Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by BlkKnit
The point is there is no reason to ban these sort of weapons.  An AR15 is not the deadly weapon the early M16's were due to the twists of the riflings.  They were changed due to international pressure because of the way the tended to "bounce" once they made impact (go in the thigh, come out the shoulder).  

I'm going by long term memory here.
Eugine Stoner was the head designer for a proposed USAF survival rifle which would be named AR-15. Fired a 55 grain projectile through a 1 in 14" twist barrel. He found that at that twist the bullet was on this side of stable so it would tumble on impact.
The USAF General in charge of procurement recommendations really loved the rifle after test firing it, and recommended it whole-heartedly.
McNamara desided to recommend it for all armed services as a service rifle as it would save dollars. (What a clown, remember the F111B project for the Navy?)
Well problem with the 1 in 14" twist was the bullet was unstable during winter testing as the bullets were tumbling in air before hitting target.
The twist was tightened to 1 in 12" to somewhat stabilize the bullet to keep from tumbling until it hit its taget.
The testing in Vietnam proved that the "tumbling effect" was way too unpredictable. Many rounds fired in small brush (leaves, twigs, etc.) would all too often cause the premature tumbling action, throwing off accuracy. All too often, those enemy that were hit, the bullets did not tumble often enough. Unfortunetly, the bullets tended to fragment to a point that they had very low penetration effect against thin metal (sheet metal, etc.).
Post Vietnam, the bullet's weight was increased to 62 grains and now had a steel core. Optimal stabilization twist was then found to be 1 in 7". Trouble with that tight a twist was the severe barrel wear. Seems that the barrels needed changing out after about 3000 rounds.
Final twist settled on for good wear and stabilization is 1 in 9".
It wasn't because of allied political pressure.
Sorry, in a rush here and didn't have time to refresh my memory.
Regards.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Dune
You mean to tell me that you can buy a gun and not be living in constant fear of having to defend yourself against a criminal and/or the government?

Some manage not to be in constant fear without the firearm.  

[Ossie]

Imagine what a large (lol, highly unlikely actually given our relative freedom to supposedly choose our own govt.) percentage of the populace that were armed with only small arms could accomplish being somewhat organized and very mobile and hidden.

WOLVERIIIIIIINES!!!!!!!!!

[YUCCA]

<- has SKS with 50 round drrum

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Ossie
WOLVERIIIIIIINES!!!!!!!!!

You read my mind, Ossie.

Remember that movie?

How did it end, again?

And they did all that with hunting rifles, and the AK's they took off the russians they killed!

WOLVERINES!!!!

(God, I freakin hated C. Thomas Howell...little putz)

[lazs2]

what is a "single action winchester"?   An sks is not an "assult rifle"...  An SKS can't be made into a full auto any easier than most other semi autos... turning semi autos into full autos is a recipe for unreliability.  

The 2nd wasn't to protect our right to hunt bambi.

muck.. you have chossen the wrong firearms for the job... better than nothing but pretty bad.

The "assault rifle" ban had to do with appearance, perception and hysteria.   Very few crimes were ever committed with the so called assault rifles.    Even the DC sniper would have been better served with any of a number of other more accurate rifles.

The people that are trying to ban guns are the people that know worse than nothing about em...  They are prone to exageration and missinformation allong with neurosis... they are the true "gun nuts"...

Anyone who knew anything about the suject would say this thread proves it.

lazs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Heh, nope.  

I don't own a gun.  The extent of my firearms experience is taking my dad's shotguns out to the trap range, or when I was younger, duck hunting.  

That being said, I do believe that it's important to be able to get one if I wanted it, for whatever reason.

Trap shooting with a shotgun is something I've wanted to try.  Tracking the moving target with a limited firing window and one, maybe two good cracks at hitting it.  That sounds like a pretty good challenge; very sporting.

But I certainly wouldn't take an SKS semi-automatic (remember, the book is only for scientific study so we won't actually make the rifle full-auto ) with a 30-round clip and silencer.

Erlkonig posted up:

1. Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(1) Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models);
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC70)
(4) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(5) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(6) Steyr AUG
(7) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 and
(8) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper
and Striker 2;

2. A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(1) a folding or telescopic stock;
(2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(3) a bayonet mount;
(4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor; and
(5) a grenade launcher;

The SKS has attachment points for 2.(3) and 2.(5).

[gofaster]

Originally posted by john9001
this thread is silly , everybody knows criminals arn't allowed to have guns.

Actually, they can still buy them second-hand from classified ads without the messy paperwork.

An honest citizen buys a gun, decides he needs the money more than the gun, puts up an ad, a convicted felon shows up and buys it and the honest citizen is none the wiser.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Who's to say what guns I should or should not have.  

The ATF.  You can have your gun, just so long as it doesn't pose a threat to my family.  Assault rifles most certainly pose a threat to my family.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Why would a single action Winchester work just as well as an SKS for home/national defense?  There's a reason soldiers carry assault rifles and not hunting rifles.

Soldiers face multiple threats, sometimes with armour.  A single-action Winchester will stop a home invader.  It will also stop a coyote, put down a rabid dog, knock off a snake, and other various productive uses.  You don't need a full-auto 30-round clip to kill a midnight intruder.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
what is a "single action winchester"?

[/i][/b]Maybe I chose the wrong term.  I was thinking of the rifle used by Chuck Connors in "The Rifleman".  The western-style stock lever action. load*, aim, fire, eject, load, aim, fire.  

*By a strange twist of message board editting, this BBS would allow me to use the proper term of noseing a weapon.

Originally posted by lazs2
The "assault rifle" ban had to do with appearance, perception and hysteria.   Very few crimes were ever committed with the so called assault rifles.  [/i]

Assault rifle kill count (not including the DC sniper)
http://massmurder.zyns.com/sort_firearms_assault_rifle.htm

[lazs2]

gofaster... how does an "assault weapon" pose a threat to your family... or more correctly... how does the so called assault weapon in my house pose a threat to your family?   How does it pose more of a threat than a criminal does to your family or the woman in the escalade driving down your street with the cell phone in her ear?

but the assualt weapon.... is it the pistol grip that is the threat?  maybe the flash supressor or the bayonet lug?   Lots of people get bayoneted every year with bayonet equipped assault weapons i suppose.    Semi auto?   lot of hunting and even trap guns are semi auto.   Overpenetration?   Every hunting rifle overpenetrates more than the assault rifle...  

"The Rifleman" you are talking about a lever action.   Lever action guns are inherently inaccurate and have relatively weak actions that won't accept the high powered rounds required for dangerous game... the 95 was decent and there have been some inroads recently but good bolrt and semi autos are superior to lever guns.   Lever guns do well against people tho... they are short, light and have high capacity magazines and are chambered for cartriges ideal for killing soft skinned game like humans.   They are poor choices for home defence tho as they overpenetrate and are still too large for moving around with in a home... not a good choice.
lazs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
gofaster... how does an "assault weapon" pose a threat to your family... or more correctly... how does the so called assault weapon in my house pose a threat to your family?   How does it pose more of a threat than a criminal does to your family or the woman in the escalade driving down your street with the cell phone in her ear?

I would most certainly consider an assault weapon in anyone's home a threat to my family.  A threat to police is a threat to my safety, since the police are the first line of defense for a law-abiding citizen.

That night, Virden was on regular patrol in his squad car with rookie Officer Troy Gardner. A detective announced over the police radio that a Chevrolet Caprice wanted in a drive-by shooting was at 22nd Avenue S and Seventh Street. Virden saw the Chevrolet, pulled behind it and flipped on his lights and siren.

But the Chevrolet sped through four red lights and onto the interstate. With Virden close behind, two men in the Chevrolet sat in the open windows. They fired SKS assault rifles.

A bullet hit the squad car's spotlight. Another sailed through the windshield, hit Virden's ball cap and grazed his head. It pierced the plexiglass prisoner barrier and blew out the rear window.

Police Chief Chuck Harmon visited Virden in the hospital the night of the shooting. "It was frightening to see the copper jacket from the bullet lodged in his hat," Harmon said in announcing the awards in the Bayfront Center.

I don't know you from Martin Bryant.  http://massmurder.zyns.com/martin_bryant.htm

As for the cell phone menace, we're slowly reigning those marauding desperadoes in!  

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html

[lazs2]

As for your link to the horrors of hordes of assult rifle weilding criminals running rampant in the U.S.   slaughtering people.... I see something like 70 deaths in 25 years.... Yep.... 25 years...

bet ten times that many died from knife assaults in that time period or from being beaten to death.... hundreds of times that many have died because they were assualted and couldn't defend themselves.

So how big a threat are assualt weapons to your family?   I mean put in perspective.   Your neighbors swimming pool is more of a threat.
lazs

[miko2d]

BlkKnit: An SKS is a worthless rifle (I know some people love 'em, but I dont).  why ban it? For $500 you can get a AR15 knock off that is so much better its rediculous.

 The rifle is very cheap, the ammo is very cheap, the rifle is extremely reliable. The performance is adequate and accuracy is sufficient at 150 yards.
 A couple of SKS are perfect and affordable weapons to use for plinking and keep in your house in case SHTF and you need to arm someone friendly.


muckmaw: They were armed to the hilt and the ATF went in and took 'em out.

 They had smallarms and ATF rolled in with the tanks and set the compound full of civilians on fire.
 Anyway, what are you arguing about? That people should be free to own anti-tank weaponry like swiss? Can't argue with that.


muckmaw: Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?

 Depends what you mean by populace. A small group - sure, most of us - never.
 We have more and better weapons - especially sniper weapons - than Iraqi and more expertise in using them. It is highly unlikely that any military or even combined militaries of all the countries on Earth would be able to occupy US - unless the weapons are confiscated first.

but an AR-15 ain't much against an F-15

 An F-15 has to land sometime.


muckmaw: Oh, Miko, BTW, if you want to debate with me, keep the snide little biatch like comments to yourself.
"Uuuuuhhh...Of course it is too much to expect you to actually read - and understand ...Uuuuhhh"

 Oh, yeah - look who is talking, a hyppocritical crybaby. You started your debate by declaring your opponents as "nuts" and attributing to them obvious nonsense.
 Maybe  if you want to debate with me you should not call me "nuts" before the argument even starts.

 When you start a discussion by denigrading your opponents as idiots, that means you dismiss their point in advance, without reading it.
 As for understanding, not just reading - that's simple. People often write in public forums not exactly what they think. Those involved or those who care to think a bit easily understand what is going on. Sure, all militias claim they are arming against Al-Qaeda invasion.
 Guess what, the weapons preapared against Al-Qaeda invasion will be as good for any other scenario.
 Most likely scenario they consider is not foreign invasion or resistance to their own government - it's the breakdown of civil order.


BlkKnit: An AR15 is not the deadly weapon the early M16's were due to the twists of the riflings.

 Not true. It is teh same weapon. The terminal performance of the bullets does not depend on spin and twist, only on the bullet shape and composition. All military bullets "flip" inside the body because sharp nose causes the center of gravity back.

 Bullet stability depends on the spin and density. Changing the wtist from 14" to 12" allowed the 55 grain projectile to stay stable in relatively dence cold air.
 The density of human tissue is so much greater than the density of air that the trivial difference in spit means nothing once the bullet hit.

 The russian 5.45x39 flips inside a body but does not fragment due to low velocity and strong steel jacket (cheaper than copper).

 The deadly action of 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Rem) is due to fragmentation. The bullet flips withing 3 inches of penetration and breaks apart into many pieces, shredding tissue and creating wounds very hard to treat.
 It happens reliably at speeds above 2600 fps - which means at ranges up to 200 yards from the standard 20 inch barrel.

 The military 5.56x45 round from any AR or Mini-14 (like I have) certainly fragments as advertised - it has been researched and tested many times.
 Of course I am talking about military ammo or reproduction. It is designed to fragment - due to weak copper jacket and canellure further weakening the bullet.
 Lot of commertial .223 ammo will not fragment as easily or at all due to stronger jackets, abcense of cannelure or just weaker propellant charge.

 miko