targets?
At CQB distances, aimed pair split times should be 0.20 seconds or shorter, and target-to-target transition times (shot to shot) should be 0.40 seconds or shorter.
A lever isn't going to match that.
-z
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
As much as I love the look of an AR-15 and the fact that it's semi-automatic... I still think of WWI and WWII bolt-action rifles as more of an "assault weapon" than an AR-15 or AK clone could ever be.
- Status
Similar threads
