“Much higher,” no. 7.62x51mm (hereafter .308) bullet is about 3x the weight of 5.56/.223. FPS difference is maybe a couple hundred, or less depending on how you load it. .308 is indisputably more powerful. Whether 5.56 vs 7.62x39mm is a significant difference is much more suspect. They are intended for the same role, whereas modern militaries consider .308 too heavy (can’t carry as much) for current infantry, beyond some specialist sniper-type roles.
They don’t do anything to the mechanism of the gun as much as make it spasm against your finger, registering multiple trigger pulls. They’re a gimmick, and can sometimes the same can be done using sophisticated tools like the belt loop on a pair of jeans.
You can also get some weapons with free-floating firing pins (like SKS) to shoot off multiple bullets if you don’t clean the firing pin block and crud builds up. I haven’t heard of anyone doing this intentionally; it is considered a bad thing to happen.
The AR-15/M16 has a muzzle energy around 10-15% less than the AK-47, but it’s less than 1/2 that of the M14. So against one it’s not a big difference but it was correct to say less powerful, and it’s a pretty big difference v 7.62 NATO rifles. Another post said some rifle rounds have 5 times the muzzle energy of the M16 but that’s exceptional, really big hunting/sniper rounds (.50 sniper rifles have 8 times the M16’s ME).
How inaccurate that makes it to emphasize ‘high power’ in the media terminology is a judgment call. I would lean to saying it’s superfluous rather than wrong.
On the political side ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’ aren’t so distinct though. I’ve heard both. On the military/historical side see above. Under the original definition of ‘assault rifle’ the AR-15/M16 was not. Assault rifle included the idea of a ‘full caliber’ but ‘intermediate length’ cartridge, like the Stg.44 and then the AK-47 on a much larger scale postwar. Back when the AR-15 was adopted by the USAF (first, and actually officially designated ‘Rifle, AR-15’) then the US Army as ‘substitute standard’ (and designated ‘M16’) in the early 60’s, the term ‘assault rifle’ was never used (as has been mentioned AR-15=Armalite Rifle-15), nor ‘battle rifle’ for the M14 which remained the official standard US Army rifle until 1969. Those are both IMO too recent terms to insist upon other people using in serious firearms/firearms history discussions.
Back on the political side, at some point it really doesn’t make a difference, or ‘assault’ can even be a silly term if as in some previous laws it applies to some guns with pistol grips, bayonet lugs etc and not to virtually exactly equal weapons without those. IMO it would be common sense and small gesture of reasonableness for gun control people to just say they want to limit/ban semi-automatic rifles with box magazines, and/or try to limit the magazine sizes, and explain why, and drop ‘assault’. That describes what you want to control/ban (first), and as above it’s not even crystal clear what ‘assault’ actually means even in a serious non-political firearms discussion.
This is for the parts necessary to assemble a rifle except the lower. The lower receiver is the part of the rifle that is stamped with the serial number and considered the firearm. The other parts are just metal and can be purchased with no restrictions, generally.
This is a kit to convert a .223 chambered lower receiver into a .22lr weapon. Some folks do this because .22lr ammo is much cheaper and you can still practice and train with the same ergonomics of an AR pattern rifle.
This is a bump fire stock that when used as designed can allow what is seen on the video. Essentially the recoil of the shot forces the stock to compress. The stock is spring loaded so after the initial recoil has passed, the rifle will lurch forward. If activated correctly, the force could be such that the gun fires in rapid succession. The finger is still pulling the trigger once for each round fired.
Something like a bomb, perhaps? No, a bomb could kill a building full of people in seconds. Maybe glass bottles filled with a flammable liquid? Lock the doors and let the intended victims die during the panic?
And to answer the OP, no I don’t consider a semi automatic (auto-reloading) rifle to be an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of automatic fire (multiple rounds are fired with a single pull of the trigger).
Well assault rifles are machine guns, assault weapons are not. that’s not really what anyone would call a meaningless distinction.
I think what is being given away is that the distinctions between assault weapons and plain old rifles doesn’t matter a damn. but they used the name assault weapon because they want you to be confused about the difference between assault rifles and their manufactured term “assault weapon”
Um, not exactly. I suggest Ruger’s Mini-14 was based on Springfield’s M-14. Both use external removable magazines. The M-1 Garand uses an non-removable internal magazine. Though I suppose one could argue the M-14 was an improved M-1 Garand.
With all due respect, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
We had an assault weapons ban in this country for 10 years and by all accounts it had no effect on anything. The main reason is that rifles account for a teeny tiny percentage of all crimes and murders committed with a firearm and assault weapons are a SUBSET of rifles. So banning them had no measurable impact on anything (except the price of the pre-existing assault weapon which were now collectibles).
People keep saying that no one wants to ban all guns or confiscate all guns and we also keep hearing about how awesome it would be if we could ban and confiscate all guns. Are we really supposed to believe that claims that gun control folks don’t want to confiscate guns?
Mass shootings: are such infrequent events that you are about as likely to be hit (but not necessarily killed) by lightning as you are to be killed in a mass shooting. The hysteria is mostly the result of the media. I could make a MUCH better argument that violating the FIRST amendment and preventing the media from reporting about mass shootings would have a more significant impact on the frequency of mass shootings than banning assault weapons would. But people seem to think that the first amendment is too valuable to shut down just because it might inspire someone to engage in a mass shooting. The second amendment, meh, not so much, fuck those rednecks.
Suicide: America’s suicide rate is dead fucking average for wealthy industrialized nations even after we pull out countries like Japan and Korea. It turns out that jumping off of tall buildings and in front of trains or hanging yourself from your window can also be effective means of suicide.
Banning guns entirely might have some impact over a very long time horizon during which civilians would be disarmed and criminals would remain armed but an Assault Weapons Ban? If a politician says it have any real effect, then they are either lying or stupid, or both.
Most bolt action rifles are direct descendants of bolt action rifles used in the military. If the criteria is that it was originally designed for military use, then you are talking about virtually every handgun and rifle in existence.
For example America saw no measurable impact during the 10 years of our assault weapons ban.
The problem with almost all gun control measure is that criminals generally won’t give a shit about the gun control law and if you are only talking about the gun crimes committed by the previously law abiding citizen, the numbers get much less alarming.
Do you think training requirements are acceptable for loaded carry permits or do people have a right carry loaded firearms even if they cannot demonstrate competency in handling firearms.
Okay, probably mostly to just get this out of my system, let me post some definitions of various types of firearms. These are the ones I use/think of, ymmv.
Pistol - Hand fired, effective range 40 yards, small rounds (generally).
Carbine - Shoulder fired small rifle that fires pistol ammunition. Effective range to maybe 150 yards.
Submachine Gun - Carbine capable of selective fire.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying just because people can always find something to kill other people with, we shouldn’t restrict anything that can kill people? That’s just dumb.
It’s my position that if you actually did have the votes to ban all firearms, you would still have mass murdering monsters to deal with. You can deal with the actual problem (the psychopathic monster), or you can create “feel good” laws that only prevent law abiding people from defending themselves.
In Orlando, a mass murdering monster broke the law by bringing a firearm into a gun-free zone. :eek: I’ve noticed that mass murdering monster do not care what laws have been passed, or what laws will be passed. They intend to murder as many people as possible by any means possible.
I’m indifferent on training requirements per se. If they serve as a barrier to licensure then they should be abolished. This is mostly because I don’t think they have much impact either way. I think people should obtain training and that most people do on their own with or without a requirement.
No, a “kit” that converts a semi-auto AR-15 to full-auto fire (where one can just hold down the trigger and fire multiple rounds) is not available to be easily nor inexpensively purchased legally. The second link “DIY Convert AR15 into a Machine Gun Video (One of Many)” is a horribly misleading description. The video you linked to is not of a machine gun. It’s a conversion kit to change the caliber of the rifle, so that it can shoot .22LR ammo instead of the regular .223 ammo. In that video, the guy does fire very rapidly, but that’s still semi-auto: he is pulling the trigger with each shot.
The third link, the TL,DW video is showing a bump fire stock, which is again, not actually full auto, although to the uninitiated it may appear quite similar. The user with a bump fire stock can’t just hold the trigger down and fire multiple shots. A bump-fire stock just assists a user in rapidly pulling the trigger repeatedly by using the recoil from the gun to lift your finger off the trigger and tension from the shooter’s support hand to quickly depress the trigger again. It sort of simulates a full-auto-ish rate of fire, but it doesn’t make your gun an actual full-auto “machine gun” in the eyes of the law.
I agree with this point. Lanza and a few other mass shooters were inspired by the Columbine massacre. Here is a group that seems to get it. Making sure the killers name doesn’t get mentioned unless its absolutely necessary and instead focusing on the victims. The FBI director did that very thing and I hope the media at large does the same.