My Scary Gun Weighs a Ton

Due to the swirling, incessant talk, across all types of media, about restricting certain types of firearms due to them being more 'deadly' I decided to make this short, educational thread. A gun is a tool, tools have purposes. I will explain some of them to you.

Exhibit A, a Smith and Wesson, semi-automatic 'assault rifle', a 'military style' weapon capable of firing, at least in my state, a ten round magazine as fast as someone can pull the trigger. It is black, it is tricked out and it certainly looks 'evil'. It is fitted with a sinister front pistol grip for accuracy when standing and a bipod (not pictured) for when one is in the prone position. It fires the readily available NATO .223/556 caliber ammunition in full metal jacket:



Exhibit B, a Winchester lever action 'hunting rifle'. It was a gift from my father and has a beautiful wooden stock and hand grip, called the 'furniture' (which I polish after each use), and 10X scope. It fires the Winchester .308 ammunition from a 5 round magazine:



Exhibit C, a side by side comparison of the .223 and .308 ammunition:



A person does not need to be proficient in firearms to discern that one is significantly larger than the other.

Exhibit D, the .308 soft point ammunition used for hunting:



Both calibers in Exhibit C are designed to maim and wound. The ammunition in Exhibit D is designed with one purpose, to kill and to kill effectively.

Now the question; which rifle is more 'dangerous'?

If you said the scary 'assault rifle' armed with NATO .223 ammunition then you would be incorrect. The .308 lever action is tremendously more dangerous and once loaded with the soft point ammunition is outright deadly. There is a chance you will survive and encounter with a .223, and maybe even the .308 full jacketed ammunition, but the .308 soft point is going to ruin your day.

So before you fall into the media trap of wanting to ban the 'scary' firearms do some research on weapons and ammunition capabilities. Additionally, be mindful of pitfalls of dissecting firearms homicides as the majority of them are not by any of the weapons or ammunition addressed in this thread but by handguns.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Just so anyone who wonders knows, the AR in AR-15 is not "Assault Rifle" it's "Armalite", the company that came up with the idea.

www.armalite.com...

And as I pointed out in another thread, you can now purchase an adapter for your threaded barrel on your AR-15 to launch golf balls using blank ammo. I can say from first hand experience, it's damn fun.

Adapter

blank ammo

And top flight balls seem to shoot the best.

originally posted by: network dude
And as I pointed out in another thread, you can now purchase an adapter for your threaded barrel on your AR-15 to launch golf balls using blank ammo. I can say from first hand experience, it's damn fun.

Adapter

blank ammo

I would actually start watching golf if they used that.

You said that better than could have done. It seem people care more about the wrapping paper then what is inside. I bet you you can take a .22 dress it as a military style weapon and put a 308 or 338 hunting rifle next to it and they will tell you the .22 is evil. Same with calibre a .22 round in the head is much more effective than a 50 cal in the leg. The later you will need a leg the former you need a new life.

I like the hunting rifle better myself. I'd rather have a gun that my father gave me than a thousand dollar assault style rifle.

originally posted by: neversaynever
You said that better than could have done. It seem people care more about the wrapping paper then what is inside. I bet you you can take a .22 dress it as a military style weapon and put a 308 or 338 hunting rifle next to it and they will tell you the .22 is evil.

I remember as a kid shooting that .308 though railroad fish plates with the full jacketed ammunition. A .223 would be ricocheting all over the place.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I like the hunting rifle better myself. I'd rather have a gun that my father gave me than a thousand dollar assault style rifle.

True, it is only worth about $150-200 used (I checked) but it has a great deal of sentimental value.

I would still rather get shot with something else though...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Now the question; which rifle is more 'dangerous'?

The ability to put more lead on your target in less time would make the AR-15 more dangerous than a bolt-action I would think. Size of projectile notwithstanding.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'd rather not get shot at all.

originally posted by: Elton
The ability to put more lead on your target in less time would make the AR-15 more dangerous than a bolt-action I would think. Size of projectile notwithstanding.

Is that so? The effective killing range for the .223 is 300 yards, the .308 is 500 yards. The soft point ammunition will kill you, the full jacketed ammunition may not.

Oh, by the way, it is a lever-action, not a bolt action, as I stated in the Original Post.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'd rather not get shot at all.

Exactly! That is why I opted to arm myself against unlawful invasion of my premises.

I LIKE IT!

I have a 9 mil glock. What I'd like is a little knuckleduster.
Maybe in pink.

Not realy. You can not shoot as accurate with a automatic than a bolt action. Why do snipers carry bolt action. 1 properly placed bullet do more damage than 20 wild once.

I read somewhere that a study was done in the vietnam war and it was found that for automatic weapons only 1 kill was registered for every 9400 rounds fired in the war. In comparison for snipers it was something like 2.3 rounds per killl. a reply to: Elton

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well pardon my mistake, sir.

If we are having some sort of extreme range conflict you are probably correct, but to disregard the speed at which you can fire and reload the weapon while talking about lethal seems to be ignoring a lot.

Military does not go for lever action carbines, I suspect the Rate of Fire is important to them in determining how lethal a weapon is.

Jip but then the 223 will go through a sand bag the 308 will not.
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Elton
Well pardon my mistake, sir.

No worries.

If we are having some sort of extreme range conflict you are probably correct, but to disregard the speed at which you can fire and reload the weapon while talking about lethal seems to be ignoring a lot.

Lethality is determined by accuracy, not rate of fire.

Military does not go for lever action carbines, I suspect the Rate of Fire is important to them in determining how lethal a weapon is.

If that were strictly the case why does the M-16 have a 3 burst select-fire to limit the amount of ammunition used?

Please also see the post above yours for reference as well.

originally posted by: neversaynever
Jip but then the 223 will go through a sand bag the 308 will not.

I have personally not been to any public locations that were defended by sandbags.

And you were referring the soft-point ammunition, correct? Not the jacketed round because I can put that through just about anything.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Just so anyone who wonders knows, the AR in AR-15 is not "Assault Rifle" it's "Armalite", the company that came up with the idea.

www.armalite.com...

And as I pointed out in another thread, you can now purchase an adapter for your threaded barrel on your AR-15 to launch golf balls using blank ammo. I can say from first hand experience, it's damn fun.

Adapter

blank ammo

And top flight balls seem to shoot the best.

Oh no wait one minute Mr. Dude, it's the potato gun that is the most fun. Or as some like to say the spud gun.

Just had to get my two cents in on the fun factor of alternative firearms.

Looks left then right quietly asks, have you tried any of the specialty shotgun ammo?

Double post don't click that mouse twice darn it.

The rifles are not dangerous. It is about the shooters ability. What you shoot at. Shot placement. Distance est. The a reply to: Elton