What is the difference between these two rifles?

Can someone tell the difference between these two rifles? Which one is more deadly? The first rifle..




And the second..








Guess what... They are the SAME rifle. A Ruger 10/22. The only difference is the cosmetic furniture. One is your standard wooden stock, the other a plastic stock. Other than the looks, it is the same gun. Anti gunners would love to ban the rifle in the 2nd pic, even though there is no difference.


iTruthSeeker

a reply to: iTruthSeeker


Nothing, both of them are an obstruction to rampaging government infringement on personal liberties and rights.

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
a reply to: iTruthSeeker


Nothing, both of them are an obstruction to rampaging government infringement on personal liberties and rights.

They're already doing that.




Oops.

The difference is the "Scare Factor".



And of course, the "Triggers" are different, and aim at the emotion brain capacity.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I was significantly more frightened by the second rifle. Its coloration obviously makes it much more deadly and apt to shoot things even if left unattended.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The primary reason the government would like to get rid of the second, as opposed to the first, is the "idea" that it looks so scary.

Do you remember what an M-1 looks like. Its not near as intimidating as an M-16. But, after using both in real combat situations, I'll take the M-1. The most effective difference is knowing how to best use the weapon. With an M-16, you can spray out shots and hope you hit something. With an M-1 you take a little time and make every round count.

Of course, dead is dead regardless the gun used.

If you point either one at me the difference is how far up inside your body cavity one will go.

I can't work out posting pictures, but the SKS also comes in beautiful wood stock- but can also be fitted into a black plastic bullpup shell.

On a logical, level-headed mindset, there is no difference.

On an emotional, over-reactive, fear-based platform, they're both scary and "weapons of war have no place on our streets and in our homes"..



Personally, a slingshot is just as deadly as the items above, if you know how to effectively use it.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker
,22 Caliber. Which amounts to a BB Gun for us in the South. Good for shooting rats , not much else.Only thing is , we wouldnt use the second as it is too flashy. That would be over the fireplace mantle for show for folks that dont know what a real rifle is.

Nice post! I've been meaning to do something like this with .22, .223, 9mm, 7.62, and whatever else has a modified stock. Until people realize that it's the person responsible this argument will never end. Sadly,

originally posted by: Cygnis
On a logical, level-headed mindset, there is no difference.

On an emotional, over-reactive, fear-based platform, they're both scary and "weapons of war have no place on our streets and in our homes"..

Personally, a slingshot is just as deadly as the items above, if you know how to effectively use it.

The slingshot is potentially more deadly. Depends on the size of the rock...think Davy and Goliath. If David had been using one of those, the situation would have turned really ugly , really quick.Biblical history would not have been the same.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The primary reason the government would like to get rid of the second, as opposed to the first, is the "idea" that it looks so scary.

Do you remember what an M-1 looks like. Its not near as intimidating as an M-16. But, after using both in real combat situations, I'll take the M-1. The most effective difference is knowing how to best use the weapon. With an M-16, you can spray out shots and hope you hit something. With an M-1 you take a little time and make every round count.

Of course, dead is dead regardless the gun

edit on 14-6-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The primary reason the government would like to get rid of the second, as opposed to the first, is the "idea" that it looks so scary.

Do you remember what an M-1 looks like. Its not near as intimidating as an M-16. But, after using both in real combat situations, I'll take the M-1. The most effective difference is knowing how to best use the weapon. With an M-16, you can spray out shots and hope you hit something. With an M-1 you take a little time and make every round count.

Of course, dead is dead regardless the gun used.

Yea the m-1 Garand fires a 30-06 which is a big game battle rifle cartridge, compared to the tiny varmint round the M16/M4 uses. Much more capable weapon in both damage and range. Either way in the end, if your hit in a vital spot you are dead with either.

iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Cygnis
On a logical, level-headed mindset, there is no difference.

On an emotional, over-reactive, fear-based platform, they're both scary and "weapons of war have no place on our streets and in our homes"..

Personally, a slingshot is just as deadly as the items above, if you know how to effectively use it.

The slingshot is potentially more deadly. Depends on the size of the rock...think Davy and Goliath. If David had been using one of those, the situation would have turned really ugly , really quick.Biblical history would not have been the same.

Yes indeed.

However, imagine aliens giving the Israelites advanced weapons, like the modern AR-15.. Egypt would be a different story, as well.

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
a reply to: iTruthSeeker


Nothing, both of them are an obstruction to rampaging government infringement on personal liberties and rights.

Sorry, I'm not having a go at you personally (and I mean that) but I've seen and heard this thousands of times. However, not even once has anyone done anything other than whine about how the oppressive government is coming for your guns....cold dead hands....I've got all the ammo for a 20 day siege.....I really NEED my assault rifles.....
Obviously I'm not trying to incite any sort of violence, but the government has not ever come for your 320,000,000 privately held guns, and even if they did you'd just whine about it or make huge brave statements without any action.

For a proud, patriotic, and brave country, you all are sure scared of each other.

Let's say that they did come for your guns, what then? How would life continue? How would you do without your rights and personal liberties? Would it restrict your movement? Stop you from earning a living? Make you even more afraid of fellow Americans?

Your well regulated militia was instead of a standing army. If the standing army come for your guns, you haven't got a prayer.

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Cygnis
On a logical, level-headed mindset, there is no difference.

On an emotional, over-reactive, fear-based platform, they're both scary and "weapons of war have no place on our streets and in our homes"..

Personally, a slingshot is just as deadly as the items above, if you know how to effectively use it.

The slingshot is potentially more deadly. Depends on the size of the rock...think Davy and Goliath. If David had been using one of those, the situation would have turned really ugly , really quick.Biblical history would not have been the same.

Yes indeed.

However, imagine aliens giving the Israelites advanced weapons, like the modern AR-15.. Egypt would be a different story, as well.

Me , I dont use any of these new-fangled pop-guns. I leave them for our 10 year olds to learn as a how-to. Me , got Ol Betsy . 10 gauge firing 10oz expanding tip slugs. Poke a hole the size of a baseball in a 1/4 " steel at 50' with no problem at all.Will work real well if Georgia is ever invaded by elephants.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

really? it's just as deadly if you hit the heart or brain with either one, even with multiple hits only one bullet in specific will kill a person not all of them.
i'll tell you america's problem; we are too irresponsible with our rights otherwise more people would understand why this happens only here in our country and stop it.

a reply to: Badgered1

They came for guns during Katrina.

Oh and then the danziger bridge incident which police were murdering innocents because they were the only ones with guns.

The police are in jail but that two men are still dead.

I know it hardly ever happens but when it matters it's life and death. Your choice...?

2nd one will make you mentally ill.... that's the difference!