Semi-auto covers a wide range of guns, down to .22 LR plinkers. (And yet, you can get extended magazines for them too.)
2 Likes
It isn’t that the point of impact won’t change more than that. It’s that the group you make of say 5 rounds will be within 2" at 200 yards with a 1MOA rifle.
Yes, the point of impact will change based on distance, depending on what you are shooting, the velocity of the round, and how your scope is sighted in. So if you hit the bullseye at 100 yards, if you make no adjustments, you can expect it to hit lower at 200 yards, and lower still at 300 yards. But that that group, even if it is lower, should stay within the MOA group size. Idealistically. Best case scenario. Of course there are many more variables, most of which lie with the shooter, that can open this group up.
Also if you zero in at say 50 yards, usually at 100 yards it will shoot high, because your scope or sight aren’t on the same plane as the barrel, so technically you have the barrel angled up slightly for the cross hair and bullet to intersect at that close of range. IIRC this can apply to 100 to 200 yard shooting too, but again it depends on what you are shooting.
This is very true of small game and Deer hunting.
Less so of wild boar. Which can kill you.
Also bears. But I’m less concerned about people taking their chances with bears, being rather closer to extinction than boars (which are problematically abundant).
2 Likes
While that may be true, it says nothing as to why someone would need a rifle that would cycle on it’s own.
For hunting.
For having ‘fun’ at the range, yes.
For killing, yes.
But those arguments are falling short these days. The wiki you posted mentioned it using a 10-round magazine with higher capacity magazine’s available. Again, not needed when hunting.
To be clear, I’m not for a total and complete weapons ban but I’m just trying to find clarity on the NRA’s and their followers arguments - which, for the most part, are flimsy at best. So I’m looking to more level-headed gun owners and hunters (apparently here on BB) to get some POVs.
2 Likes
I always open carry my Flail of the Ages .
3 Likes
1 Like
i’m probably going out on a limb to say this because data is very hard to come by but i’m going to say that somewhere between half and two-thirds of all firearms in private hands have a semi-auto action. the rifle i use for hunting is not a semi-auto (winchester model 94 lever action 30-30) but for hunting larger game that isn’t really problematic. whether i’ve been hunting for deer, rabbits, wild boar, or elk i’ve never needed a second shot, my first shot having resulted in a clean kill or a clear miss. in the rare instance of a miss i always examine closely the ground in the area where the animal was standing when i shot because i never want to end up leaving a wounded animal to die slowly in the wild. for bird hunting i own a remington model 1100 12 ga. shotgun with a semi-auto action. it has a 4 round magazine and the semi-auto action can easily make the difference between bringing down enough doves or quail for a meal and only bringing down one or two.
sorry, i do sometimes ramble a bit so let me get back to the point i was trying to make. if, as i posit, the majority of privately owned firearms are semi-auto then any regulation that focuses on removing them from circulation is going to impinge on the majority of gun owners which will create a lot of difficulties in the practical matter of enforcing those regulations. on the other hand, regulations which focus on accessories which increase the deadliness of the weapons without adding any practical benefit to the hunter or the target shooter (e.g. large capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc.) will create less resistance and also impinge on many fewer gun owners “rights”.
i’m definitely in favor of increased regulation of firearms but i want those regulations to be both useful and practical. it can be virtually impossible to tell from two meters away whether a firearm has a semi-auto action but it’s easy to tell from 100 meters if it has a large capacity magazine.
4 Likes
As a fallow Canadian here in van saw that on CBC over the last few days!
Its good that we are preserving some Canadians for future generations to appreciate.
3 Likes
I don’t know what percentage of overall gun deaths they account for, but given the sheer number of people shot by law enforcement in the US, I would guess that is also a significant factor in gun violence. Do the statisticians not count those because they’re not usually prosecuted?
My other question would be, are top-down and bottom-up approaches to reducing gun crimes mutually exclusive?
1 Like
As far as we know, it is about 1/34th of gun deaths.
Nope. But one is cheap, easy and mildly effective and the other is expensive, hard and somewhat less effective. Should we do both? Up to the people to decide.
3 Likes
It is mostly about cosmetics. They look like, and share many parts with military rifles, but the receiver, the part that defines the gun, is different.
So the use of the word “style” is accurate. As has been mentioned in earlier comments, it is like putting accessories, sponsor stickers and a number on your car, and it becomes a “race-style” car.
1 Like
Casque & Uvex. And they aren’t made in China, like Bell and Giro.
1 Like
Bump stocks were not used in any mass shootings… I think there was report there was one in the Las Vegas shooters room… But it seems there was an indeterminate number of weapons there… The sound of the shooting in LV was not bump stock… These also do not work on a bipod… They are really just a plinking toy.
Increased regulations just get us to be like Australia. Nobody wants that for USA.
2nd amendment is an affirming amendment… Repealing has no effect bc there is no authority in the Constitution to ban guns. None.
The Constitution is not not a list of citizen rights it is a list of rights granted to the govt by the people. Nothing in there about banning guns. Sorry.
The US people I know here in Australia often complain about how more expensive things are than back home but I have not heard one complaint about our gun laws from them.
1 Like
that is incorrect, lots of people want that for the u.s. i’d prefer that to the current trajectory. without changes in the form of increased and effective regulations there will come a point when the non-gun owning majority are going to demand change in such a way that even repeal of the second amendment will seem modest.
4 Likes
Including a majority of gun owners, who understand that the biggest threat to their continued ability to enjoy their hobby is the inability of rabid gun rights fanatics to compromise even a little bit.
2 Likes
Bump Stock Truthers are a thing now?
7 Likes
The original constitution acknowledged the right of some citizens to own slaves, and did not recognized the right of women to vote. That was changed, and so can the second amendment. Owning quick-killing weapons is not natural for the human species.
4 Likes
