What is an "assault rifle" or "military style" weapon?

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Sorry, but according to Connecticut state law that is not an "Assault rifle".

Definition of Assault Weapon The act designated as an assault weapon: 1. any of a list of named firearms; 2. selective-fire firearms capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the option of the user; and 3. parts either designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon or from which an assault weapon may be rapidly assembled if they are in one person's possession

It goes on to say

This act added the following to weapons designated as assault weapons: 1. semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have certain features; 2. semiautomatic shotguns with certain features; and 3. part or parts in one person's possession either designed or intended to convert any firearm into one of the newly covered assault weapons or from which one may be assembled rapidly.

notice it says "certain features".

reply to post by Feltrick


Please see my post above.
Thank you.

reply to post by Mr Tranny
you are right sir, some research does get to the hole story www.special-ops.org... always that that Colt made it no it was bought by Colt then produced by Colt as for where did AR come from, here is the answer learn something new everyday from the link

The “AR” in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite’s AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the “AR” prefix.

as for MP as in MP5 mil and/or police, (it should be renamed Military and or Law or Enforcement
MLE but this too would lead to confusion for there is a Lee Enfield rifle named MLE.
www.hk-usa.com... is used just as MP= machine pistol or MP= Military Police

Read more: www.special-ops.org...

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by schuyler

 

the people who are supposed to!

Then criminals are supposed to? Reminds me of: "Outlaw guns and only outlaws wil have guns."

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

But most pistols are semi automatic, as well as some shotguns and hunting rifles. Are those all assault style weapons?

- Pistols do not count.

If the semi auto has a removable clip it is an assault weapon, if not it is a Long Gun. I have a 22 marlin (lovely) which is semi-auto. It is NOT an "assault" weapon because there is no clip (no quick reloading) so once the chamber is empty I would have to stop and manually reload. It will fire just as fast as an assault weapon and do just as much damage- The only difference is that when I am empty, there is no way to pop another clip in.

"Assault" weapon is a scary word for a semi auto rifle with a clip.

I would also add that an "assault rifle" has a bayonet lug affixed to the barrel. In hunting, or standard "personal protection" scenarios, where a rifle may fit into this category, a bayonet would not be needed. So, IMO, the bayonet lug does set a different tone.

Fellas, help me out here because I'm not a black, plastic rifle guy. I like wood and steel rifles from WWII, which does cause me a bit of concern since reading over the "What constitutes an Assault Rifle" could make an M1 Carbine one. It isn't and was never considered an assault rifle but, it has a bayonet lug, it's semi auto, has 10, 15 and 30 rd mags and the paratrooper stocks are collapsible w/pistol grips.

So, if they go back to the old AWB, you could still buy an AR, just not one with a bayonet lug, telescopic stock and no 30-rd mags....right? Are there other features that would not be allowed? If they mandated the "bullet button" magazine release, you could still replace it with the regular release if/when TSHTF.

Again, not a black plastic rifle guy so I don't know how big a deal this is for those that are. Understand some feel this would be a direct violation of their rights, but I still remember ARs for sale when the AWB was in effect. Heck, at my range you can only load five rounds in rifles so a 30-rd magazine doesn't do much good, unless you get into a firefight with the Taliban. And, if you need 30-rds to defend your home from a burglar, you need more range practice!

Originally posted by MJZoo
There has been no shortage of either of those two terms being smeared across the news and even being thrown around on ATS. So with so much talk about an assault rifle ban I'd like people to comment, respectfully, what they use for a criteria in determining what these terms mean. Is it the caliber of the gun, the size of the clip, the way a gun looks? I want to keep this away from a "ban guns" or "give everyone guns" debate (I know I'm asking a lot). I hope this may turn in to educational thread because many people may not know what terms like semi-automatic mean.

In MY own opinion, an assault rifle would be a rifle that produces more than one round to be fired with one pull of the trigger. I personally don't think the appearance of a gun or the amount of rounds it holds has anything to do with it. Also, there are MANY calibers of bullet that are far more devastating than the .223 round that has been used in recent tragedies.

Anymore whatever the government says constitutes and assault rifle as indicated by the below link

www.jud.ct.gov...

To the best of my knowledge the Germans invented the Assault Rifle 'type' in the later part of WWI. Their Stg-44 Sturmgewehr was the first example of an assault rifle in reasonably wide spread use by an army. Sturm means "Storm" as in "Storm the castle" and gewehr means rifle. The intermediate power cartridge it fires is a 7.92 X 33. That was their already in service 7.92 X 57 cut down and filled with less powder. The lower power and weight of the round allowed the weapon to be more controllable on full auto fire and allowed each soldier to carry more ammo do to less weight. IMO it was a true game changer as noted by those who adopted the principle afterwards.
The Soviets quickly copied this idea with the post-war AK-47 which fires the 7.62 X 39... their standard service cartridge had been 7.62 X 54R which is a big heavy round..... They now use the AK-74 which is even smaller than the 5.56 that is used in many AR-15s

An assault weapon is any weapon that could help prevent the Banksters from putting you under their form of Communism they call Agenda 21. They intend to reduce the worlds population by 80 to 90% . They are sure you would object and aim to disarm you because they fear you . The lessons from the French Revolution has not been lost on them . We are moving throught the NWO to a life where there are two classes . The Royals and the Commoners just like France and England was in the 1800's. Our own politicians are selling us out wholesale . They hope to be one of the Royals instead of one of the heavily taxed commoners . Robin Hood days all over .

Originally posted by 727Sky

Originally posted by MJZoo
There has been no shortage of either of those two terms being smeared across the news and even being thrown around on ATS. So with so much talk about an assault rifle ban I'd like people to comment, respectfully, what they use for a criteria in determining what these terms mean. Is it the caliber of the gun, the size of the clip, the way a gun looks? I want to keep this away from a "ban guns" or "give everyone guns" debate (I know I'm asking a lot). I hope this may turn in to educational thread because many people may not know what terms like semi-automatic mean.

In MY own opinion, an assault rifle would be a rifle that produces more than one round to be fired with one pull of the trigger. I personally don't think the appearance of a gun or the amount of rounds it holds has anything to do with it. Also, there are MANY calibers of bullet that are far more devastating than the .223 round that has been used in recent tragedies.

Anymore whatever the government says constitutes and assault rifle as indicated by the below link

www.jud.ct.gov...

To the best of my knowledge the Germans invented the Assault Rifle 'type' in the later part of WWI. Their Stg-44 Sturmgewehr was the first example of an assault rifle in reasonably wide spread use by an army. Sturm means "Storm" as in "Storm the castle" and gewehr means rifle. The intermediate power cartridge it fires is a 7.92 X 33. That was their already in service 7.92 X 57 cut down and filled with less powder. The lower power and weight of the round allowed the weapon to be more controllable on full auto fire and allowed each soldier to carry more ammo do to less weight. IMO it was a true game changer as noted by those who adopted the principle afterwards.
The Soviets quickly copied this idea with the post-war AK-47 which fires the 7.62 X 39... their standard service cartridge had been 7.62 X 54R which is a big heavy round..... They now use the AK-74 which is even smaller than the 5.56 that is used in many AR-15s

just reread my post that was WW2 WWll not WWl, Sorry need better proof reading skills

reply to post by Feltrick


I posted about CT laws because we still have an assault weapons ban.
I post what Connecticut sees as an assault weapon, but I can't speak for other states.

reply to post by GunzCoty


Saw that and it's about the same as California's AWB. It doesn't ban the firearm, just certain features. Again I ask, are those features that important to those who own them? Does the bayonet lug help with accuracy? Does the telescopicing stock really help with sighting in a target?

Seems if a Federal AWB goes into effect, it will do nothing but inconvenience someone who wants it to be "just like the one used by the military." I get that. I was looking at an SKS that was CA legal, it didn't have the bayonet or grenade sight, I would rather have those features.

reply to post by thePharaoh

Criminals do not (as a rule since the tommy guns of the 1930s) have access to automatic (full auto) weapons.

reply to post by 727Sky

A 5.56 mm or .223 inch bullet is smaller than 7.62 mm or .308 inch bullet (altho the 556 cartridge is longer than the AK round by 45 mm to 39 mm).

reply to post by Feltrick


Well the telescoping stock is good for adjustments, but it would make no difference to me.
However ask yourself this, does bayonet lug, or telescoping stock help a nut job kill more people?

The only thing the assault weapons ban ever did, was make the price go up.
It has never saved one life.

Originally posted by GunzCoty

Well the telescoping stock is good for adjustments, but it would make no difference to me.
However ask yourself this, does bayonet lug, or telescoping stock help a nut job kill more people?

Funny adjustable stock anecdote.

I needed a rifle for me and the little lady for 3 gun. An adjustable was the way to go because of our great difference in arm length. At the time I was in state where an adjustable stock was illegal.

So I bought two rifles.

Because these asshats wouldnt allow an adjustable stock I helped put two rifles into circulation instead of one.

Morons.

reply to post by GunzCoty


Thanks for the reply!

So, realistically, according to both you and Thisguyrighthere, the only thing an AWB will do is put more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and the government (sales tax). Otherwise, this is a feel good measure by the POTUS to make the people feel like he's done something to protect them. I don't get the uproar over this measure other than the idiocy of it.

What does everyone think of the "bullet button" which basically makes an "assault" weapon a normal weapon? If this were required on all new rifles, how would it affect you? It would take a bit longer to change mags, but in a SHTF scenario, couldn't you just replace it?

One thing I do not understand is the uproar over 30-rd mags. Don't understand why anyone, other than the military, would need one. If you say they're good for hunting...it only tells me you can't hit what you're aiming at. If you say it's for home defense...What the heck are you defending against? Zombies?

Most ranges will only allow 5-rds in rifles so a 30-rd mag doesn't seem all that much needed to me.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by GunzCoty

 

Thanks for the reply!

So, realistically, according to both you and Thisguyrighthere, the only thing an AWB will do is put more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and the government (sales tax). Otherwise, this is a feel good measure by the POTUS to make the people feel like he's done something to protect them. I don't get the uproar over this measure other than the idiocy of it.

What does everyone think of the "bullet button" which basically makes an "assault" weapon a normal weapon? If this were required on all new rifles, how would it affect you? It would take a bit longer to change mags, but in a SHTF scenario, couldn't you just replace it?

One thing I do not understand is the uproar over 30-rd mags. Don't understand why anyone, other than the military, would need one. If you say they're good for hunting...it only tells me you can't hit what you're aiming at. If you say it's for home defense...What the heck are you defending against? Zombies?

Most ranges will only allow 5-rds in rifles so a 30-rd mag doesn't seem all that much needed to me.

Most ranges will only allow 5-rds in rifles so a 30-rd mag doesn't seem all that much needed to me.

Maybe in your local area gun range that is a fact, but that is not the case around my part of the woods. Our range rents full auto rifles etc etc and is pretty much of the opinion if you can afford it, you can shoot it. Obviously one size does not fit all.

Full auto is a waste of money unless you are laying down suppression fire and trying to get out of an ambush or establish fire superiority.

reply to post by Feltrick


The AWB isnt just about features. It's a combination of features. Makes it even more useless.

So in CA if you want a pistol grip you have to use a bullet button type device. But there are shooting sports (here's where they need comes in) that are timed and reloads take time. When you're trying to beat hundreths of seconds of time that 30 rounder is a must have. But CA has a bullet button? So they swap their pistol grip stock for something like a "monstergrip" that eliminates one of those evil features so now you can have a regular detachable 30 round magazine and not run a foul of any stupid laws.

It's incredibly stupid. Does nothing to affect the potential lethality of the firearm and even by many CA enforcement officials admissions makes for an expensive and ridiculously convoluted maze of regulations that not only accomplish nothing but are essentially impossible to enforce with any consistency.

All the while the gangs in LA are still shooting each other with machine-guns that are illegal nationally never mind locally in CA.

And of course there's the plain truth of who are you or anyone else to tell me what I need?

ETA: I've never seen a range limit your firearm capacity and Ive shot all along the eastern seaboard.

To get an idea of how ridiculous the law is check out this "am I going to prison?" flowchart: pdf

reply to post by Feltrick


Who needs a V-10 gas guzzler over a 4 cylinder?
Who needs a Lear Jet over a bi-plane?
Who needs a 5 BR/4 BA house for a family of 3?
Who needs liability insurance if they are an excellent driver?

Who needs to reload 10 times when they can not have to reload at all? More accidental shootings occur when cleaning, or making adjustments/reloading a weapon than when someone is just sending bullets toward a target.

It's a convenience! Why does it have to be something sinister???

Many people who own long guns that accept magazines, keep several loaded mags on hand, stored with the weapon. If, God forbid, there ever was a SHTF scenario, these are the people that would suddenly realize how many unprepared friends they have!

I keep a full 5 gallon gas can, on hand, for emergencies. Should I reduce it to a 1 or a 2 gallon can? Because who "needs" 5 gallons of gasoline laying around, right???

Come on guys. A little logic goes a long way. Remove your FEAR from your thinking, and things will become clear and trivial, as they really are...

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


First, we are talking about firearms, not cars, planes, homes or insurance policies and to think that any of those are the same is foolish.

Second, YOU are doing more to take our guns away than any anti-gun lobbiest with those statements. To say that a 30-rd mag is needed because gunowners are more likely to shoot themselves when cleaning/reloading says one thing....gunowners are incompetent. To say you keep loaded mags with your weapon in case the SHTF and you have to deal with your neighbors....says that gunowners are paronoid, dangerous and irresponsible. To say that it's a matter of convenience....Gun ownership isn't about convenience it's about responsibility. Never use those statements to defend gun ownership....geesh!

The only FEAR I see is your FEAR of shooting yourself and your fear of your neighbors. Fearful gunowners create distrust.

Logic? Okay. Logic states that if they reinstate the AWB I will be, at most, inconvenienced. Logic tells me that it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the owner of that gun. We need to educate gunowners so they're not shooting themselves. We need to ensure that mentally unstable people do not have the ability to purchase a firearm.

Again, the gun is not now, nor has it ever been, the problem. People get a little edgy when they hear that gunowners are incompetent, paranoid, dangerous and irresponsible. It is up to us and the NRA to make the case that we are educated in the use and storage of our weapons. It is up to us and the NRA to show that we do not want people who are mentally unstable to have access to weapons. More guns isn't the answer, more education and responsiblity is the answer.

Now, that said, I don't have the answers. I do know that we need to be responsible gun owners to alleviate the fears of those around us.

TO ALL: The ranges and gun clubs in SE Pennsylvania have a 5rd limit on rifles and 6rd limit for pistols. Backyards and the mountains have no limits.