Defining and describing an assault rifle.

This is an assault weapon description and identification.

Almost every deer rifle is more powerful than any assault rifle.There are deer rifles that have semi-automatic actions like assault rifles. Hunters choose bolt action rifles over semi-automatic actions because they are more accurate. Some people choose semi-automatic weapons because they are fun to shoot. Any automatic deer rifle can have a large capacity magazine. Any deer rifle can have the cosmetic changes to make it look like an assault rifle legally and cheap. An assault weapon differs from any other semi auto rifle in cosmetics only. A ban on assault weapons is essentially a ban on all similar rifles, including target rifles and hunting rifles.

An assault weapon is just a regular rifle with cosmetic modifications.

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

the angled flash hider shown on the very end of the barrel (there is none on the rifle in pic#1).
The second pic alwo shows a three position lever on the side of the receiver - for "Safe" - "Fire"- and "Auto", which is illegal to import. The first rifle has only the "Safe" and "Fire" positions.
Other features "banned" were bayonet lugs, pistol grips and removable magazines, but these were part of a group of features that could be retained if parts were replaced with US made parts if they were so marked. That is, you couild import ANYTHING as long as is was not full auto capable if you replaced imported parts with a prescribed number of US made parts, thus driving up the price on all such arms, and vastly increasing the price of "pre-ban" firearms to collectors.
FWIW, this idiotic bill was signed by Bush I, and rest assured prevented NOT ONE violent crime while getting lots of easy publicity for its backers.

I presently own 3 semi auto rifles that many would think of as "assault rifles" (although none of them really is, by definition), and all the ban accomplished is increased the amount of money I paid for them, that is, it made more for the importers and sellers.

mark

Under the 1994 expired Assault Weapon ban....


Legal...












Illegal.....






Now tell me how a banning a folding stock and a flash hider will keep me safe from evil gun wielding murderers??

banned. Ever use one ?

because you're looking at a potential 10 year sentence in a federal prison.

Last paragraph. If that's not ominous, I don't know what is.

All it takes is for the BATFE to rule that device allows the firearm to fire more than once per pull of the trigger, and you are screwed. It also seems like a very unsafe modification, to be honest.

I am not familiar with this device, but I would assume that what it does is facilitate rapid depressing and resetting of the trigger. So long as only one round is fired per depression of the trigger, that letter does not make it seem like it is illegal. As long as you need to consciously move your hand to do it, and it does not continue firing after you want it to stop firing. I'm sure that someone will suggest that if it adds a crank, it somehow does not count as pulling the trigger, so I will attempt to take care of that here. If you add a crank to the trigger mechanism of a weapon, you have essentially turned that crank into the trigger. This would mean that "consciously pulling the trigger" would be "consciously turning the crank." A number of weapons have been operated in this way over the years and I am not sure any would be fully automatic by today's standards as they all require continued application of energy by the operator (akin to the repeated rocking motion of the finger operating the trigger on a semi-auto, rather than the application of force followed by the ceasing of movement that characterizes the operation of a modern weapon in fully automatic mode.

a field day with the hellfire trigger.

I know some people think that, but realistically it's all about the precision of the machine. The Springfield M21 Tactical is semi-auto and generally considered to be accurate to the limit of the user's ability.

most target rifles are bolt action. Does the Barret snipe that the US uses semi or bolt? I personnaly prefer semi's to bolt cause I like the quci second fire. But our ranges now will make you leave if you shoot more than a round in 2 seconds .

I don't own a rifle myself, but in general my preference lies toward semi-auto. I just don't see what benefits manual has unless one is very picky about ruggedness.

Have used the hellfire triggeron AK's and it's a lot of fun

The Barrett Firearms Company was founded by Ronnie Barrett for the single purpose of building semi-automatic rifles chambered for the powerful 12.7x99mm NATO (.50 BMG) ammunition, originally developed for and used in M2 Browning machine guns. Barrett began his work in the early 1980s and the first working rifles were available in 1982, hence the designation M82. Barrett continued to develop his rifle through the 1980s, and developed the improved M82A1 rifle by 1986

*************snip************

The M82 is a short recoil semi-automatic firearm. When the gun is fired, the barrel initially recoils for a short distance (about an inch/25 mm) being securely locked by the rotating bolt. After the short travel, a post on the bolt engaged in the curved cam track in the receiver turns the bolt to unlock it from the barrel. As soon as the bolt unlocks, the accelerator arm strikes it back, transferring part of the recoil energy of the barrel to the bolt to achieve reliable cycling. Then the barrel is stopped and the bolt continues back, to extract and eject a spent case. On its return stroke, the bolt strips the fresh cartridge from the box magazine and feeds it into the chamber and finally locks itself to the barrel. The striker also is cocked on the return stroke of the bolt. The gun is fed from a large detachable box magazine holding up to 10 rounds, although a rare 12 round magazine was developed for use in the first Gulf War.


**************snip************

The XM107 was originally intended to be a bolt-action sniper rifle, and it was selected by the U.S. Army in a competition between such weapons. However, the decision was made that the US Army did not, in fact, require such a weapon. The rifle originally selected under the trials to be the XM107 was the Barrett M95.

When the Army decided it no longer needed these weapons, it found that it had money already allotted for "XM107 rifles," and rather than deal with this complication, the decision was made to change the M82's designation to M107, and use the money to purchase those type of rifles instead. In summer 2005, the M82 finally emerged from its Army trial phase and was approved for "full materiel release", meaning it was officially adopted as the Long Range Sniper Rifle, Caliber .50, M107. The M107 uses a Leupold 4.5x14 Vari-X scope

The Barrett M107 is a .50 caliber, shoulder fired, semi-automatic sniper rifle. Like its predecessors the rifle is said to have manageable recoil for a weapon of its size owing to the barrel assembly that itself absorbs force, moving inward toward the receiver against large springs with every shot. Additionally the weapon's weight and large muzzle brake also assist in recoil reduction. Various changes were made to the original M82A1 to create the M107, with new features such as a lengthened accessory rail, rear grip and monopod socket. Barrett has recently been tasked with developing a lightweight version of the M107 under the "Anti-Materiel Sniper Rifle Congressional Program," and has already come up with a scheme to build important component parts such as the receiver frame and muzzle brake out of lighter weight materials.

The Barrett M107, like previous members of the M82 line, are also referred to as the Barrett "Light Fifty". The designation has in many instances supplanted earlier ones, with the M107 being voted one of 2005's Top 10 Military Inventions by the U.S. Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

Its the best $9000 I have ever spent.

I just wish I would have gotten a Nightforce scope instead of the Leupold MK 4.

Particularly compared to something like a 7.62x51 round.

I was able to shoot one once and I was expecting a lot of recoil.

The Barrett design really brings the felt recoil down to a manageable level.

If I had to quantify it I would say 30%-50% more than 7.62x51

I can shoot it in the standing position for 3-4 rounds before my arms get tired.

There is one at the gun shop I go to. I can barely lift the thing. Where do you shoot it?

I shot a .500 S&W Magnum once and thought I dislocated my sholder. I can't imagine blasting that thing.

assuming we are talking about two guns manufactured to the same degree of quality and maintenance. The Bolt action has the following over the Semi-Auto:

BA only moving part is the firing pin, SA often has a hammer. Fewer swinging parts and less lock time. Especially since the action is going to begin to open before the bullet has left the barrel.
BA directs 100% of energy to driving bullet, SA bleeds some off
BA control feeds the round into the chamber, SA slams round into chamber, potentially scratching/pushing back the bullet.


How much difference is there, probably unnoticeable to the typical situation.


Another reason a bolt action might be preferred by hunters is reliability. Of course a quick followup shot is also important and often worth the minor loss in accuracy hence the popularity of semi autos

Its all down to a personal choice, if there was one definitive answer, then the other would not be made (which is why you don't see needle fire guns around anymore)

The people that shoot High Power are going to use the most accurate rifle available...period. The only thing that counts there is accuracy.

There are still a few old timers that use a Garand or an M1A but the vast majority of high power shooters use the AR platform. I can't think of the last time I saw anyone using an '03 or '03A3.

Don' get me wrong I love my '03 and it's one of the most accurate rifles I shoot with, but at 200 and 300 yards the AR platforms, with a heavier bullet and the appropriate twist rate, are every bit as good.

I think that last estimate I saw (last year) was that over 12 million Americans now own an AR or AK platform gun.

But, hell, we don't need those voters or their families, right? They're probably all Freepers anyway.

..bolt will be more accurate 90% of the time.

n/t

Not just for Right Wing Religious Wack Jobs any more

The Bush Administration has been so destructive to the Constitution and civil liberties that I was fearing for my own life and liberty, and purchased firearms specifically to protect myself against our own government.

If it's pointed at ME. If I happen to be the pointer I consider any rifle better than no rifle at all.

Lets get this to the greatest page??

..the issue is not the cartridge is the the capacity and the ability to change magazines quickly. Both were essential advances in military hardware that gave US infantry forces an advantage in WWII using the M-1 Garand compared to Axis soldiers using bolt-action rifles. The stripper clip eventually gave way to the detachable magazine (the M-14). Lethality is about the volume of rounds delivered..

The answer to this is to restrict maximum capacities like most civilized democracies in the world have done (Canada, and Australia for example). I think that there should be mandated clip-removal technology on civilian guns designed to slow down the speed with which clips can be changed in both rifles and handguns.

How would you address the 40 million firearms that accept detachable magazines or the 275 million magazines?

To play on a quote:

"It's the remainder problem, stupid."

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

and importation. Then a ban on transfer or sale plus a buy-back or trade-out program (give some incentive to owners or manufacturers to collect and destroy). Once the number of high-capacity mags was deemed low enough that the owners didn't represent a significant political constituency then outright banning with felony consequences would cull the few holdout. It wouldn't fix the issue in a day but we didn't get into this gun-overloaded mess overnight either. In time the existing supply would deteriorate and disappear.

These "Assault Weapons" comprise the most popular long arm in America at the moment.
The standard magazines for these weapons is 30 rounds and gun owners typically have 4-5 spare mags.
And then nearly EVERY non-compact pistol on the market has 'hicap' mags for it.
This is what you're trying to take from America. I think banning Football or Baseball might be easier.

Ban the transfer of America's favorite firearms = massive political backlash
Ban the manufacture/sale of America's favorite firearms = massive political backlash
Outright banning, despite the size of the interested groups affected = flat out unconstitutional
And to kick the whole process off, you're going to have to create a National Registry of weapons and magazines.
Registries work GREAT! Just ask out friends to the north. :sarcasm:

You would have to have Gun-Grabbing Progressives in office/congress for nearly the entire (decades long) process. Each and every step of your "plan" would cause dramatic political shift (remember the first AWB?). I mean, c'mon... The mere election of Barack Obama, the first Dem since the AWB enactment, has done more for gun ownership/awareness than any lobbyist could have ever hoped for. The first scent of of any gun legislation that is not 110% "common sense" will be met with scorn by millions of gun owners who stuck their necks out for Change in '08. Barack is not stupid and knows this... he knows their support was/is needed for political control.

In .223, the most popular magazine size is 30 rounds, in .308, it would be 20 rounds. (Some ship with 10 rounders)

Please read the link above. It outlines the flaws in your approach quite nicely (though the substance doesn't deal directly with your proposal, the same caveats apply.)

You're not just talking about magazines, though, you're also talking about the guns themselves (some kind of delay in changing magazines.) Logistical nightmare, unconstitutional, expensive, loss of political capital. To what benefit? To decrease the less than 1% of "assault weapon" death?

Of course, criminals would just do what Cho did- bring two guns. God help the homeowner who, half asleep, adrenaline dumped into his system, hands shaking as he hears a potential rapist / murderer breaking in. "Wait, I missed because I'm scared shitless. Can you give me 30 seconds so that I can change magazines?"

And I don't buy it. I don't buy that capacity restrictions on civilian firearms are unconstitutional any more than I buy the idea that not letting you have a sawed-off shotgun is unconstitutional.

Yeah, it would be hard to do. You're essentially saying, " I accept the carnage caused by mass murderers because they are rare and it would take too much effort to fix". That's like Ford's response to the problem of Pintos blowing up from rear-end accidents in the 70's. We can accept the deaths because the costs to fix this are higher than our lawsuit payments (BUT WORSE because we shielded the gun makers from lawsuits). Ok, glad we know where you stand with regard to humanity....

As I just responded in another post:

Apparently the rest of us don't feel that the guns used least in crimes are an issue that is severe and needs to be dealt with severely.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, most of which already have a small clip size. And of crimes involving handguns, most of them are revolvers which have no clip at all.

Suppose one banned and destroyed every ammo clip over five rounds. That doesn't change the fact that somebody who decided to run amok could kill five people before they needed to even think about reloading.

So long as handguns exist, and they will, the only EFFECTIVE defense against gun crimes is rigorous background checks, and an aggressive program to eliminate the root causes of gun-related crimes: mostly poverty.

"I think that there should be mandated clip-removal technology on civilian guns designed to slow down the speed with which clips can be changed in both rifles and handguns."

That could place civilians who use firearms for self defense in danger by limiting their capability to defend themselves.
While the event where a civilian would expend an entire magazine in self defense is rare, the possibility does exist.

What's more likely to happen is criminals will simply:
a) use multiple pistols or backup weapons
b) Obtain one of the "millions" of already hicap mags/weapons already existent on the market.
The simple truth is that the more effective a technical handicap is on a weapon, the more likely criminals will disable that handicap... leaving law abiding citizens with trampled rights and disadvantaged. Laws/ideas like you've proposed limit civilian self defense, eliminate certain firearm competitions, and make shooting for the firearm enthusiast generally less fun.

Here are the choices we face for reducing violent crime:
a) Make laws to disarm criminals (because we all know criminals abide by the laws).
b) Make laws that decrease the probability of success for criminals while stiffening the penalty of failure.

Criminals will always gain access to weapons to commit violent crime... laws and regulations will not deter them. At best you're hoping that a limited supply of firearms will deter them from committing a crime. That hope seems like a long shot when the country we live in has 0.9 firearms per capita, huh? Guns don't disappear and they aren't difficult to make/procure from other resources. What needs to happen is for America to start enforcing laws concerning violent crime that already exist with stricter punishments. In addition to this, we need to allow people to defend themselves, if capable/willing because the sad fact is that the police cannot be everywhere when needed.

**************

And they're called "MAGAZINES"... not "clips". Very few modern weapons (if any) use clips anymore.

..Frankly I couldn't care less how 'fun' your guns are.

Why is it that you assume that all gun related crimes will be committed by hardened criminals with access to illegal technology or the capability to alter or defeat a safety system? I don't buy the hard distinction you make between 'law abiding citizens' (who will be limited by the systems) and 'criminals' when, very often, people who commit mass murders are engaged in their first (and only) crime. Perhaps some nutcase who buy a gun off the rack and takes it to work to kill co-workers (an all too common pattern) wouldn't spend the time to acquire an illegal hi-cap magazine or to modify a mag removal slowing system. Would that save lives? Would that be worth some small reduction in your fun? I mean really I wouldn't want to cramp your style just to preserve a few innocents.

Not to mention that you'll have to overturn *2* Supreme Court precedents and get rid of the Blue Dogs.

The first being the Betamax case where the SC held that technology could not be banned simply
because it might be used for illegal purposes.

The second would be Heller, of course, which held that "commonly used" firearms that aren't
uniquely dangerous are Constitutionally protected. Of course, your maintaining that high-capacity
magazines are uniquely dangerous displays a poor grasp of statistics.

Next, you'll have to make sure that pro-gun Democrats like Harry Reid and Howard Dean aren't in
office. Because Bill Clinton was wrong when he said the first AWB cost the Democratic Party
control of Congress. What the hell would a two-term ex-President know about practical politics,
anyway?

Do all these things and you're good to go!

I say it's an attempt to gin up a moral panic, as well as an attempt to show
relevancy after the decision in Heller vs. DC.


Sorry to harsh your mellow, but the statistics (and the Constitution) don't agree with you.

An Assault Rifle is a select-fire weapon of intermediate caliber between a sub-machine gun, and a battle rifle.

What the hell is that mess you posted? Sounds more like the divining rod/ouijji board Congress uses to define an Assault WEAPON.

the power of .44 magnum pistols. They are on the low end of power as far as rifles go. It requires you to pull the trigger every time a shot is fired. It is between a battle rifle and a pistol. If you just don't want people to have any guns at all , why don't you say that. Only a complete banning and confiscation of all guns along with continuous and unilateral 24/7 searches for guns would reduce gun violence. Would it reduce violent homicides, I doubt it. Quit beating around the bush, if you want all guns banned and confiscated , say it.

Feeling ok?

Please do not conflate Assault RIFLE and Assault WEAPON. They are two different things. The subject of this thread does not in any way match.. well, anything else you are posting.

Assault WEAPONS can be, in fact, a pistol that has a magazine Congress has deemed is too large, or a rifle with a particular grip if it has a detachable magazine. It's a fungible, nonsense term.

Assault RIFLE is a military nomenclature, with an inescapable, non-fungible definition. Most rifles Congress terms an Assault Weapon, are not in any way Assault Rifles. Nor do they need to be rifles at all. Many pistols and shotguns were also regulated in the 1994 AWB, as well as magazine sizes.

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

I don't want my thoughts to get lost among all of the gun nut tomfoolery going on in this post.

I'll give you a hint though:

The 1994 "features ban" is not the way to go. While I applaud the effort, it was too easily circumvented. While the spirit of the law was often broken by the manufacturers, the letter was not.

It is the letter of the law that needs to be solid. No gray areas.

And generally, if a law is so easily circumvented, if the product that is claimed to be "banned" is so easily adapted tofit the new rules, than doesn't it stand to reason the ideas behind the laws were fucked to begin with? Ultimately what would be gained by banning and totally eliminating civilian semi-auto rifles? They are a part of less than three percent of homicides commited with firearms, at most. I think you may be unknowingly into a little culture war that we "gun nuts" are well aware of.

Being so well-read on gun types and gun laws, it should prove interesting stuff...even if you are all "crazy eyes".

:eyes:

They'll be along directly to explain it to us.

I'll try to keep my excitement under control until then.

You want a total ban and confiscation of all firearms. If you are anti guns and that is not your position on firearms , then your position is pointless. You want a total ban and confiscation of all firearms. To help you with your position, you also would require 24/7 random searches for guns to make sure the ban was effective. If you want to be the anti gun hero, here is your platform. The pro gunners are not afraid to state their positions.

Immediately, you conflate "assault rifle" with "...an assault weapon description and identification."

Further, your statement "Any automatic deer rifle can have a large capacity magazine." I do not know of any "automatic deer rifle(s)". There are semi-automatic "deer rifles," but no automatic ones; only full-auto rifles used on big game in areas of the world where poaching is a problem. Similarly, your statement "Any deer file can have the cosmetic changes to make it look like an assault rifle legally and cheap" is incorrect. While you can modify its looks, you cannot legally and cheaply change it into an assault rifle (which is capable of FULL-AUTO fire).

The problem here that you have been confused by the promiscuous use of "assault weapon," a term popularized by gun-control advocates for the better part of 30 years. They INTENTIONALLY conflated the terms "assault weapon" (essentially their term) and "assault rifle," a term denoting a carbine capable of FULL AUTO or "Burst" fire.

Mainstream media continues to INTENTIONALLY conflate the terms, even when they are put on notice.

it is not fully automatic and I don't know of any that are. Machine guns were outlawed in 1934. You may still own one in some states but you must obtain a special permit which takes considerable time and money.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term for a class of military long guns, and generally includes full-auto operation as part of the definition.

"Assault weapon" is a recently made-up legal definition and means whatever the ambient laws says it means. An "assault weapon" in California is different from an "assault weapon" in New York. In California at least, some "assault weapons" are handguns and others are shotguns.

There are no "assault weapons" in Arizona or in any other state without an "assault weapon" law.

Dudes, this is very, very simple to understand. Why do even people knowledgeable about firearms continue to bicker about this?

You are the one that is not sure about what auto means, because you said " only full-auto rifles used ". Why did you need to say

"full-auto" unless you yourself are confused about what auto means.

If you want to nit pick, then you yourself should self nit pick . What did you mean when you said "full-auto " Is that a robot carbine that roams around. And decides when and what to shoot ?

I am pro gun and am carrying my Sig Suer 250 which when you pull the trigger automatically releases the firing pin , shoots a bullet , ejects the shell, and loads another one into the chamber, fully automatic. All by itself, all I do is pull the trigger. It is not semi-automatic because it does the whole cycling process automatically every time I pull the trigger. I would have a tough time calling it anything except fully automatic. Now
semi-automatics are the ones that you have to let go of the trigger to get them to stop shooting. If they were fully auto like mine, they would stop shooting automatically after each round after I pull the trigger. CBS is hiring. .. "Only full-auto rifles...." Ah robo gun


Of course I know you are a pro gunner just having a liitle fun ! :patriot:

They already know enough that isn't so.

I have an AR-15
It is an LWRC lower with a Stag upper because I am left handed
I have it loaded with optics, including laser and holographic dot
I also have a shift scope and flash lite along with a front pistol grrip that houses a bipod.
The stock is collaspable and I have several 30 round mags and one fifty round mag.

I am quite sure I am not a criminal and don't believe that I should be considered one by the things I own.

I am a CCW holder and often carry.

You people have single-handedly kept the rail manufacturers in business, you could put an eye out with all that stuff y'all stick on your rifles!

:rofl:


(yes, just picking at you, AK owner here)

The 1994 Federal assault weapon ban expired in 2004. There is no longer any legal definition of "assault weapon" that applies to you or your rifles.

They're not legal in all states, and in the states that they are, they have to be registered with the ATF, require a background check, a tax stamp, and sign off by local LEO.

Rather than trying to answer the question of what the emotionally charged term "assault weapon" means, you should be asking what makes certain weapons more dangerous to public safety, and what is the most effective way of controlling them?

I'll tell you how to find out. Go to some of the gun discussion boards and read a lot about the technical aspects of firearms. Learn how they work and the different types of actions. You may even want to register there and pretend to be a new gun lover so you can ask questions to make sure you understand. You can also get an insight into their mindset, and how you can get them to accept some level of regulation.

I have much more to say on this issue, but I'd prefer to do it when I can start my own post. I don't know how many posts I need to do that, but I hope it's not too many.