This one is good. This one is VERY bad.

This one is good

This one is VERY bad.

This is, of course, according to the Assault Weapons Ban. Thats right people. The first gun is 100% ban compliant, ie, not an assault weapon. The second gun is the evil assault weapon.

asskroft and the DHS/TIA took your real assault weapon pic away.

Is one fully automatic and the other only semi? Or is it something silly like the barrels are different lengths?
And why have I seen them called Sports Utility Rifles?

The difference is the folding stock, bayonet lug, and flash supressor.

They both shoot the same ammunition, shoot once each pull of the trigger, and are generally identical. Funny thing is though, if a criminal wants to put a folding stock on a gun, the ATF cant do jack about it... they just wont know. The law is uninforcible.

Sport utility rifle = can do everything well

Example: AR15
Can be used to hunt (very accurate rifle)
Can be used to plink (mill surp is cheap ammo)
Can be used for home defense
Can be used for formal target practice

In comparison: remmington 700 bolt action rifle
Can be used to hunt
Can be used for target practice
Not good for home defense
Not a very good plinker (commercial ammo is $$)

Semi-auto rifles do lots of things very well.

I'm sure they're the ones that encouraged you to use terms like 'something silly like the barrels are different lengths?'.
And the reason you've heard them called Sports Utility Rifles is again, because you have been listening to the right wingers at the NRA. They are constantly trying to detract from the potential danger of the multi-round high powered rifles, by referring to them as "sporters", or "sporting rifles". If they used, "Tool used to kill lots of people, in very short periods of time" then it would hurt their cause.

Assault weapons.

My rifle has never assaulted anyone, so I find that name innapropriate. Bombs are more effecient to kill lots of people in a short amount of time, see palestine.

And...

What do you mean high powered rifles?
Please explain what denominates a rifles power. I know... you think that if its black and has a pistol grip its high power, is that it?

High powered semi-automatic rifle to me means this:

And This:


By comparison, this is made for shooting mice (and texas deer):


But... the bottom one looks scarier than the top two, so it needs to be banned. All are semi-automatic. The two above dont look as mean, but beleive me, they are far meaner. Two times as powerfull than the black mousegun above, ALL are semi-automatic. The top two can engage targets 1000 yards away much better than the black mousegun. They look soo PC though! They must be sporters! Nah, same configuration as used by our military in the big WWII (Garand) and Vietnam (m14).
When a rifle gets a pistol grip and is black, its automatically evil. In reality, the AR15s round can not penetrate past TWO walls of drywall, thus why SWAT teams use it in house clearing to make sure they dont shoot through the house and injure someone on the ther side. The two wooden ones above could easily shoot through a brick wall and then pass through half the house, if not all of it.

Lets compare two more rifles:

Evil


good


Its too bad both are the exact same gun in a different stock, but one sure does look meaner doesent it? Its the pistol grip and the black color. Both are semi-automatic. Both accept hi cap magazines, though none are pictured. Dont say something dumb like, "Pistol grips make shooting from the hip easier." You will make your argument hang itself after I inform you of the difference a pistol grip makes in shooting from the hip. Well, let me inform you now. It makes no difference. Nada. Zip.

The uninformed think that AK-47s and AR15s can shoot through 5 cars, and that .50 caliber "anti-tank" guns can shoot down planes.
Well, damn... whoever thought of that one needs to inform the DOD of that little tidbit. To think, they have been using stinger missles to down enemy aircraft when all they needed was a couple grunts on the ground with .50 cal rifles! Damn, the money we could save!

is useless for anything but killing people at short range?

It's not very good for hunting, the range is poor and the military version is mostly used in urban warfare.

I'll just say it again "assault" rifles are only any good if you want to kill people on the street.

You make a very strong case for them to be banned.

Ian

http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk

Ones with fabulous prizes and prestige for the winners.

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Programs/AR15.htm

No, thats not what I said.

In iraq, the longest kill shot with the M16 was taken at 550 yards.
That poor range? Basic training engages targets at 700+.

Its an excellent hunting rifle, especially when the caliber is upped by switching top halfs of the rifle. It still retains its accuracy, even if its chambered in a larger caliber.

Im saying that those two traditional looking rifles are more powerfull than the evil black rifle.

Spinny, I dont expect you to have the proper nomenclature to understand gun fact and fiction. You assumed the ar15 is not good at hunting, you say stupid crap like "its only good for killing people at short range... blah blah." Well, since you are informed by the media and movies, I wouldnt expect you to know AR15s can be chambered for a variety of powerfull rounds that basically turn it from a mousegun to a elk rifle.

"I'll just say it again "assault" rifles are only any good if you want to kill people on the street"

Yup, thats why I purchased mine...

is what people who are experts, like yourself, tell me.

Your post rubbished the AR15 as a serious hunting rifle and basically said it was ideal for urban warfare. Of course, to have said that it could have its barrel swapped out and be made as powerful as the 'proper' hunting rifles would have spoiled your argument.

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Either the AR15 can be as dangerous at range as the hunting rifles (in which case your argument that it was only being banned because it looked nasty would hold water) or it's a low power, short range weapon that isn't much use to serious shooters unless they're after people. You choose.

is killing mice.

like to use the AR15 because the trajectory is flat.
http://www.azod.org/pvci/photographs.htm

that it's a 'varmint rifle'. You're bound to believe it sooner or later. Be sure to ignore the fact that the U. S. military uses essentially the same rifle to kill PEOPLE. Your precious AR 15 is still a squirrel rifle. YEAH RIGHT!

Explain the differences between a military M16 rifle and a civilian AR-15.

On edit: To make it more interesting, let's say that "AR-15" refers to post- federal "assault weapons" ban, i.e. ones that are legal to manufacture for the civilian market right now.

The 5.56 is designed for efficiency, not power. It hits with less impact than .308, but depending on where you were hit, both rounds will kill you. Same for a dinky 110 ftlb of energy .25 auto. Anything can kill a human, its all in the placement. (But... a bigger bullet can help make up for bad placement by incapacitating the enemy)

"Be sure to ignore the fact that the U. S. military uses essentially the same rifle to kill PEOPLE."

LOL!
I guess because a gun is chosen for a military role, that means its only good for shooting people! Isayeret has chosen the ruger 10/22 for a military role. If you know anything about bullets, you would know that a .22LR isnt exactly a powerhouse, and has about 120 ft-lbs of energy in comparison to 1500 of a 5.56 or 3000 of .308
I guess we shouldnt sell ruger 10/22s at Wal-Mart since a military uses them to kill people. By the same degree, I guess we should ban hummers because they once had a .50 caliber browning machine gun attached to the roof.




10/22s are a VERY common gun in america, and are usefull 100 meter or less varmint hunting. Aparantly it is good at killing people too. Guess we should ban em!

My precious AR15 is an anything rifle. It does a little bit of everything well. Mousegun is a nick name given to the black rifle by hi-power competition shooters. It shoots a tiny, much less powerfull bullet than the M14s M/1A competition rifles. In your case, should I point out that calling it a mousegun is sarcasm?

Beforehand, I was comparing the rifles all chambered for their popular cartridges. IE the average black rifle comming off the manufacturers shelves is chambered in 5.56. Switching $500-800 uppers can give you a different caliber, but not as big as .308. That bullet wont fit in the rifle. I doubt criminals will go about getting a custom 800 dollar .50 tromix sledgehammer upper, and for some reason I think that upper will only grace hobbyist and hog hunters rifles.

Ummm, there have been many reports out of Afghanistan & Iraq of M4's, a shortned, select fire version of the AR-15, taking three or more rounds to drop a combatant. The issue is more one of ammunition than the actual hardware. Using standard full metal jacketed rounds, the M4 is likely to perforate a soft target without the accompanying tissue trauma needed to stop an assailant. Hollow point bullets out of about ANY weapon will likely do the trick with one or two hits. It IS an accurate rifle in the standard configuration and is useful in the South to take small white tail deer. Competition shooters use them effectively because due to being made of two components, they are infinitely adaptable.

I would say the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq was not the ammo.

For those units that used the A2s didnt seem to have the same problem as those with the M4s. And they all used the same ammo.

Sure the problem is with bullet performance, but it is a problem caused by the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4. Because the 5.56x45 relies upon velocity to be effective, and since the shorter barrels have a lower velocity, the 'effect range' (range at which the bullet exhibits maximum ballistic effects) of the M4 is much shorter than the 20in Barreled A2. So I personally would attribute the problem to the shorter barrels, and not to the ammo. Nearly same problem was exhibited in Somalia when the Rangers were using the 10.5 inch barreled CAR-15s. Granted if you upgrade to a 75gr or a 77gr (or higher) projectile you can extend the 'effective range' out quite a ways, but that is something that would be expensive to do, and something the military probably will not do. Plus a 75gr (or higher) projectile is still a better performer (in terms of 'effective range') out of a 20in barrel (again due the higher intial velocities).

Now the M4s are great for MOUT, but it is not the best platform for 'high desert'.

BTW- a 5.56x45 FMJ within its 'effective range' is much more devastating than a normal (made to expand) 'hollow point' against a man-sized target. I would even say that the puny varmit round 5.56x45 FMJ while it is within its effective range is more devestating than a 7.62 FMJ at the same range.

Stealing a page out of my book! I like it.:-)

non-gun-owning person can tell the difference.

Only possible solution is to get rid of both of 'em. Or make that all of 'em.

from the identical one you posted a couple of days ago? You're not trying to fill all the available space with pro NRA rhetoric in order to silence all opposing points of view, are you?

and its not pro NRA rhetoric. NRA is right wing...i am not.

?




Unless you’ve had your head stuck in the mud or live in a cave in Alaska, you can’t help but acknowledge that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expires next September. To get it passed in the first place, sponsors claimed they needed to insert a “sunset clause”. This allows the bill to go out of force if not renewed.

Of course radical groups like the National Rifle Association and Armed Females Of America want the ban to completely sunset. But guess what? So do I if all we have to look forward to is Senate Bill 1034: “ The Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003”.

It is widely acknowledged that the 1994 law was a poorly written attempt to curb the sale of semi-automatic military style guns. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer should definitely be given an “A+” for their effort and for standing up to the gun lobby back then. However, now that they have 10 years to see how loophole ridden their orginial ban is, they want to just continue with it. They don’t want to improve it. They just want to compromise and cave into the gun lobby.

President Bush has come out and claimed he supports the current law. He has not backed down from that irresponsible position and doesn’t have to. Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lined up right behind the President and marched forward with him-despite knowing their current ban is a total failure! They give him credence on the issue of supporting the current ban. After all they authored it back in 1994. If they would just put their energy into improving their current ban, then Bush would have no choice but to go along with them. The vast majority of the American public believes strongly in an assault weapons ban. However they must know the current ban doesn’t go far enough.


Feinstein admits the current ban is a virtual failure. In an editorial in the San Jose Mercury-News from July 2nd Senators Feinstein and Schumer state “....There will be some who say that the current law doesn’t go far enough- and frankly we agree with them.....”. So if you agree with us, fine Senators, why are you kowtowing to the President on the issue. He is as wrong as the NRA who wants the ban completely gone.

The XM-15 M4 rifle used by the Serial Snipers last fall in Washington DC brings home the point. This gun differs from it’s “pre-ban” brother by having a muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. That does nothing to change it’s lethality. It’s still a semi-automatic military style assault weapon and would still be legal and easy to purchase under Feinstein and Schumer’s proposed S 1034.

And another point: Maryland wants to ban these legal assault weapons designed to evade the 1994 law. However the gun was stolen from Washington state. So a complete strengthened redesigned Federal assault weapons ban renewal bill is called for. Not some watered down compromised proposal that would still allow millions of serial sniper rampages to take place.

I call on Feinstein and Schumer to do the right thing: Strengthen and over haul their current ban or withdraw their bill and quit taking away resources from legislators who actually want to do the right thing. S 1034 is worse than doing nothing. It’s gives credence and cover to a ban that is as worthless as a paper full of holes. You either ban ALL assault weapons or you might as well ban none of them. John Allen Muhammad is smiling today Senator Feinstein -and I hope your happy.

"The XM-15 M4 rifle used by the Serial Snipers last fall in Washington DC brings home the point. This gun differs from it’s “pre-ban” brother by having a muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. That does nothing to change it’s lethality. It’s still a semi-automatic military style assault weapon and would still be legal and easy to purchase under Feinstein and Schumer’s proposed S 1034."

Did the fact that the Bushmaster rifle was "military style assault rifle" make the crime easier for John Muhammed to commit? If so what characteristic of the rifle made it easier?

and already familiar with that type of gun system.

what about it facilitaed the crime?

and Malvo did a lot of the snipings.

action rifle would have been easier to train with/learn how to use due to it's less complex design. It would have been just as effective for their intended purpose.

It takes a lot more pratice to shoot a bolt gun than a military rifle.

With a military gun just jam in a clip, pull back on the handle and blast!

either type of rifle? A semi-automatic rifle is more difficult to clean. It is more likely to malfunction. It is harder to learn how to use.

Harder to clean maybe but JAM was a military vet and learned gun care in the Army.

With something like an M-16 you just slap in a clip, pull the cocking handle to the rear, let it slam forward and flip the selector to fire.

Then you just blaze away without worrying about bolt extraction.

"Then you just blaze away without worrying about bolt extraction."

With a bolt action, you insert the magazine, push the bolt forward and rotate it down. Then fire. With a bolt action you don't have to worry about a spent casing not full ejecting and getting slammed back into the chamber causing the rifle to jam. There is no need for a "forward assist" on a bolt action. A bolt action is less likey to rip the base off of the spent cartridge during extraction leaving the other half of the case in the chamber. It can't be fired until this is removed. Removing a broken case can be very difficult.

:freak:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Even my can can operate an M-16 battle rifle. Thats the way it was designed- so clueless conscripts could use it fast.

Mine can only chew gum.

(your avatar hits the nail right on the head)

seems to contradict what you believe in.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of another gun?

The M-16 is high-maintenance as far as guns go. It's also unsuitable for putting out large quantities of sustained fire. The gas tube melts. I've had that happen after running just 3 beta-c mags through one on FA.

It is an assault rifle, a battle rifle uses full power rifle rounds, ie 308, 30-06.

"With something like an M-16 you just slap in a clip, pull the cocking handle to the rear, let it slam forward and flip the selector to fire."

With something like a Remington Model 700 you just load the mag, pull the bolt to the rear, push it forward and take the rifle off safe.

"Then you just blaze away without worrying about bolt extraction."

Please keep in mind these guys did not blaze away on their targets.

That is the danger of assault weapons. You can spray fire or concentrate and carefully snipe things with precision.

Please don't feel insulted by this question, but I must ask you personally:

How many bullets will an assault weapon (as defined by federal law) fire when you pull the trigger?

Your average bolt rifle has a clip with just 3-5 rounds.

Is that something like how many "bullets" a gun can hold?

a bolt rifle only holds 3-5 rounds that you couldn't carry many more rounds on you that would make you as potentially dangerous as if they were in a magazine. Please!

Bolt guns have widely variable magazine capacities, from none (single shot guns) to 30 for certain adaptations (Pederson device, which makes it semi-auto) of the 1903 Springfield. I've got a K-98 bolt action Mauser with an original 30 round "trench mag".

Maybe you should tell military snipers to dump the bolt guns and go for an semi auto military pattern rifle since they could "snipe" as well as "spray", as opposed to the "snipe-only" mode of the M40's and M21's

It'll be safer. ;-)

But...

Isnt the bolt equally as easy to use? All you do is jam a clip in and then after each shot you pull the cocking handle to the rear and then back forward to reload. Shot. Repeat. Almost elementary.

Sometimes its tricky for beginers to learn how to take the clip out to reload after you shoot all the bullets. With a single shot bolt action all you need to do is pull the cocking handle back, insert bullet, push cocking handle forward, then shoot. Repeat.

As for Malvo, it would seem a bolt action rifle, single shot, would have been more suited to his needs. But in the end he picked to cool looking gun.

and since JAM was an Army veteran he wanted the M-16/AR-15 system.

"With a military gun just jam in a clip, pull back on the handle and blast!"

Is that what the military teaches people? To spray bullets wildly? Their is no military doctrine for spraying from the hip, well... just in rambo movies.

His gun doesen't use a "clip", some bolt action rifles use clips.
Its a magazine.

Furthermore, this is all relevant since the "snipers" used one bullet for each victim. God I will tell ya, those innocent civilians died 10x worse since he had that hi cap magazine. Whats all this about spraying and praying?

The M1 Garand uses an 8 round en bloc clip..
The AR15 uses a detachable magazine.

The difference between a clip and a magazine is that a magazine has a spring loaded follower designed to push the bullets upwards into the receiver.

Frankly I think that Lakedoctor is rather ignorant on the subject of firearms and thus unable to fully comprehend the issue at hand.

Because of this his comments should be disreguarded until he demonstrates greater knowledge in this area.

Arggghhhh !!! It's a MAGAZINE not a clip!!!

Bolt action rifles ARE military rifles. for them its drop clip into clip guide, shove rounds into magazine, close bolt and fire.

At the turn of 20th century "civilian" rifles were typically lever action rifle produced by Savage, marlin, and winchester. the surplusing of obselete .30-40 krag rifles to the american shooter eventually made them popular with shooters. military rifles through wwII were typically bolt action rifles chambered for 6.5mm-8mm sized ammunition.

It is always amazing to drop in here and read the many posts by people intent on violating the letter and intent of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Even if one adopts the historically and legally flawed revisionist view of the Second Amendment as being that only the militia (which is the bulk of the population) should have guns, they should certainly be military style guns.

The saddest part of it all is that folks here claim to be representing the views of one of only two major political parties in this country...

Long time no see.

I dont lay claim to either of the 2 major parties. If i did it sure as hell wouldnt be the conservatives though.

Maybe i will see you post again in a couple months.

I haven't the time to come around as much as I used to, but it is nice to see some friendly folks still around. Glad you're still here!

We got to start thinking beyond our guns. These days are closing fast.
Pike Bishop, The Wild Bunch

... the packaging on the second one better. Packaging is everything, you know.... except for that blister packaging. Can you imagine a guy breaking into your front door and having to get that damned gun out of that blister packaging? What a bummer that would be.