The idiocy of 'assault weapon' bans

BretJ · Mar 19, 2016

beerftw said:
but they do not eliminate supersonic noise at a distance, meaning someone a mile away will hear it, while subsonic would not be heard at that distance, and subsonic with a suppressor would barely be heard at close range.

my rant was mostly focused at banning suppressors over deer poaching, the average deer rifle would be heard with a suppressor since almost all are supersonic. Which means the ban occurred for reasons other than stated.

Fact is that most states allow hunting with suppressors now. No one is going to risk losing a rifle and 600-1500 suppressor and possible felony for using an NFA device to poach. As you have pointed out, if suppressors are being banned under the guise of poaching prevention, there are alterior motives...

beerftw · Mar 19, 2016

BretJ said:
Fact is that most states allow hunting with suppressors now. No one is going to risk losing a rifle and 600-1500 suppressor and possible felony for using an NFA device to poach. As you have pointed out, if suppressors are being banned under the guise of poaching prevention, there are alterior motives...

exactly, suppressors do definately makee it easier on the ears, but do not silence supersonic, which is pretty much what is used for large game hunting including deer. I can not imagine people hunting deer with 45 acp with suppressors, or even 22lr, since 22 is supersonic except those listed as subsonic.

It was most likely then just an attempt to ban them, with a half assed excuse why. someone who has fired a gun that is supersonic with a suppressor would know they are not silent enough to conceal them. If the ban then were serious about banning silence, it would have banned suppressors on subsonic weapons instead of all, since subsonic firearms have existed since firearms were created, so ignorance would be no excuse.

braindrain · Mar 19, 2016

beerftw said:
A muzzle brake is useless for semi auto weapons when fast fired, it benefits full auto weapons, which are illegal for the vast majority anyways, large bore rifles to counter recoil, and small varmint rifles, which the lower recoil allows the shooter to see the shot since the barrel would not rise as much.

For a semi auto like lets say an ar15, it makes little difference. I qualified enough times with the military m16 which is almost identical to an ar minus the lower reciever, to know that muzzle break does little for semi auto fire. The main things that help fire fast with accuracy with that gun are holding the rifle firm and steady against the shoulder, and squeezing the trigger, as well as re adjusting sight picture and position as needed.

If you believe a muzzle break can turn an innocent weapon into a super accurate death machine, I can guarantee you have probably never fired one with a muzzle break.

Actually Breaks/compensators can and do make a difference on a AR/M4 when shooting fast multi round strings. Why do you think all the people that shoot competitions like 3 gun all use compensators. Now of course it won't take scrappy shooter and turn him into some world class shooter but it does make a difference.

Still is stupid to ban them either way though.

beerftw · Mar 19, 2016

braindrain said:
Actually Breaks/compensators can and do make a difference on a AR/M4 when shooting fast multi round strings. Why do you think all the people that shoot competitions like 3 gun all use compensators. Now of course it won't take scrappy shooter and turn him into some world class shooter but it does make a difference.

Still is stupid to ban them either way though.

In my experience they make practically no difference for fast shooting on semi auto, they made a major difference on ful auto and 3 round burst, but not semi.

In the military there are people who do competitions shooting 500 yards with open sights timed, and the muzzle break makes little difference, it boils down to skill. with fast firing I have personally tested it, with a muzzle break trying to spray and pray with a military weapon, you would most likely miss 95% of the time, while aiming you could hit up to 100% of the time

Orly? · Mar 19, 2016

beerftw said:
In my experience they make practically no difference for fast shooting on semi auto, they made a major difference on ful auto and 3 round burst, but not semi.

In the military there are people who do competitions shooting 500 yards with open sights timed, and the muzzle break makes little difference, it boils down to skill. with fast firing I have personally tested it, with a muzzle break trying to spray and pray with a military weapon, you would most likely miss 95% of the time, while aiming you could hit up to 100% of the time

You were probably using a standard A2 flash hider no?

Like this?

This is designed to hide flash only with really no recoil compensation characteristics.

jimbo · Mar 19, 2016

Orly? said:
barrel or overall length.. They outlaw the short ones because longer ones are harder to conceal..

And yet in many areas a concealed permit is required to carry concealed, and in others open carry is not allowed. As to the guns pictured, both are termed rifles, and therefore the stockless one is termed illegal, yet a Buntline Peacemaker which has a 12" barrel and no stock, is a legal weapon even though performance wise it's similar to the rifle in the lower photo.

pinqy · Mar 19, 2016

jimbo said:
And yet in many areas a concealed permit is required to carry concealed, and in others open carry is not allowed. As to the guns pictured, both are termed rifles, and therefore the stockless one is termed illegal, yet a Buntline Peacemaker which has a 12" barrel and no stock, is a legal weapon even though performance wise it's similar to the rifle in the lower photo.

No, the top one is a "lever action pistol" and the bottom one is a "sawed-off rifle." Though they are practically identical.

braindrain · Mar 19, 2016

beerftw said:
In my experience they make practically no difference for fast shooting on semi auto, they made a major difference on ful auto and 3 round burst, but not semi.

In the military there are people who do competitions shooting 500 yards with open sights timed, and the muzzle break makes little difference, it boils down to skill. with fast firing I have personally tested it, with a muzzle break trying to spray and pray with a military weapon, you would most likely miss 95% of the time, while aiming you could hit up to 100% of the time

Of course it boils down to skill over everything else. That said you take two shooters with identical skill and one with a comp and another without and the one with will be quicker. That is why all serious competitors in classes that allow them use them. When looking for every advantage counts you use what works and comps simply do.

While I respect your experience in the military, most of my time working with non SOF units is that they simply don't have the skill level for a comp to matter much one way or the other. Also we are not talking about a huge difference but it is a difference that can be seen on a pro timer. A tool that I have rarely seen conventional units use. Without one you really don't know what is truly faster. You are just going by feel wishing is not always a good indicator.

Also I am not sure where you are getting this spray and pray idea from. No one is talking about that. Of course if that is what you are doing you are going to miss. What we are talking about is multi round strings as fast as you can achieve hits. Any way to reduce muzzle ride and recoil and get the sights back on target faster will allow you to shoot faster.

Crimefree · Mar 20, 2016

beerftw said:
but they do not eliminate supersonic noise at a distance, meaning someone a mile away will hear it, while subsonic would not be heard at that distance, and subsonic with a suppressor would barely be heard at close range.

my rant was mostly focused at banning suppressors over deer poaching, the average deer rifle would be heard with a suppressor since almost all are supersonic. Which means the ban occurred for reasons other than stated.

All bans are caused by hysterical people with idiotic beliefs.

jet57 · Mar 20, 2016

TOG 6 said:
Please provide a sound argument as to how this makes any sense whatsoever.

The only thing I can think of is that the muzzle break is an addition, like a suppressor. Breaks are kind of a suppressor, so I guess they got it in that way. Nobody can seem to figure out why sound suppressors are illegal either.

jet57 · Mar 20, 2016

Crimefree said:
All bans are caused by hysterical people with idiotic beliefs.

It's really more of a smoking ban kind of thing.

TurtleDude · Mar 20, 2016

beerftw said:
Another thing on silencers and suppresors, niether work very well with sonic ammo, only subsonic ammo. Neither can silence a sonic boom from breaking the sound barrier, so for it to work it needs to be small cal rounds like 22lr subsonic, or large caliber low velocity rounds like 45 acp That come just shy of breaking the sound barrier, but pack alot of punch.

The only mainstream hunting rifles I have ever heard of being subsonic were blackpowder rifles, and no one used suppressors on them, they would foul up and stop working after the first 10 or so shots. But amazingly with subsonic I can shoot lets say my 44 cap and ball loaded for subsonic, and everyone nearby would hear something like a cannon go off, but the people down the street would barely hear anything without the sonic boom.

most deer hunting rifles would be supersonic, so it shows that ending poaching was not the intention.

factual reality had nothing to do with the 1934 NFA/ Pandering was the goal, pure and simple

beerftw · Mar 21, 2016

braindrain said:
Of course it boils down to skill over everything else. That said you take two shooters with identical skill and one with a comp and another without and the one with will be quicker. That is why all serious competitors in classes that allow them use them. When looking for every advantage counts you use what works and comps simply do.

While I respect your experience in the military, most of my time working with non SOF units is that they simply don't have the skill level for a comp to matter much one way or the other. Also we are not talking about a huge difference but it is a difference that can be seen on a pro timer. A tool that I have rarely seen conventional units use. Without one you really don't know what is truly faster. You are just going by feel wishing is not always a good indicator.

Also I am not sure where you are getting this spray and pray idea from. No one is talking about that. Of course if that is what you are doing you are going to miss. What we are talking about is multi round strings as fast as you can achieve hits. Any way to reduce muzzle ride and recoil and get the sights back on target faster will allow you to shoot faster.

I would easily argue a compensator does practically nothing for most semi auto. It helps with full auto, but for semi auto if you cannot control the 5.56 recoil enough to shoot fast, you probably should not own one and stick with air rifles.

Even without a muzzle break a 5.56 or .223 is easy to manage, to the point when I would zero with my beatup m16a2 the army keeps calling muskets because they are dated, I would fire all 3 shots per round for zero one after another, I just simply know how to re center my sight picture on the fly. For less experienced soldiers there is the pebble in cheek method, which helps re center sight picture quickly, at that point it is up to the soldier to quickly follow the target.

ProJoe · Mar 21, 2016

New member and first time poster here. I guess I am one of the few gun owning Liberals around. Here is my take on it and I know that most here will not like my stance. I have owned, shot, and reloaded for rifles and shotguns most of my life; since I was around 12 years old or so. I personally do not like or own any semi auto of any kind. Some of you have mentioned Ruger and they are good guns. I have two Ruger No. 1 Single Shots and a M77 Ruger bolt action. All three of these rifles will shoot 1/2" groups at 100 yards w/ my reloads. This type of accuracy in a single shot or bolt action is all I would ever need. In fact, it is all anyone should ever need. The Ruger Mini 14 and it's 30 caliber equivalent will throw its brass a country mile. I hate being at the range when the guy next to me has one. His brass is hitting me with authority as well as my rifles and these guys don't even seem to care. They don't reload. How can they? They can't find their brass. If semi autos were banned, so be it. We don't need them when good single shots and bolt actions are available.
Joe

braindrain · Mar 21, 2016

beerftw said:
I would easily argue a compensator does practically nothing for most semi auto. It helps with full auto, but for semi auto if you cannot control the 5.56 recoil enough to shoot fast, you probably should not own one and stick with air rifles.

Even without a muzzle break a 5.56 or .223 is easy to manage, to the point when I would zero with my beatup m16a2 the army keeps calling muskets because they are dated, I would fire all 3 shots per round for zero one after another, I just simply know how to re center my sight picture on the fly. For less experienced soldiers there is the pebble in cheek method, which helps re center sight picture quickly, at that point it is up to the soldier to quickly follow the target.

I am sorry man but you are simply wrong here. We are not talking about 3 rounds for zeroing. No if you are shooting in the prone or even standing firing for tight groups then no there is no need for a comp. Where they are a benefit is shooting 5 round strings while transitioning from multiple targets all while moving. Try doing that with a pro timer and concern yourself with measuring your splits by the tenth of a second and you will see a difference.

Tell me why do you think those whose while jobs are winning competitions that are won by the hundredths of a second and can run circles around virtually everyone in the military all use comps. Is it because they are not good enough to use a 556. Like I said the vast majority of the military simply does not have the skill level to make use of them or train with the tools to realize the difference they can make. Not anything bad about that it just is what it is.

TurtleDude · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
New member and first time poster here. I guess I am one of the few gun owning Liberals around. Here is my take on it and I know that most here will not like my stance. I have owned, shot, and reloaded for rifles and shotguns most of my life; since I was around 12 years old or so. I personally do not like or own any semi auto of any kind. Some of you have mentioned Ruger and they are good guns. I have two Ruger No. 1 Single Shots and a M77 Ruger bolt action. All three of these rifles will shoot 1/2" groups at 100 yards w/ my reloads. This type of accuracy in a single shot or bolt action is all I would ever need. In fact, it is all anyone should ever need. The Ruger Mini 14 and it's 30 caliber equivalent will throw its brass a country mile. I hate being at the range when the guy next to me has one. His brass is hitting me with authority as well as my rifles and these guys don't even seem to care. They don't reload. How can they? They can't find their brass. If semi autos were banned, so be it. We don't need them when good single shots and bolt actions are available.
Joe

LOL only someone who is dishonest or clueless would think that those who want to ban semi autos are happy with citizens having a bolt gun they can use to shoot another person with at half a mile

and most handguns are semi autos.

what sort of handguns do you think people should defend themselves with?

tell me why does the second amendment cease protecting us based on how far the firearm throws brass.

BTW my AR 15 match rifle will shoot half a MOA at 100, 200, 300 yards.

WHAT YOU NEED MATTERS NOT TO ME

TurtleDude · Mar 21, 2016

braindrain said:
I am sorry man but you are simply wrong here. We are not talking about 3 rounds for zeroing. No if you are shooting in the prone or even standing firing for tight groups then no there is no need for a comp. Where they are a benefit is shooting 5 round strings while transitioning from multiple targets all while moving. Try doing that with a pro timer and concern yourself with measuring your splits by the tenth of a second and you will see a difference.

Tell me why do you think those whose while jobs are winning competitions that are won by the hundredths of a second and can run circles around virtually everyone in the military all use comps. Is it because they are not good enough to use a 556. Like I said the vast majority of the military simply does not have the skill level to make use of them or train with the tools to realize the difference they can make. Not anything bad about that it just is what it is.

My nephew is a professional 3G competitor and customizes firearms for said competitions. I bought my son a DD rifle for such competitions and my nephew put a Miculeck compensator on it rather than the flash hider that came with it and yes it makes a big difference

ProJoe · Mar 21, 2016

TurtleDude said:
LOL only someone who is dishonest or clueless would think that those who want to ban semi autos are happy with citizens having a bolt gun they can use to shoot another person with at half a mile

and most handguns are semi autos.

what sort of handguns do you think people should defend themselves with?

tell me why does the second amendment cease protecting us based on how far the firearm throws brass.

BTW my AR 15 match rifle will shoot half a MOA at 100, 200, 300 yards.

WHAT YOU NEED MATTERS NOT TO ME

Yeah, I don't like handguns of any kind either. The "home defense" angle is a crock and doesn't fly w/ me. Your match AR is a definite exception as far as the black guns go. You must have put a lot of money into it. Even then, you still just have an expensive ugly rifle. I have never seen one that accurate. At the range where I shoot, the targets of guys with AR's look like they have been shot with buckshot. Guns and shooting are not my life. I am a musician and I work much harder at music than at shooting. In fact, if I never fired another round, I have a life time of music to learn to the point that I would never even miss my guns or shooting. If what I need matters not to you, then why should what you need matter to me?
Joe

TurtleDude · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
Yeah, I don't like handguns of any kind either. The "home defense" angle is a crock and doesn't fly w/ me. Your match AR is a definite exception as far as the black guns go. You must have put a lot of money into it. Even then, you still just have an expensive ugly rifle. I have never seen one that accurate. At the range where I shoot, the targets of guys with AR's look like they have been shot with buckshot. Guns and shooting are not my life. I am a musician and I work much harder at music than at shooting. In fact, if I never fired another round, I have a life time of music to learn to the point that I would never even miss my guns or shooting. If what I need matters not to you, then why should what you need matter to me?
Joe

OK, you're a gun banner who doesn't want others to have a choice of what guns they can own.

thus your position has zero credibility. Dismissed

ProJoe · Mar 21, 2016

TurtleDude said:
OK, you're a gun banner who doesn't want others to have a choice of what guns they can own.

thus your position has zero credibility. Dismissed

So you don't even want to discuss it? Because I don't agree with you, you want to pick up your marbles and go home? Yes you can and should have a choice. You can choose between the many bolt actions that are out there from military Mausers to Winchesters, Remington, Browning, Ruger, Savage, Sako, Kimber, etc., etc.

TOG 6 · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
If semi autos were banned, so be it. We don't need them when good single shots and bolt actions are available.
Joe

I need an AR15 for the same reason Rosa parks needed a seat on the bus.

TOG 6 · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
Yeah, I don't like handguns of any kind either. The "home defense" angle is a crock and doesn't fly w/ me.

Like them or not, we unquestionably have a right to own a use them.

I have never seen one that accurate. At the range where I shoot, the targets of guys with AR's look like they have been shot with buckshot

Funny... where I go, they shoot ~10" groups - but that's at 1000yds.

TurtleDude · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
So you don't even want to discuss it? Because I don't agree with you, you want to pick up your marbles and go home? Yes you can and should have a choice. You can choose between the many bolt actions that are out there from military Mausers to Winchesters, Remington, Browning, Ruger, Savage, Sako, Kimber, etc., etc.

The second amendment doesn't stop or end based on what sort of action a common firearm utilizes. Anyone who wants to pretend they support gun ownership while being in favor of banning common firearms is a gun banner pure and simple. That you get your drawers in a knot over someone shooting next to you with a rifle that ejects brass is one of the most idiotic arguments i have ever encountered.

ProJoe · Mar 21, 2016

TurtleDude said:
The second amendment doesn't stop or end based on what sort of action a common firearm utilizes. Anyone who wants to pretend they support gun ownership while being in favor of banning common firearms is a gun banner pure and simple. That you get your drawers in a knot over someone shooting next to you with a rifle that ejects brass is one of the most idiotic arguments i have ever encountered.

I thought you dismissed me and your were done. OK, we will continue. When the 2nd Amendment was written, our forefathers had single shots. That is clearly what they meant. That's another reason I support the 2nd Amendment; the prolific use of single shots. That's why I like single shots so much. You can't beat the beauty and the accuracy of the Ruger No. 1. Accuracy trumps firepower every time. Let me throw hot brass at your face one after another and then tell me it is an idiotic argument. Evidently you have never experienced it.
Joe

TOG 6 · Mar 21, 2016

ProJoe said:
I thought you dismissed me and your were done. OK, we will continue. When the 2nd Amendment was written, our forefathers had single shots. That is clearly what they meant.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

And so.... no.

The idiocy of 'assault weapon' bans

BretJ

beerftw

proud ammosexual

braindrain

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Orly?

jimbo

pinqy

braindrain

Crimefree

jet57

jet57

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

beerftw

proud ammosexual

ProJoe

Member

braindrain

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

ProJoe

Member

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

ProJoe

Member

TOG 6

TOG 6

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

ProJoe

Member

TOG 6