Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

[Oozlefinch]

Not sure from the pictures, but the bottom one looks to have a greater magazine capacity and also a detachable magazine. That would make it an "assault type weapon" when coupled with the pistol grip.

EDIT: I say "looks to have"

Wait, so a detachable magazine now makes a weapon an "assault weapon"?

This is what I mean by shifting definitions that are based upon only cosmetic differences.

I guess that makes this AR-31 "Assault Rifle" as well then.

 

[Rich2018]

Wait, so a detachable magazine now makes a weapon an "assault weapon"?

This is what I mean by shifting definitions that are based upon only cosmetic differences.

I guess that makes this AR-31 "Assault Rifle" as well then.

Is that a bolt action rifle ?

In which case it is not semi or fully automatic, and therefore not an "assault type" weapon.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Is that a bolt action rifle ?

In which case it is not semi or fully automatic, and therefore not an "assault type" weapon.

Yes, it is a bolt action weapon. So therefore there is a difference that is not simply cosmetic.

So why does appearance matter so much in this case?

And BTW, all 3 of the rifles use a magazine, you simply see it in the bottom one. Once again, judgment is simply by appearance.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, it is a bolt action weapon. So therefore there is a difference that is not simply cosmetic....

Correct

An "Assault Type Weapon" is a semi/fully automatic rifle, firing an intermediate rifle cartridge. It has a pistol grip (though it can have two pistol grips) and is magazine fed by a detachable magazine.


Of the rifles shown in your picture, it would appear that only the bottom one has a detachable magazine.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Correct

An "Assault Type Weapon" is a semi/fully automatic rifle, firing an intermediate rifle cartridge. It has a pistol grip (though it can have two pistol grips) and is magazine fed by a detachable magazine.


Of the rifles shown in your picture, it would appear that only the bottom one has a detachable magazine.

Wrong.

They are all the exact same weapon!

All 3 are magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. In fact, all 3 of them are the Mini-14.

The only difference is the bottom one has a magazine inserted, the top 2 do not.

OK then, how about the M-1 then? That is the rifle responsible for more deaths than probably any other in history. Semi-automatic. The State of California recognizes it as an "Assault Rifle", even though it does not fire an "Intermediate Cartridge".

Is the UZI an "Assault Rifle"?

What about having a pistol grip makes one weapon an Assault Rifle, as opposed to another?

Why can those against "Assault Rifles" not even admit that the definition of such means nothing, and essentially is all about nothing but looks?

Assault rifle, or not an assault rifle?

 

[Rich2018]

Wrong.

They are all the exact same weapon

All 3 are magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. In fact, all 3 of them are the Mini-14

The only difference is the bottom one has a magazine inserted, the top 2 do not....

Only the bottom one has a pistol grip. So no, they're not the "exact" same weapon.


But if it makes you feel better, then ban ALL semi/full automatic rifles.

...OK then, how about the M-1 then? That is the rifle responsible for more deaths than probably any other in history. Semi-automatic. The State of California recognizes it as an "Assault Rifle", even though it does not fire an "Intermediate Cartridge"....

I assume you mean the M1 Garand
It is not an "assault rifle"

And no way is it the most lethal rifle in history - I would say that belongs to the AK-47 and clones.

The Garand was only in service for a few years.
I'd say the SMLE probably killed more soldiers.

...is the UZI an "Assault Rifle"?

What kind of ammunition does it use ?

...what about having a pistol grip makes one weapon an Assault Rifle, as opposed to another?

Because military assault rifles invariably have at least one pistol grip.

...why can those against "Assault Rifles" not even admit that the definition of such means nothing, and essentially is all about nothing but looks?

Plus the type of ammunition, the rate of fire, the feeding system...


The firearm in your picture, is it fully automatic?
What caliber is it?
Does it have a fast change barrel ?

It looks like it could be a light support weapon.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Only the bottom one has a pistol grip. So no, they're not the "exact" same weapon.
What kind of ammunition does it use ?

Because military assault rifles invariably have at least one pistol grip.

I assume you mean the M1 Garand
It is not an "assault rifle"

Plus the type of ammunition, the rate of fire, the feeding system...

The firearm in your picture, is it fully automatic?
What caliber is it?
Does it have a fast change barrel ?

It looks like it could be a light support weapon.

Your arguments keep bouncing all over the place here. You really are trying to simply include any weapon you can find, based on looks.

And the M1 is considered by many to be the deadliest weapon in the world. Yes, it was only used for about a decade. But that decade involved both WWII and the Korean War. It killed far more in those 2 bloody conflicts than the M16 has in half a century. Or the AK-47.

Oh, and that decade was only in the US. It was used until the 1970's by militaries all over the world.

And yes, the M1 has fallen in and out of classification as an "Assault Rifle" in California. It fell off again in 2014 when the "Bayonet Lug" was removed from one of their conditions. But prior to that, it was indeed an Assault Rifle. And if you have one of the more rare box magazine models, it does qualify in California as one still.

By the way, "fully automatic" is a requirement? That has been illegal in the US for getting close to a century now, no need to state that again.

And tell me, what in the heck does a pistol grip have to do with anything? That literally is just a cosmetic difference. But you do seem to care about looks.

And rate of fire? That means absolutely nothing. What if I was to tell you that a weapon that is not semi-automatic can have a higher rate of fire?

But keep on trying to sound authoritative. It is simply showing how little you really know.

 

[Rich2018]

Your arguments keep bouncing all over the place here. You really are trying to simply include any weapon you can find, based on looks....

If you're trying to ban a weapon based on "assault type", then yes cosmetic appearance comes into it.

Personally I think all firearms should be banned to the general public and then make exceptions as to which ones are allowed.

...and the M1 is considered by many to be the deadliest weapon in the world. Yes, it was only used for about a decade. But that decade involved both WWII and the Korean War. It killed far more in those 2 bloody conflicts than the M16 has in half a century. Or the AK-47....

I think you'll find that more US soldiers in Korea used the M2 Carbine

When you say "deadliest" do you mean used to kill the most people ?
In that case it's the AK hands down. I mean no-one knows how many have been made but it's over 70 million.

The number of wars it's been used in are too many to list on here, but they're listed on this Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47


I have fired one once...a Russian built one.

...oh, and that decade was only in the US. It was used until the 1970's by militaries all over the world....

LOL

Let's list the militaries over the world that used the M1 versus those who've used the AK.
Not even close
Not even.

...the M1 has fallen in and out of classification as an "Assault Rifle" in California. It fell off again in 2014 when the "Bayonet Lug" was removed from one of their conditions. But prior to that, it was indeed an Assault Rifle. And if you have one of the more rare box magazine models, it does qualify in California as one still....

All the same it's not an assault rifle...and neither is it's replacement in the US military - the M-14

Key element to an assault rifle is the ability to fire on full auto.
(and be controllable)

...by the way, "fully automatic" is a requirement? That has been illegal in the US for getting close to a century now...

No it hasn't

You can get fully automatic weapons int eh USA - don't believe me, check out any number of YouTube videos showing ordinary people firing fully automatic weapons.

...and tell me, what in the heck does a pistol grip have to do with anything? That literally is just a cosmetic difference....

I don't know
Why do all military assault rifles have a pistol grip ?
For cosmetic reasons or because a pistol allows you to more easily fire an automatic weapon ?

...rate of fire? That means absolutely nothing....

It does if you're on the receiving end
Trust me, a semi-auto is way faster than a bolt action, even a superb bolt action like the SMLE.

...what if I was to tell you that a weapon that is not semi-automatic can have a higher rate of fire?

Are you saying a bolt action can have a higher rate of fire than a semi-auto rifle ?

...but keep on trying to sound authoritative. It is simply showing how little you really know.

Oops, I hit a sore spot didn't I ?

Let me guess, you'll begin your next post with "LMAO", refer to yourself as "we", "many" and "us" and profess amusement.


So go on believing that you know everything.,..starting with how the M1 is the "deadliest" firearm of all time and supported by the proverbial "many".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Personally I think all firearms should be banned to the general public and then make exceptions as to which ones are allowed.

Luckily, we have the right to have them in the Constitution, so what you think does not matter.

I think you'll find that more US soldiers in Korea used the M2 Carbine

Uhhh, the M2 is an M1. The only difference between the 2 is that they added a selective fire capability, shortened the barrel, and the internal 5 round clip was replaced with a removable box magazine.

Wow, you really do not know anything about weapons, do you? What you did is essentially the same as trying to claim that the M16A1 is a completely different weapon from the M16A2.

The M1 and M2 are the same weapon. Late war M1 rifles were all M2 carbines. And before Korea all M1s were converted into the M2. But they are the exact same weapon.

Key element to an assault rifle is the ability to fire on full auto.
(and be controllable)

Well, fully automatic weapons are illegal. Therefore there are almost no Assault Rifles in the US, by your definition there. And they have been illegal for decades.

You can get fully automatic weapons int eh USA - don't believe me, check out any number of YouTube videos showing ordinary people firing fully automatic weapons.

Yea. If you go through the work to get an FFL Class 3 Permit. But to do so is very difficult. You must have a need to have it, a perfectly clean record, spend about a year in getting cleared and verified, and be prepared to spend about $15,000.

And the guns themselves are gonna cost you another $20-50,000.

Of course, you can do an illegal conversion. Anybody with basic tools can do so. But that is a felony all by itself, already illegal.

And a lot of gun ranges have fully automatic weapons for rent. Not sale, rent. If I wanted I could film myself firing automatic weapons, but why? Just because I decide to make a video with myself using one, does not mean I own one.

Why do all military assault rifles have a pistol grip ?
For cosmetic reasons or because a pistol allows you to more easily fire an automatic weapon ?

Why do you keep going back to automatic weapon?

Are you even aware that the M16 has not been an "Automatic Weapon" for over 30 years?

The use of a pistol grip primarily has to do with east of training, and reduction of fatigue. Since the finger and hand are all in the same position for essentially all "small arms", it makes training for another weapon easier. M16, M1911, M9, M249, M240, even the SMAW all use this so the relation between hand-wrist-trigger is uniform. And since in battlefield conditions we go armed for months at a time, fatigue is reduced.

But firing an automatic weapon? I no longer even know what you mean when you say that any more. You are simply vomiting up more nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

But tell me, why do drills and circular saws use a pistol grip? Are these "Assault Tools"? How about we pass a new law, anything with a pistol grip be banned. Let's get rid of all of those "Assault Tools". All drills, grinders, and other electric and pneumatic tools must be in a straight line, like a Dremel design.

In fact, let's ban all pneumatic tools. Because they can sound like guns when in use.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Are you saying a bolt action can have a higher rate of fire than a semi-auto rifle ?

Did I say bolt action? Once again, jumping to conclusions without even thinking about it. Either that, or once again showing that you really do have no idea what you are talking about.

Here, let me give you a hint here. This is not a bolt action weapon, and predates the "semi-automatic" action. But it has a fast rate of fire.



There is a reason the Winchester '73 is known as "The gun that won the West".

And a great many militaries used the Lever Action (including the US, Russia, UK, and Spain) prior to the advent of the modern semi-automatic action (although most returned to bolt action prior to WWI to conserve ammunition).

Oops, I hit a sore spot didn't I ?

No, I am simply amused at how somebody who apparently knows nothing about weapons at all, can have so many conflicting and outright wrong ideas about them. You bounce back and forth between "automatic" and "semi-automatic", apparently not even realizing one has been illegal for 80 years. And you do not even seem to be aware that there are more than 2 different firearm actions. In fact, there are dozens of them. And a great many can achieve rates of fire almost the same as an automatic weapon, and often even superior to that of a semi-automatic weapon.

Tell you what, go to your nearest Trap and Skeet Range, and ask around how many use semi-automatic shotguns in their sport. Other than the obvious choice of an over and under, most use a pump action. And that is because in the hands of an individual with more than a basic amount of training (say an hour of actual shooting), the pump action actually fires faster and with less recoil than a semi-automatic action.

What should we talk about next? How about some of the many other actions that a weapon can have? Because this chasing around of silly qualifications really means nothing. How about chain fed revolvers? Should we discuss if we simply outlaw all magazines, and instead modify a weapon to accept a belt?

 

[Fledermaus]

One point...

To clear the air

The M1 rifle is a semi-automatic, .30-06, clip fed rifle.

The M1 carbine is a semi-automatic, .30 Carbine, magazine fed carbine (short rifle)

The M2 carbine is a semi/full-automatic, .30 Carbine, magazine fed carbine (short rifle)

The M14 rifle is a semi/full-automatic, 7.62MM NATO, magazine fed rifle

The M16 rifle is a semi/full-automatic, 5.56 NATO, magazine fed rifle

The M16A1 rifle is a semi-automatic/three round burst, 5.56 NATO, magazine fed rifle

The M4 carbine is a semi-automatic/three round burst, 5.56 NATO, magazine fed carbine

Just so we are discussing the same thing

 

[Oozlefinch]

The M16A1 rifle is a semi-automatic/three round burst, 5.56 NATO, magazine fed rifle

The M4 carbine is a semi-automatic/three round burst, 5.56 NATO, magazine fed carbine

Just so we are discussing the same thing

A few corrections.

The M16A1 is semi-automatic or fully automatic. It can be differentiated from the M16 by the forward assist (and most M16 models had an open ended "bird cage" flash suppressor).

The M16A2 is the one with the 3 round burst, in addition to the heavy barrel. It can be differentiated by the round forward hand grip.

The CAR-15 ("Bushmaster") was the original carbine variant of the M-16. Patterned off of the M16A1, it is semi or fully automatic, and has a forward assist.

The M4 is the replacement of the CAR-15, and is patterned off of the M16A2.

And there are other variants. In the Marines, I frequently saw the Colt 9mm SMG. Essentially the same as the CAR-15, it fired 9mm rounds and was essentially a sub-machine gun.

I have dealt with all of these weapons. Either by being issued to me (M16A1, 1983-1986, M16A2 currently), or by working with them as an armorer (CAR-15, M4, Colt 9mm SMG).

But most classify all of these as part of the "M16 series". In fact, other than minor changes in firing mechanism and barrel, they are all roughly 95% the same weapon. Most differences are very minor.

 

[Fledermaus]

A few corrections.

The M16A1 is semi-automatic or fully automatic. It can be differentiated from the M16 by the forward assist (and most M16 models had an open ended "bird cage" flash suppressor).

The M16A2 is the one with the 3 round burst, in addition to the heavy barrel. It can be differentiated by the round forward hand grip.

The CAR-15 ("Bushmaster") was the original carbine variant of the M-16. Patterned off of the M16A1, it is semi or fully automatic, and has a forward assist.

The M4 is the replacement of the CAR-15, and is patterned off of the M16A2.

And there are other variants. In the Marines, I frequently saw the Colt 9mm SMG. Essentially the same as the CAR-15, it fired 9mm rounds and was essentially a sub-machine gun.

I have dealt with all of these weapons. Either by being issued to me (M16A1, 1983-1986, M16A2 currently), or by working with them as an armorer (CAR-15, M4, Colt 9mm SMG).

But most classify all of these as part of the "M16 series". In fact, other than minor changes in firing mechanism and barrel, they are all roughly 95% the same weapon. Most differences are very minor.

Corrections noted.

 

[Rich2018]

Luckily, we have the right to have them in the Constitution, so what you think does not matter....

Spoken like a true Republican. What people actually think doesn't matter.

You must have voted for Trump - he doesn't care what people think either.

...the M2 is an M1. The only difference between the 2 is that they added a selective fire capability, shortened the barrel, and the internal 5 round clip was replaced with a removable box magazine....

No, the M1 carbine didn't have a 5 round internal clip. The M1 carbine had 15 or 30 round detachable magazines. The M2 had full auto added.

You really don't know anything about weapons do you?

...you really do not know anything about weapons, do you?

More it seems, than you do

...what you did is essentially the same as trying to claim that the M16A1 is a completely different weapon from the M16A2...

"...modifications to the M16A2 were EXTENSIVE. In addition to the new rifling, the barrel was made with a greater thickness in front of the front sight post, to resist bending in the field and to allow a longer period of sustained fire...
...a new adjustable rear sight was added
...the flash suppressor was again modified, this time to be closed on the bottom so it would not kick up dirt or snow when being fired from the prone position, and acting as a recoil compensator
...the front grip was modified from the original triangular shape to a round one, which better fit smaller hands and could be fitted to older models of the M16
...the new handguards were also symmetrical so that armories need not separate left and right spares.
...the handguard retention ring was tapered to make it easier to install and uninstall the handguards.
...a notch for the middle finger was added to the pistol grip, as well as more texture to enhance the grip
...the buttstock was lengthened by 5⁄8 in (15.9 mm) - the new buttstock became ten times stronger than the original due to advances in polymer technology since the early 1960s.
...the new stock included a fully textured polymer buttplate for better grip on the shoulder, and retained a panel for accessing a small compartment inside the stock, often used for storing a basic cleaning kit.
...the heavier bullet reduces muzzle velocity from 3,200 feet per second (980 m/s), to about 3,050 feet per second (930 m/s)
...the A2 uses a faster twist rifling to allow the use of a trajectory-matched tracer round. It has a 1:7 twist rate...."

Wow, you don't know much about weapons do you ?

...well, fully automatic weapons are illegal....

No they're not

Wow, you don't know much about weapons do you ?

...there are almost no Assault Rifles in the US, by your definition there. And they have been illegal for decades....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46iwPQNJOkk



Hmmmm...you don't know much about weapons do you ?
Because wasn't that full auto ?


Search "full auto" on YouTube, there are tons of videos there taken in the USA.

...are you even aware that the M16 has not been an "Automatic Weapon" for over 30 years...

M16A3
M4A1

Of course the M16/M4 platform is being replaced by the M27 - full auto

...the use of a pistol grip primarily has to do with east of training, and reduction of fatigue. Since the finger and hand are all in the same position for essentially all "small arms", it makes training for another weapon easier. M16, M1911, M9, M249, M240, even the SMAW all use this so the relation between hand-wrist-trigger is uniform. And since in battlefield conditions we go armed for months at a time, fatigue is reduced....

No, the pistol grip is there to increase control. Think about it. From the very first assault rifle to today, all assault rifles have a pistol grip (at least one). Countries like the UK adopted an assault rifle L85 that was eronomically very different from the Belgian designed FN FAL derivative that preceded it. What's the training value there ?


"...for firearms, the pistol grip is generally used by the hand that operates the trigger....some firearms, such as some versions of the Thompson submachine gun, have a forward pistol grip which is used to stabilize the firearm in operation..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip



Wow, you really don't know much about weapons at all do you ?

...but tell me, why do drills and circular saws use a pistol grip?

For ease of operation !!!!!

They make the tool more stable and so easier to control.


Jeez.


Thinking and you are strangers.

 

[Fledermaus]

Spoken like a true Republican. What people actually think doesn't matter.

You must have voted for Trump - he doesn't care what people think either.

No, the M1 carbine didn't have a 5 round internal clip. The M1 carbine had 15 or 30 round detachable magazines. The M2 had full auto added.

You really don't know anything about weapons do you?

More it seems, than you do


"...modifications to the M16A2 were EXTENSIVE. In addition to the new rifling, the barrel was made with a greater thickness in front of the front sight post, to resist bending in the field and to allow a longer period of sustained fire...
...a new adjustable rear sight was added
...the flash suppressor was again modified, this time to be closed on the bottom so it would not kick up dirt or snow when being fired from the prone position, and acting as a recoil compensator
...the front grip was modified from the original triangular shape to a round one, which better fit smaller hands and could be fitted to older models of the M16
...the new handguards were also symmetrical so that armories need not separate left and right spares.
...the handguard retention ring was tapered to make it easier to install and uninstall the handguards.
...a notch for the middle finger was added to the pistol grip, as well as more texture to enhance the grip
...the buttstock was lengthened by 5�8 in (15.9 mm) - the new buttstock became ten times stronger than the original due to advances in polymer technology since the early 1960s.
...the new stock included a fully textured polymer buttplate for better grip on the shoulder, and retained a panel for accessing a small compartment inside the stock, often used for storing a basic cleaning kit.
...the heavier bullet reduces muzzle velocity from 3,200 feet per second (980 m/s), to about 3,050 feet per second (930 m/s)
...the A2 uses a faster twist rifling to allow the use of a trajectory-matched tracer round. It has a 1:7 twist rate...."

Wow, you don't know much about weapons do you ?

No they're not

Wow, you don't know much about weapons do you ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46iwPQNJOkk

Hmmmm...you don't know much about weapons do you ?
Because wasn't that full auto ?


Search "full auto" on YouTube, there are tons of videos there taken in the USA.

M16A3
M4A1

Of course the M16/M4 platform is being replaced by the M27 - full auto


No, the pistol grip is there to increase control. Think about it. From the very first assault rifle to today, all assault rifles have a pistol grip (at least one). Countries like the UK adopted an assault rifle L85 that was eronomically very different from the Belgian designed FN FAL derivative that preceded it. What's the training value there ?

"...for firearms, the pistol grip is generally used by the hand that operates the trigger....some firearms, such as some versions of the Thompson submachine gun, have a forward pistol grip which is used to stabilize the firearm in operation..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip

Wow, you really don't know much about weapons at all do you ?


For ease of operation !!!!!

They make the tool more stable and so easier to control.


Jeez.


Thinking and you are strangers.

All the insults....

1. He stated what YOU think does not matter.... If you speak for the rest of the US I haven't heard.

2. The M1 RIFLE did have a 8 round internal clip. I suspect that is what he was discussing.

3. Modifications do not make a different weapon. A SMLE Mk.I and the SMLE Number 5 Mk.I Jungle were still SMLE rifles.

4. The purchase of NEW automatic weapons has been outlawed.

5. The vast majority (Probably reaching 98-99%) of M16s are not automatic. The numbers of M16A3 and M4A1 are so small as to be negligible.

6. Your example is a Thompson forward grip.

 

[Oozlefinch]

...a new adjustable rear sight was added
...the flash suppressor was again modified, this time to be closed on the bottom so it would not kick up dirt or snow when being fired from the prone position, and acting as a recoil compensator
...the front grip was modified from the original triangular shape to a round one, which better fit smaller hands and could be fitted to older models of the M16
...the new handguards were also symmetrical so that armories need not separate left and right spares.
...the handguard retention ring was tapered to make it easier to install and uninstall the handguards.
...a notch for the middle finger was added to the pistol grip, as well as more texture to enhance the grip
...the buttstock was lengthened by 5⁄8 in (15.9 mm) - the new buttstock became ten times stronger than the original due to advances in polymer technology since the early 1960s.
...the new stock included a fully textured polymer buttplate for better grip on the shoulder, and retained a panel for accessing a small compartment inside the stock, often used for storing a basic cleaning kit.
...the heavier bullet reduces muzzle velocity from 3,200 feet per second (980 m/s), to about 3,050 feet per second (930 m/s)
...the A2 uses a faster twist rifling to allow the use of a trajectory-matched tracer round. It has a 1:7 twist rate....[/i]"

And which of these makes any real difference, other than the change from fully automatic to 3 round burst?

None, really. Does the longer but stock make it fire faster? Does chancing the material of the but stock make it shoot faster?

By the way, you forgot the triangular addition behind the ejection port that automatically deflects the brass for let handed shooters.

I only touched on the items that are visible to most individuals. The flash suppressor for example had to be closely examined to see the change (as opposed to the change from the M16 which was immediately obvious). And almost all parts were interchangeable. So seeing an A1 with the A2 butt was common, as was the rounded handgrips. I have even seen the A1 handgrips used on an A2 many times.

And other than at the range, most tend to not really use the adjustable sights all that much. We simply set the weapon to BSZ and use Kentucky Windage after that. And actually, in that area the older A1 sight was superior, with it's flip aperture to go from short-medium to long range by simply flipping it up or down. I have met a lot of competition shooters that replace the A2 style rear sight with the A1 style on their A2 uppers. The enlarged aperture for low light conditions (another difference you failed to mention and I ignored) is considered by most to be stupid.

In battlefield conditions, almost nobody uses the sights in the way you imagine. Yes, the newer sight system does make it easier to set for BSZ, but in the field they are almost never used.

Once again, you focus primarily on cosmetic changes. Which have absolutely nothing to do with the weapon itself.

I can throw mag wheels, a scoop, and straight pipes on a 1977 Pinto. But guess what? It may look different and sound more bad assed, but it is still just a Ford Pinto.

Now what among any of those changes that you mentioned made the weapon any more deadly? Which made it shoot faster? What made it shoot farther?

I am essentially done with this. Your going "automatic rifles are not illegal" when they are to the general public without very specific demands and requirements is asinine. Dynamite is illegal by the same justification. Yes, specific individuals can get it, but not the general public.

Now if you can show me where in the country anybody who can legally own a firearm can walk in off the street and buy a fully automatic weapon, you might have a point. By ignoring the fact that less than 1% of the population can do so legally you are simply failing to make your case.

 

[Rich2018]

All the insults....

1. He stated what YOU think does not matter.... If you speak for the rest of the US I haven't heard....

No, he stated that he thought what I think does not matter to him...if he is speaking on behalf of the rest of the US, I have not heard.

Just that arrogant dismissal of differing opinion is the trade mark of extreme politics. For instance the Republican party is renown for its intolerance of opposition

...2. The M1 RIFLE did have a 8 round internal clip. I suspect that is what he was discussing....

He said FIVE round clip and then in the same breath spoke about differences with the the M2 carbine.
One would, therefore, assume he was speaking about the M1 carbine, not the M1 rifle.

...3. Modifications do not make a different weapon. A SMLE Mk.I and the SMLE Number 5 Mk.I Jungle were still SMLE rifles....

Apart from a more violent recoil you would be correct.
However when modification add or remove) a major characteristic, you might think the newer mark was a different weapon.
For instance FN added a longer, heavier barrel to the FAL - same weopon
They then added a folding bi-pod - same weapon ?
They added a full auto capability - still the same weapon ?

...4. The purchase of NEW automatic weapons has been outlawed....

This is true, the register for fully automatic firearms closed in 1986

But what was said was:
"...fully automatic...has been illegal in the US for getting close to a century now...." Post#57
"...fully automatic weapons are illegal. Therefore there are almost no Assault Rifles in the US..." Post#59

I'm sure you'll agree that both are incorrect


They are illegal in the UK where it is illegal to posses one. And if you're caught in possession of a fully automatic weapon in the UK (even if it's in your own home and never been fired) you can go to prison.
To give an idea of what "illegal" means.

...5. The vast majority (Probably reaching 98-99%) of M16s are not automatic. The numbers of M16A3 and M4A1 are so small as to be negligible...

So the original issue of the M16A1 (full auto) is vastly outnumbered by the other marks ?
Because Wiki gives the numbers of M16A1 built as built as circa 8 million.

So that means that if 2% = 8 million, then the non-full auto numbers (98%) = circa 400 million - totally dwarfing AK-47 production.

...6. Your example is a Thompson forward grip.

Now you're being a little pedantic - the forward pistol grip's purpose differs from the rear ?

Both grips serve the same purpose - to increase control of the weapon in operation.


"...around the 1960s it was discovered that if you had the center-line of the barrel positioned in the middle of your shoulder the felt recoil was less and the muzzle of the barrel didn’t climb as much when you fired the gun. However, this meant that you could not use a conventional stock (as your hand won’t bend that way) and they had to go to a pistol grip..."


https://www.quora.com/Why-do-modern...ce=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

 

[Rich2018]

And which of these makes any real difference, other than the change from fully automatic to 3 round burst?

Not saying that the M16A2 was a completely different weapon but those modifications are more than just "cosmetic".

...in battlefield conditions, almost nobody uses the sights in the way you imagine. Yes, the newer sight system does make it easier to set for BSZ, but in the field they are almost never used...

There are different ways to use sights ?

I've never fired an M16 or derivative.

I've fired an L1A1, L85A1 (with and without optic), L86A1


I've also fired the AK-47 (actually I think it was an AKM) and that was the superior weapon to fire even with an open sight.

...I am essentially done with this. Your going "automatic rifles are not illegal" when they are to the general public without very specific demands and requirements is asinine....

Sorry, the number of YouTube videos alone of fully automatic weapons (including assault rifles) proves that they are neither illegal, not hard to come by. You just need a license - which is harder to come by.

...now if you can show me where in the country anybody who can legally own a firearm can walk in off the street and buy a fully automatic weapon, you might have a point. By ignoring the fact that less than 1% of the population can do so legally you are simply failing to make your case.

You need the aforementioned license.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, he stated that he thought what I think does not matter to him...if he is speaking on behalf of the rest of the US, I have not heard.

Just that arrogant dismissal of differing opinion is the trade mark of extreme politics. For instance the Republican party is renown for its intolerance of opposition

"Spoken like a true Republican. What people actually think doesn't matter."

Not "What I think"

What people think....

Just that arrogant dismissal of differing opinion is the trade mark of extreme politics. For instance the Democrat party is renown for its intolerance of opposition... (Sauce for the Goose)

He said FIVE round clip and then in the same breath spoke about differences with the the M2 carbine.
One would, therefore, assume he was speaking about the M1 carbine, not the M1 rifle.

It matters not whether it was 5 or 8.

If it was an internal clip it was an M1 RIFLE.

Apart from a more violent recoil you would be correct.
However when modification add or remove) a major characteristic, you might think the newer mark was a different weapon.
For instance FN added a longer, heavier barrel to the FAL - same weopon
They then added a folding bi-pod - same weapon ?
They added a full auto capability - still the same weapon ?

Adding a bipod did nothing to change an M14 into some other weapon. Nor did an auto sear.

Same weapon.

This is true, the register for fully automatic firearms closed in 1986

But what was said was:
"...fully automatic...has been illegal in the US for getting close to a century now...." Post#57
"...fully automatic weapons are illegal. Therefore there are almost no Assault Rifles in the US..." Post#59

I'm sure you'll agree that both are incorrect

There are no NEW assault weapons.

They are illegal in the UK where it is illegal to posses one. And if you're caught in possession of a fully automatic weapon in the UK (even if it's in your own home and never been fired) you can go to prison.
To give an idea of what "illegal" means.

If you illegally have an automatic rifle in your possession you will likely go to jail as well.

So the original issue of the M16A1 (full auto) is vastly outnumbered by the other marks ?
Because Wiki gives the numbers of M16A1 built as built as circa 8 million.

So that means that if 2% = 8 million, then the non-full auto numbers (98%) = circa 400 million - totally dwarfing AK-47 production.

What day is today?

How many M16A1s do you imagine are still issued?

It was retired (even from training) by the 2000s....

Hell, the 'USMC has retired the M16A2 in favor of the newer M16A4; a few M16A2s remain in service with the U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard' (Wiki)

BTW = ≈ 75 million AK-47s, 100 million Kalashnikov-family weapons. (Wiki)

Now you're being a little pedantic - the forward pistol grip's purpose differs from the rear ?

Yes.

Both grips serve the same purpose - to increase control of the weapon in operation.

The Thompson FRONT grip was designed to decrease RISE.

"...around the 1960s it was discovered that if you had the center-line of the barrel positioned in the middle of your shoulder the felt recoil was less and the muzzle of the barrel didn’t climb as much when you fired the gun. However, this meant that you could not use a conventional stock (as your hand won’t bend that way) and they had to go to a pistol grip..."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-modern...ce=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

Straight line (inline) stocks (like the M16) preclude the use of a standard stock grip. Your reference just supported the idea the STOCK design decreased perceived recoil and decreased the muzzle climb and the pistol grip was merely a necessity of design.

View attachment 67231368

 

[Oozlefinch]

Not saying that the M16A2 was a completely different weapon but those modifications are more than just "cosmetic".

Then describe how having a groove separate fingers makes a weapon more deadly than one without. Or any of the other changes you listed.

There are different ways to use sights ?

I described how both work. They operate differently.

I've never fired an M16 or derivative.

I've fired an L1A1, L85A1 (with and without optic), L86A1

I've also fired the AK-47 (actually I think it was an AKM) and that was the superior weapon to fire even with an open sight.

OK, good for you. Not sure what is so great with the AK, I have fired them also, and was unimpressed. Of course, I look for things like recoil and accuracy. And the AK was never intended to be accurate, simply cheap.

But am still waiting for any feedback on other actions. Funny how you seem to keep ignoring that there are actions as fast or faster than semi-automatic weapons.

For instance FN added a longer, heavier barrel to the FAL - same weopon
They then added a folding bi-pod - same weapon ?
They added a full auto capability - still the same weapon ?

Yes, to answer your question, same weapon. Those are all cosmetic changes that have nothing to do with the weapon itself.

If I remove the engine from a Ford Taurus and drop in the engine from a Mercury Sable, is it still a Ford, or is it now magically a Mercury? If I take the rotary engine out of a Mazda and replace it with a piston engine from a Datsun, is it no longer a Mazda?

A heavy barrel really does very little to a weapon. Basically it is done to make a weapon more accurate at longer ranges. In other words, the 400-800 meter range or greater. Now exactly how often does this even come up?

Well, to be honest I can not think of any. In the most recent (Las Vegas), the rounds were not well aimed at all, basically fired at random into a crowd at a range of 300 meters.

And the famous "Beltway Sniper" fired at ranges from 50-100 meters.

So heavier barrel, inconsequential. Let me know when people are using heavy barrel weapons at ranges close to 1 km.

Bipod? Oh give me a break! Once again, you bring up something that is rarely used, and can literally be attached to any weapon. Yes, I have a bipod for my M16. I only use it in the field, as it lets my rifle be put down, and not have to lie on the dirt. I got it cheap, and it is good for people doing a double-take. They are primarily used on heavy weapons, like machine guns for a reason.

And full auto or semi auto does not differentiate the weapon. That is simply minor changes inside the trigger assembly.

Tell me, is a 1984 Toyota Corolla with a 3 speed automatic transmission a different car than a 1984 Toyota Corolla with a 5 speed manual transmission? And is then the 1984 Toyota Corolla with a 4 speed manual transmission yet another car altogether?

Obviously so. And a hard cover copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is obvious a completely different book than a paper back version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

After all, they have completely different bindings, and do not even have the same title! So obviously they are different books.

Right?

 

[Rich2018]

...for instance the Democrat party is renown for its intolerance of opposition...

The party of Truth & Justice (AKA The Democratic Party) embraces the whole political spectrum and listens to all POV before coming to a policy that embraces everyone.

..it matters not whether it was 5 or 8....

OK

Details don't matter...got it.

...if it was an internal clip it was an M1 RIFLE....

Just a poorly worded sentence. Got it.
(though the comparison with the M2 (carbine) is unexplained

...adding a bipod did nothing to change an M14 into some other weapon. Nor did an auto sear....

No, the M14 was a hybrid design from the start - intended to replace the M1 Garand and the BAR

...There are no NEW assault weapons....

Apologies but the word "new" never appeared in posts 57 or 59. Hence the correction.

Posts 57 and 59 stated that it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. Period.

This is false as I'm sure you'll agree - because many people in the USA own fully automatic firearms.
So clearly it is not "illegal" to own one.

...if you illegally have an automatic rifle in your possession you will likely go to jail as well...

True but as above, it is not illegal (as claimed) to own an automatic weapon, in the USA
Do you agree?

...what day is today?

As I write - Saturday

...how many M16A1s do you imagine are still issued?

Issued doesn't come into it...in existence does. I have no idea and neither do you.

...it was retired (even from training) by the 2000s....

So what - was that the basis of your claim that 98-99% of all M-16's are not full auto capable ?
Was it all M-16's ever produced?
Or M-16's still in existence ?

Admit it, you pulled a figure out of your ass and are now backtracking.

...BTW = ≈ 75 million AK-47s, 100 million Kalashnikov-family weapons. (Wiki)

I know and that would be dwarfed by the manufactured figure of 400 million M-16 family weapons, would it not ?

...Yes...

Source ?

Or just YOUR opinion ?

...the Thompson FRONT grip was designed to decrease RISE....

Which would allow the weapon to be better controlled with automatic fire

Guess what, the fore grip was designed for the SAME purpose.

...straight line (inline) stocks (like the M16) preclude the use of a standard stock grip. Your reference just supported the idea the STOCK design decreased perceived recoil and decreased the muzzle climb and the pistol grip was merely a necessity of design...

Yes, the pistol grip was introduced on assault rifles to enable better control of the weapon. Why are you digging yourself a bigger hole ?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Spoken like a true Republican. What people actually think doesn't matter.

You must have voted for Trump - he doesn't care what people think either.

"Spoken like a true Republican. What people actually think doesn't matter."

Is ok, I largely ignored that. However, it is interesting how people let their own imaginations run away from them.

Personally, I classify myself politically as a "Moderate Conservative". I am not a Republican, but I most often vote that way because those are the candidates that I generally relate to best.

And interesting how he then does the typical trick of a loosing Liberal, and then tries to bring in President Trump.

Most who know me in here know my disdain for him. I was against him during the primaries, and I did not vote for him in the Election. Not the least of which is because he was a lifelong New York Democrat, who was running as a Populist (a group I never trust) with the party he thought he had the best chance with (not unlike Bernie Sanders, who was never a Democrat).

Instead, I did a write-in vote for another candidate. One who I supported and even campaigned for early on, before he was knocked out of the primaries.

Who I think gave the best debate answer ever during the campaign.



Yes, I voted for a Democrat. However, a Democrat that shares far more of my views than either of the candidates that made it to the election.

And interestingly enough, a Democrat Presidential candidate that has since disassociated himself from the party he belonged to his entire life. Even when he was President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy.

But such idiotic speculations and accusations simply show me that some people are no longer to be taken seriously at all. They have their own beliefs, and will never be changed from them. No matter how many facts they are shown, and how often their own inconsistencies are pointed out to them. They will still continue to tell themselves they are correct no matter what.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No, the M14 was a hybrid design from the start - intended to replace the M1 Garand and the BAR

The M14 was a disaster of a weapon. Intended to replace everything other than a pistol or machine gun, it was a failure in almost all of them. And with a service life of only 5 years, it was the main battle rifle for the shortest amount of time in US military history. Although because they had a wood stock, they still remain in service to this day, primarily as a D&C weapon.

My last unit in the Marines had 10 of them in the armory, 7 of which they would pull from the armory for funeral details. We also used them for Color Guards for various events. With a wood varnish highly polished, they are a very sharp looking weapon.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Now I would like a serious answer.

If I modify this to a 10 round magazine with a bullet button, is it or is it not an "Assault Rifle"?

 

[Fledermaus]

The party of Truth & Justice (AKA The Democratic Party) embraces the whole political spectrum and listens to all POV before coming to a policy that embraces everyone.

OK

Details don't matter...got it.

Just a poorly worded sentence. Got it.
(though the comparison with the M2 (carbine) is unexplained

No, the M14 was a hybrid design from the start - intended to replace the M1 Garand and the BAR

Apologies but the word "new" never appeared in posts 57 or 59. Hence the correction.

Posts 57 and 59 stated that it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. Period.

This is false as I'm sure you'll agree - because many people in the USA own fully automatic firearms.
So clearly it is not "illegal" to own one.

True but as above, it is not illegal (as claimed) to own an automatic weapon, in the USA
Do you agree?

As I write - Saturday

Issued doesn't come into it...in existence does. I have no idea and neither do you.

So what - was that the basis of your claim that 98-99% of all M-16's are not full auto capable ?
Was it all M-16's ever produced?
Or M-16's still in existence ?

Admit it, you pulled a figure out of your ass and are now backtracking.

I know and that would be dwarfed by the manufactured figure of 400 million M-16 family weapons, would it not ?

Source ?

Or just YOUR opinion ?

Which would allow the weapon to be better controlled with automatic fire

Guess what, the fore grip was designed for the SAME purpose.

Yes, the pistol grip was introduced on assault rifles to enable better control of the weapon. Why are you digging yourself a bigger hole ?

OMFG...

If an internal clip is involved the rifle being discussed is an M1 RIFLE. Whether or not someone got the number of rounds wrong is irrelevant.

The M14 was a main battle rifle. Did it change with a bipod or auto selector? No.

And full auto weapons possessed ILLEGALLY still is cause for incarceration.

M16s no longer in existence no longer exist. Unless you wish to count the ghosts of M16s past.

The full auto M16s were retired long, long ago and replaced by non-automatic versions (save for a tiny fraction you continue to try to blow up out of all proprtion)

According to Wiki 8 million M16s. That means original M16 automatics (long retired) and all the Mark and Models that replaced it and later Models. Your "400 millions" is a fantasy number you came up with through ridiculous math.

And the INLINE STOCK decreases percieved recoil and muzzle climb. A pistol grip is used because the design does not allow for gripping the stock properly.

And take a look at a Thompson SMG front grip... Ever wonder why the grip finger groove are so pronounced? No, of course not.