Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Which One Is The Assault Weapon?

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
"Assault Rifle","Assault Weapon" & "High Capacity" magazines will be whatever they decide it will be in the definition section of the legislation they plan to pass. We can argue all day long what qualifies as an "assault rifle", etc, but it is really arbitrary & will be determined by the lib-tard, nanny state, control freak collectivists when they pen the legislation.

For people who understand firearms, a 'high' capacity mag might be defined as a mag holding more than was originally intended. My AR was designed to be fielded with 30 round mags, so a 30 round mag is a NORMAL capacity mag. A 100 round beta-mag might be a 'high' capacity mag. A 30 round AK mag is a NORMAL capacity mag.

Now if you ask the commies, anything more than a single-shot is 'high' capacity... And if it *looks* mean & scary, then it's an "Assault Rifle".

Realizing that your A & B examples are the same rifle with the same basic functionality & effectiveness requires a small bit of intelligence... something the left neither has nor cares about.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
Here is the AK47 pre ban (which has since been lifted) the pistol grip made it illegal



And here it is post ban ( instead of a pistol grip, it had a thumb hole)




Dude that second one is way less dangerous than the first. Any person can tell you that a pistol grip on a rifle is what makes it so dangerous that civilians sould not have them...duh....

BTW I think the old Army of Darkness BOOM stick and chainsaw is my weapons of choice...well until the ban chainsaws too.





edit on 21-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


I've never cared for high capacity mags. The springs tend to go bad causing feed jams.


They do tend to weaken up if they are left loaded over a long duration.
Best thing is to leave them unloaded when not in use.


Off topic slightly but relevant kinda, you should look into the science on this. With the old untempered springs this was an issue, there is a scientific term for it but I forgot it. Now a days, this is simply not the case. In fact they suggest that more spring "damage" is done by the constant flexing and unflexing that is done from being loaded and unloaded then sitting full for any amount of time.

That said, it is kind of a personal thing. I tend to leave my mags loaded with 3 rounds in them only, should be enough to stop a single person but shouldn't be enough to cause any degradation in either case. It is an old debate, and there are definitely 2 schools of thought.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllenBishop
Spoken like someone who needs a Nanny State to take care of him/her.

Spoken like someone who lives in a war zone.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Which One Is The Assault Weapon?

These look suspicious...




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
After observing these threads and the various posters and opinions for the past week one of the first signs of a troll/SP is "I am not against gun control but" Just sayin...

Good thread OP!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


The mental health issue is surely a reason not to have guns?


Repeat after me. "It isn't the gun. It is the person who uses the gun. If guns were not available they would use some other method to try to get the same results."

Within the last few weeks a knife was used to slash 20+ children in China and a crossbow was used in another incident.


And using that to justify gun use is ridiculous, its like saying "screw it people are gonna murder anyway, may as well let them have all the weapons they need, just so our beloved guns (clearly more dangerous than a knife don't be stupid) don't get a bad name.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Unless the NRA comes out and says something completely stupid today during their press conference I'm starting to feel like this recent buzz wont amount to anything.

All yesterday the MSM was sounding broken hearted that all the polling done immediately after last Friday only showed a slight bump in AWB approval, still not anywhere near what it was just prior to the 94 AWB being enacted.

They had little kids in front of cameras rambling on about "bad guns." That's a surefire sign the position has already exhausted its momentum.

We're all much more connected than we were back in '94 and allegedly much more educated on the subject though to hear some of these buffoons talk about "modern weapons" and "assault rifles" you wouldnt know it.

The majority of the House would/should keep it from passing. There are more Dems in the Senate that would vote "no" than the MSM would have you believe.

For the first time since Friday I'm starting to believe this is just another flare up of hyper-emotional stupidity. Albeit a little louder and hotter than others but still just another hyper-emotional flare up of stupidity.

Between you and me though I'm still buying the crap out of lowers and high caps



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
In regards to high-capacity magazines...

On a bad day it takes me about 12 seconds to drop an empty magazine, slap in a loaded magazine, close the bolt and resume firing with adequate center of mass placement. This is doing drills, not just bench shooting, so basically running at high speed. My best is roughly half that.

This is on my Colt M4 LE6920, a semi-automatic only variant of the military issue M4.

Now there are some guidelines to how fast an M4 can be fired in order to not cook-off rounds (prematurely igniting rounds due to barrel/receiver heat).

For a semi-automatic that is 45 rounds per minute. That's much slower than what you can actually fire, but 45rnds/minute means you should be able to fire indefinitely at that rate without cookoff. You still eventually have barrel failures.

However, the -maximum- rate of fire before the likely hood of cookoff occurs is 145 rounds per minute. That's roughly one round every 4/10ths of a second.

With a standard 30 round magazine, it would take just shy of 5 30 round magazines to hit 145. Or 14.5 10 round magazines. Using 30 rounders, it would take me roughly 12 seconds to empty it, and assuming my worst reload time, another 12 to load a new one and resume firing. That means that I could get, again roughly, through 3 of the 5 magazines in one minute. Putting me at a fire rate of 90 rounds per minute.

Now let's see how what the difference is by me doing 10 round magazines, and again worst reload speed. I come out just shy of 40 rounds per minute.

So we have a 50 round per minute difference. For our military and para military, that's a significant difference and they should never be limited by capacity, only by function.

For us civilians...? Well, to be honest, I can see that by the math it's a big difference. In real world, this may not work out to matter at all, afterall shot placement counts more than the amount of available ammunition in a magazine. So I can see why there is support for banning hi-capacity magazines.


That much said: Just because I don't have high-capacity magazines, doesn't mean criminals don't. So like many things, until you can assure me that those that would do evil are disarmed, I won't be either. I have nothing but 30 round PMAGS, USGI mags, or some of the new Surefire 60 round magazines. That way, be it criminal, or the unlikely but always possible invasion of some kind, I won't be stuck with 10 round mags
edit on 21-12-2012 by UnmitigatedDisaster because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-12-2012 by UnmitigatedDisaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
an assault rifle is any rifle that can be used to assault which could mean every rifle

the military definition of assault however the one people must think about when saying military assault rifle is much different.

that video of the ar15 with the huge mag would never be used to assault it would be used to suppress while troops with longer reaching 30+ caliber sizes moved forward.

a hk91 or fal rifle is a true assault rifle the ar15 in semi is a hunting rifle and in full auto is a suppression weapon - you simply can't effectively engage people who are shooting back with one unless you can vastly outdistance them in which case you are not shooting full auto or using an ar15.

can you kill a bunch of people with any weapon - yes of course because they are not shooting back but if you went up against police with one you'd be very lucky to get more than 1 or 2

edit on 21-12-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


The truth is that emotion rules the day right now and emotional decisions are not good for anyone.

The NRA and it's supporters are looking to survive the storm and see what remains once things settle and rationality returns to the nation and somewhat to the anti-gun movement. They will make careful statements.

The NRA has adopted absolutist positions and has supported those positions with logically fallacious arguments and rhetoric.

The silliest argument I have seen bandied about is that anyone is capable of killing with a variety of tools from fist, to rock to knife...therefore EITHER ban everything OR ban nothing.

This is commonly called a false dichotomy. A false choice between just two choices.

We all know that the very reason guns sell is because they are a better tool to kill than a fist or a rock or a knife.

And certain guns sell because they are better at killing than other guns.

Muzzle Velocity, Rate of Fire, High Capacity Magazines...etc.

Are we to begin a debate by denying that obvious truth?

Gun advocates who take the position that those things do not matter, destroy their own credibility.

The debate needs to be had and gun advocates need to make more legitimate arguments if they are to fend of the emotional state the country is in. And they will also need to compromise. If they do not engage in legitmate debate centered on genuine data, legitimate logic etc. rather than "clinging" to the bumper sticker rhetoric of the NRA, then they will eventually lose more ground than is warranted.

Weapon "A" in the OP...
Rugar .22 Long Rifle
Technical Specifications
Caliber: .22 Long Rifle
Muzzle energy max: 250 ft-lbs
Capacity: 10 round rotary

Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza
Rapid fire Semi-Automatic
Ammunition: .223 Remington; 55 grain bullet @ 3240 feet per second.
Muzzle Energy: 1282 foot-pounds.
Capacity: Standard 30 round magazine, 60 or 100 Round clips available, but with a greater likelihood of jamming the higher you go.

High Velocity....Rapid Fire..Light Weapon...High capacity clips.

Adam Lanza in Newton (killed 28), James Homes in CO (killed 12), Seung-Hui Cho, Viginia Tech (Killed 32), The recent mall shooter in OR...the list goes on...alll with the AR-15.

Now...AGAIN...wouldn't the facts be an honest place to start? Wherever you sit on the issue?

These killers did not choose the AR-15 over other guns, or a kitchen knife, because it was simply convenient.

It is the best gun easily available to kill many people in a short amount of time.

From there we can move on to other warrranted debates, about mental illness and whether more guns or less is the solution, or the potential impact an AWB would have, it's effectiveness etc. etc. etc.

But begining the discussion with BS? and false logic? We need honest and rational arguments from both sides to arrive at useful conclusions.

And the BS about a knife being the same as an AR-15 is just a moronic place to start. It insults the intelligence of gun owners and the anti-gun lobby both...AND the suggestion that a Ruger .22 Long Rifle is not different than an AR-15 is only slightly less moronic.

edit on 21-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
an assault rifle is any rifle that can be used to assault which could mean every rifle



You invented a definition for rhetorical convenience.

It goes without saying that the actual definition used in the last AW ban would be a more honest place to start.



In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines AND two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines AND two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Juggernog
Here is the AK47 pre ban (which has since been lifted) the pistol grip made it illegal



And here it is post ban ( instead of a pistol grip, it had a thumb hole)




Dude that second one is way less dangerous than the first. Any person can tell you that a pistol grip on a rifle is what makes it so dangerous that civilians sould not have them...duh....

BTW I think the old Army of Darkness BOOM stick and chainsaw is my weapons of choice...well until the ban chainsaws too.





edit on 21-12-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


You make a good point... M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14 all very lethal and highly effective Combat arms used without a pistol grip. .... The pistol grip has just been used as a tool for debate amongst the ignorant.. M14 w/out a pistol grip is still a preferred weapon within certain circles in the military....



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
M14 w/out a pistol grip is still a preferred weapon within certain circles in the military....


A fully capable M-14 would be my first choice, if it was legal to own one. The Marines on the ship I was on still had them in the early 80's. when I got to shoot one, I took to it like a duck to water.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
ALL weapons can be used to "assault."



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllenBishop

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by AllenBishop
Murder stats from the FBI for 2011.

Rifles=323
Shotguns=356

Knives=1694
Blunt objects=496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)=728


Link:
FBI Murder Statistics: 2011
edit on 20-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Link missing


LOL.

Nice work conveniently excluding the 6,220 handgun deaths in 2011 referenced ON YOUR OWN LINK.

Nothing like cherry-picking the data, right?




Problem is, they ain't talking about banning handguns, Chuckles, they're are talking about banning "assault rifles", emphasis on the "rifles".

The data isn't there to support the inherent "danger" of these weapons.


All the talk I've heard has been about "assault weapons" with a focus on high-capacity magazines and/or firearms with replaceable magazines period.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   


Your statement is still ignorant.

It's like arguing that the 2,000lb smart bombs we drop are designed as "wounding bombs" because they aren't H-bombs.


Don't play the semantics game with me. People are on here acting like the .223 is some wonder bullet that causes people to vaporize like Marvin The Martian's ray-gun. The data simply does not support this, especially when a buckshot is a far more devestating cartridge.

The 5.56 NATO round was designed to wound the enemy, overloading their medical support capacity. That, coupled with the smaller size allowing for greater number of rounds carried were the deciding factors for standardizing to this cartridge, DESPITE its under performance against other common calibres.

For you, not knowing my background, to infer that my statement is "ignorant" is pretty assumptive...
edit on 20-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Typo


Not at all. All bullets are designed to kill. True...some might be more devastating to human flesh than others...one might even say some are "less lethal"....but all bullets are designed to kill.









 
22
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join