The bump-stock controversy seems to give lie to that comparison since it was the rapid fire capability which allowed the shooter to cause to much damage so quickly.
You are right that burst mode is rarely used in combat as it’s not effective unless you have a crowd of people to fire in to which is also the main reason they are banned.
2 Likes
That was one of the two points I was trying to make, so thank you for clarifying it.
I’m outta here.
“Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!” – Joe Biden
1 Like
OK, granted. Adding full-auto mode makes a terrifying killing machine even more terrifying.
With semi-auto mode we have the consolation of knowing that the shooter’s trigger finger is bound to get tired sooner or later.
5 Likes
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a ban on semi-automatic weapons - rifles, police hand guns, what have you. What I’m not for is feel good legislation that doesn’t fix anything.
Let’s say we ban “assault style rifles” you know, the ones that look like military weapons. Well, you would still be able to buy a rifle with a pretty wooden stock that fires every time you pull the trigger. So, in my view banning “assault style rifles” is just theater. If you want to ban guns that can kill so quickly, we need to ban all revolver and all semi-automatic pistols and rifles and go back to bolt and breach loaded weapons.
6 Likes
I’m most definitely on board with that.
6 Likes
manufactures assault-style rifles, along with CamelBak water bottles,
So was Neal Stepehson’s Reamde full of product placement for Vista Outdoor?
Excellent so let’s begin together to change the narrative from “assault style” to semi-automatic because the former is just a made up meaningless term and the latter is the problem.
I can think of about five simple ways to pull a trigger on an semi automatic weapon. You could use an NE555 and a solenloid, or a model airplane servo and a microcontroller, or a more old school mechanical mechanism.
Banning bump stocks won’t prevent people from making their semi auto guns full automatic.
1 Like
That’s why I don’t support a bump stock ban but rather support a semi-automatic weapons ban. I say this as the owner of 2 semi-automatic weapons.
2 Likes
some of the weapons defined as such (1994 AWB) were cheap, some were expensive. Some used rife cartridges; others used pistol cartridges.
As for rapid fire-- the only limit is the shooter’s finger. That’s why bump stocks “work”.
Accuracy is diminished by using a carbine, but there are longer assault weapons.
I’ll try to provide a sort of a simplified technical explainer for people who are not familiar with the categories being discussed. I’m somewhat versed in the field but I am not an expert so if anyone persuasively disagrees with my definitions (which I am simplifying for clarity), I will correct them:
What is a rifle?
Technically: A firearm with a long rifled barrel. Distinguished from shotguns (with a smooth barrel, usually of a larger diameter) and pistols (short rifled barrel).
Practically: Long guns firing relatively big bullets, consistently lethal to humans up to 300 meters or more.
What is an “assault rifle”?
Rifles differ by their “action” - basically what happens between firing two separate shots.
Bolt action rifles need to be manually cycled. You fire, then operate a lever, kick out the spent cartridge and reload a new one from the magazine.
Semiautomatic rifles fire one bullet and subsequently complete the cycle by themselves (using the energy of the shot itself to perform all the actions the shooter must do with a bolt action). The shooter only needs to pull the trigger - once per each shot. Their rate of fire is higher than that of the previous category and they allow the shooter to maintain their aim between shots.
Automatic (sometimes lumped together with select-fire) rifles can fire continuously once the trigger is pulled, possibly emptying the whole magazine in a single pull, achieving the highest rate of fire - usually somewhere between 300-800 rounds per minute (not counting reloading time). It is usually impossible to achieve accurate fully automatic fire and its main practical utility is saturation fire and enemy suppression.
“Assault rifle” is a name that came to be applied to a category of post-WWII military weapons that had the select-fire function (able to switch between semi- and full automatic) and used a somewhat lighter cartridge. Most iconic examples are the AK-47 and the M-16. The rifles are generally not available to the public as the full-auto function is deemed only useful for military and rampage purposes.
“Assault-style rifle” is a name used for weapons based on actual assault rifles but lacking the fully-automatic fire function, precisely to permit their sale to civilian customers. Technically, they fall under the semiautomatic category and are no more lethal. One exception is the use of so-called bump-stocks, best illustrated in all its aspect in this video. Which, for the average happy mutant, should also fulfill their daily quota of the bizarre.
EDIT: Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to @pls_dont
4 Likes
Few people use them for hunting though. Magazine fed, semi auto, high fire rate semi-autos are. In my experience. I’ve seen them in shops, And hear about them whenever this topic comes up. But I’ve never met a hunter who actually owns it uses one. Seem Fairly rare and unpopular as hunting rifles. Most states have strict rules about which cartridges and how many shells can be loaded into a gun for hunting purposes as well. Shotguns here either need a short magazine tube, or a plug in there that restricts the load capacity. Because the limit for number of shells loaded is lower than the typical default for pump and semi-auto shot guns. Most hunters I know use Bolt action rifles, or semi-autos with slower fire rates and much smaller magazines or integrated magazines.
The “tactical” crap. Rails, grips, collapsible stocks etc. Are pretty useless for hunting, And I’ve never seen a hunter use them. And the most common caliber for assault rifles (.223) is banned for hunting in most or many states. For all but the smallest class of game. Because it can’t reliably bring down anything bigger than a rabbit in a humane fashion.
I don’t think this commonly cited “fact” is all that much of a concern. And a good number of the “hunting rifles” thus described aren’t really hunting rifles. But yeah some exist.
5 Likes
The Armalite AR-10 and Remington R-25 both use a .308 Win which is perfect for deer and are semi-auto weapons.
The Stag Arms M7 Hunter is another popular semi-auto deer rifle which uses a 6.8 mm round.
For larger game people often employ the Alexander Arms 50 Beowulf Entry a .45 caliber semi-auto rifle.
Since they fire each time you pull the trigger, all semi-auto weapons have the same rate of fire.
Collapsible stocks are a big “want” for trail and hiking hunters who need to carry a lightweight gun that doesn’t take up too much room.
Let’s not confuse this issue by tossing out anecdotes and misleading information. This topic is difficult enough without having to weed through opinion and misinformation.
The simple truth is that semi-autos are used for hunting every day. We need to get past how a weapon looks and who uses them and focus on what it can do. The crisis we have now is centered around semi-automatic weapons so lets not worry about who uses them or for what and focus on meaningful change that isn’t just theater those intent on harm can sidestep because we decided an assault style rifle ban is enough.
1 Like
I think “so-called assault rifle” is probably a useful shorthand because any time you use the term assault rifle you get gun pedants crawling out of the woodwork to argue with you that it is a misuse of the term or that assault rifles don’t actually exist or whatever. I suppose you could say, “semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines built originally for military use but modified for civilian sale” or something like that but I’m sure someone would argue that definition as well.
4 Likes
I’m liking the last couple of posts on this thread getting into some of these details with these rifles and hunting, and correct definitions etc.
My question would be why semi-auto rifles are even an option for ownership? Why clips / magazine with more than 6 rounds available for ownership? These don’t seem to have any purpose in general hunting (I’m not a hunter so correct me if I’m wrong). If hunting is indeed the true purpose of these rifles, then why are semi-autos with their accessorizing bump-stocks, 30 round magazines and various attachments even legal for sale or ownership. All that stuff can sill be accessible in controlled shooting environments in a licensed and insured range with these weapons available to ‘play with’. Someone can still get to have the thrill of firing these types of weapons without having to own them. But then, I guess, you loose the whole fetish thing for some of these people.
I don’t know, it seems fairly simple to me to put a federally or state controlled lock-down on owing semi-autos yet still not infringing on the right to own a rifle for hunting purposes or a pistol for ‘self-defense’ or whatever.
2 Likes
You should only ever have to shoot an animal once. A friend of mine hunts with a single shot rifle and won’t even take the shot unless he’s sure that it’s a clear shot and will be a clean kill.
8 Likes
What the military considers accurate and what civilians consider accurate are two different things. A mi-spec rifle you can expect to probably get around a 2-3MOA with standard military ammo. MOA is minute of angle and it means at100 yards a 1MOA rifle will make a 1" group. At 200 yards that same rifle should be a 2" group and so on. So a 2MOA rifle will shoot a 2"group at 100yards and a 4" group at 200 yards.
The AR platform can have it’s performance vary greatly based on mainly the barrel and ammo, but also better scopes that are more consistent, and overall tolerances. The military does have sniper rifles of course, and they have what is called a Designated Marksman now, which is like between a sniper and regular infantry. They wouldld use something like an SPR variant, which has a heavier barrel, a twist rate for heavier bullets, and better optics. They also make a National Match version for their services shooting teams which are super heavy, with lead in the butt and forestocks.
In the civilian market you can eek out even more accuracy buying better, more expensive barrels, and either match grade ammo or hand loading your own, and buying the best components for the best fit. In general it is like anything, you get what you pay for. The cheapest rifles eek out 2 MOA on a good day. Maybe 1.5. You spend ~$1000+ and you expect 1.5-1MOA consistently. You go $2000-3000 you’re paying for things like coated bolts and cosmetics, milled billet receivers, and match barrels with sub 1MOA expected.
1 Like
Wait, I though Giro was owned by the same company that owned Bell. What kind of bike helmets can we buy that aren’t associated with assault rifles?
Seems a bit optimistic. At double the range. the trajectory should have changed direction by double the amount. The linear deviation is the second differential.
Yep, both Bell and Giro showed up in the list of brands. There are others out there, you just have to scratch the surface a bit deeper.
