Which One Is The Assault Weapon?

Originally posted by AllenBishop
reply to post by muse7

 

Negative. The .223 is nothing but a hopped-up .22.

The most deadly small arm available to civilians is the shotgun.

5.56/.223 was designed as a "wounding" calibre, not a "killing" calibre.

Hm.
Maybe you're right about the shotgun, I don't know.
At the ranch I used to work at, the dude my boss called to come process the meat for him used a .223.

Ofcourse the animal was penned for a point-blank single round...
What's worse is if the dude has multiple requests; and the Angus' hear it, they tend to stir around restlessly. It takes a little longer, and he has to work a little harder.

Is there a humane way to eat?

reply to post by muse7


Trolling? Hardly. I have plenty of experience on the subject.

There's a reason the military has been wanting to ditch 5.56 for a long time for a larger, more powerful cartridge.

The only reason the M4/M16 haven't been fully replaced is a logistical/financial issue, NOT a performance issue.

The US military would switch to the Mk17 Mod 0 in a heartbeat if it weren't cost prohibitive to do so. The 5.56 is a poorly performing round that was originally designed for varmint hunting. Again, it's a hopped-up .22 and nothing more.

I don't care how many episodes of ER you've watched, the facts are facts.

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants."

And this is on military spec ammunition. I would bet my paycheck that Adam Lanza was using .223 civvy ammo, which is of even poorer performance.

You need to familiarize yourself with terminal ballistics theory from Dr. Martin Fackler, before trying to whizz on my back and tell me it's raining.

Ok. I knew both rifles were the same at first sight. A gun shop owner put it in simple terms when i asked what kind of assault weapons he had in stock. He said "any firearms are assault weapons.". How about them apples? Just proof that most folks who are not familiar with guns are easily influenced. A gun is a gun is a gun. Granted the fact is guns don't kill....people kill.

Forget the guns, it is the mental health issue that should be addressed instead.

Agreed. Damn I detest "band-aid fixes" that serve only to distract from and inhibit meaningful solution...

reply to post by AllenBishop

5.56/.223 was designed as a "wounding" calibre, not a "killing" calibre.

Stoner invented the caliber for Vietnam. It is most definitely designed to kill. In field trials the original AR-15 (automatic Rifle "15") which was to supercede the M-14, currently in use in Vietnam, amazed investigators because the heads of its victims were turned to mush with one shot. Whereas the venerable .308 caliber M-14 left a through and through hole, the AR-15 tended to pop the skull, fragmenting the skull into plates that resembled a squashed melon.

In October 1961, William Godel, a senior man at ARPA, sent 10 AR-15s to South Vietnam to let the allies test them. The reception was enthusiastic, and in 1962 another 1,000 AR-15s were sent to South Vietnam.[30] Special Operations units and advisers working with the South Vietnamese troops filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption. However, what no one knew, except the men directly using the AR-15s in Vietnam, were the devastating kills[31] made by the new rifle, photographs of which, showing enemy casualties made by the .223 (5.56 mm) bullet remained classified into the 1980s.[31]

The damage caused by the .223 (5.56 mm) "varmint"[29] bullet was observed and originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[32] However, this twist rate only made the bullet less stable in air.[32] Any pointed lead core bullet will turn base over point ("tumble") after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is aft of the center of the projectile.[32] The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by projectile fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the projectile's velocity and construction.[32]

en.wikipedia.org...

They still produce the rifle barrel "twist" and bullet properties that reproduce these kinds of casualties on the battle field and also available in the store today. There was a video earlier in a thread today that produced a report from somewhere(?) that discussed these kinds of wounds...

I'm looking.

Edit: This was on a thread that was shut down today (for good reason). I only present it for purposes of showing a document therein which I screen captured. The black underline at the top:



You.toob

reply to post by JIMC5499


Wow. I had that river when I was 10. Sweet rifle. That is a badass mod. Wish mine looked like that.


Oh. And to your point. I like the second one because it looks badass. Still shoots the same .22lr oversized bbs though. But it does so in style.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

On my experience with past assault weapon bans, the main thing that makes the bottom one different is the front fore-grip.
The other thing could be the shorter stock, which is nothing more than a pistol grip, making it easier to conceal.
Both stupid reasons I know because they both shoot the same rounds at the same rate but, thats politicians for you.

Which is funny because that stupid grip and lack of stock makes it LESS accurate. But it does look badass.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

These are the guns that were used in Newton

Interesting. I saw a COMPLETELY different pic on CNN yesterday which showed a Sig M400. A .223 rifle like the bushmaster. Conflicting info?

The diiference? 1 you would actually use to hunt with, and the other is set up for the sick fantasies some poor souls have for when 'shtf' and are planned to kill people with... Although they are both .22s I would hardly call either a true assault rifle... try #ing with a 7.62

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
full auto on an m16 with a twenty or thirty round mag is wasteful and with the muzzle climb you may get only a few of those rounds to hit on target.

I believe that the M-4 only has single shot or three round burst for this very reason.

When I was learning how to shoot the M-60, the Gunny said "You're a big boy, do you want to try to Rambo this thing?" I said "Hell yeah!" He set me up with a short belt, after the 4th round I was an anti-aircraft gunner. I couldn't keep the muzzle down.

My point in using the Ruger 10/22 images is that Weapon "A" was legal under the Ban, while Weapon"B" was not. In this case nothing concerning the caliber or the rate of fire had anything to do with Weapon"B's" being banned. It was banned purely for cosmetic reasons, not because of anything having to do with the firing mechanism.

Right.

Weapon "b" LOOKS badass. Therefore it must be so and it must also be much more adept at killing because LOOK AT IT. I mean DAMN. That thing looks sweet! Bet that look makes it take out whole armies and #. All by itself. Never runs out of ammo or anything. Not even Rambo had a gun this hot.

Oh wait. It s a .22!?!?!?

Damn.

Originally posted by P-M-H
The diiference? 1 you would actually use to hunt with, and the other is set up for the sick fantasies some poor souls have for when 'shtf' and are planned to kill people with... Although they are both .22s I would hardly call either a true assault rifle... try #ing with a 7.62

Meh. My brother hunts with an "assault rifle". It is a .223 and it is custom rifled with a scope and such. He was army and he likes the weight and is very familiar with its action and the way it breaks down. He got some crap from other hunters. The first season while they hunted with a traditional .223 rifle but he has brought down enough bucks to shut their pie holes.

Same gun. Cooler look.

Originally posted by rickymouse
I like A better, it has a much cleaner look. It will preform as good as B does for shooting deer. The people who desire B are those who like to look impressive I suppose. Join the Army if you want to use a gun that looks like that. Functionally for combat the B gun would be better because it can be controlled better at firing without looking through a scope. Just add a laser site and it can be used as a hip shooter. This B gun would be way better for killing people.

Uh. It is a .22. If you are hunting deer with it you better bring a brick because you are going to have to shoot that poor thing about 1000 times to bring it down.

Been in combat and done a lot of laser hip shooting have you? that # happens in movies and video games how old are you? Do you know what the hell you are talking about?'?

Originally posted by neo96


The second amendment has been around long before the NRA. In order to nix the 2nd amendment it would require 2/3rds of both houses, a constitutional convention and 3/4 of the states approving.

Exactly! Just like how congress passed an amendment and had it ratified by 3/4ths of the states to suspend the 4th amendment in order to pass the patriot act and allow the TSA to do what they do.

Oh. That didn't actually happen that way?

reply to post by Bakatono


You can kill a deer easily with a 22 if you hit it in the right place. It will drop. A 222 has a lot of power. People are under the impression that you need a big caliber rifle to kill something. That is a misconception. A friend of mine hunted deer with a 222 rifle.

reply to post by muse7

And why would anyone need a rifle that was designed for military and law enforcement use?

Some would considering that trolling because anyone who knows a modicum about firearms knows the ar-15 is designed for the civilian market.

Clear differences from barrel twist to ammunition velocities to stress it can take.

Too bad this will be on page 5, not page 1.

Too bad I've posted this twice before.

Too bad people are too ignorant to find out with "assault weapon" means.



Massachusetts law considers “assault weapons” to be part of a larger class of guns known as
“large capacity weapons”. There are restrictions on possession, purchase and transportation of
these guns and the penalties for using them in a crime are generally more severe. There is also
a ban on “large capacity magazines” made after September 13, 1994.

The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on
September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of
features are banned:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2
of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2
of--
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--"
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'“

A “large capacity feeding device” is defined the same as in federal law, or:
“a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or
that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five
shotgun shells; ... The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”

A “large capacity weapon” is basically any firearm, rifle or shotgun that is semi-automatic with
a fixed large capacity feeding device or that is capable of accepting any detachable large
capacity feeding device; or an “assault weapon.”

Neither. Unless those weapons have assaulted someone. As far as i know only people,bears,
and underweight, drugged up, mentally handicapped teenagers wearing masks assault.

Those are nice looking rifles though. Which, are completely harmless just sitting there, until an
ASSAILANT uses one for nepharious reasons.

This can be said of any perceived weapon, be it an M4, a butcher knife, or even a tshirt.
I've even seen my guru choke out a dude with his flip flop.

Guns are harmless. Only people cause harm.

One gun?

Do you have 34 or 100 comparisons or just one?

Give me say 13 and you might have some small (very small) argument. But I've seen one. Provide more.

reply to post by JIMC5499


An assault rifle is a rifle you can assault something with. There is no technical definition which fire mode it must have or how stock and barrel have to look. (Even tough in my opinion a weapon without full auto capabilities can hardly be called an assault rifle, but that's in the eye of the beholder)

What's the opposite of an assault rifle anyway ? A retreat rifle ? Bullpoop. Every rifle is an assault rifle as long as it shoots real lead bullets.

I would think that anything used to kill people, or to be picky, designed to kill people would be an assault weapon.

Swords, bayonets, battle axes, war hammers, catapults, and any other bit of pre-gun kit that was used for killing people in the pre-gun days, would thus, essentially be assault weapons.

What are pistols designed for? Their origins as hand-cannons were for killing people before they closed distance to sword striking range.
Any and every rifle has similar origins in history as man-portable small-bore anti-personnel cannons where traditional cannons were crew served emplacement artillery.

All of it ties back to weapons of war, all of them with pedigrees going back to killing people.

Putting a ban on assault weapons should thus entail banning every weapon ever developed.
Such is impossible.
The gun laws should be left alone, and, if anything, be relaxed and given social acceptance such that essentially every one owns at least a pistol.

If everyone is strapped, or, nut jobs at least think so, they may not get so trigger happy.
Then again, stupid people will be stupid people, and find means by which to be stupid.

The rest of polite society shouldn't need pay a price for the actions of criminals.