# Gun Control



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

No, this is not a diatribe for or against gun control in America, but it is a consideration of the effectiveness of those laws. Today, over at msnbc, and according to ATF records, there has been a seven fold increase in the number of AK47 assualt rifles siezed or linked to crimes since the 1993 ban on assault rifles.

So, Congress passes a law banning assault rifles, and the result is a seven fold increase in the use of those weapons to commit crimes. I believe that this indicates an underutilized strategy by our elected idiots. Pass a law banning the use non-polluting energy, and see a seven fold increase in the use of such devices.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856/

For those who are still interested in the sartorial, maybe congress could ban the wearing of neck ties and pocket squares. :icon_smile:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You're making the obvious logical error of confusing correlation with causation.

You also failed to quote the two statements in the article that would be inconsistent with your thesis:

_"Once the Wall fell, these guns were everywhere," said Carlos Baixauli, an agent with ATF._

AND

_A 2004 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence concluded the U.S. ban on AKs and other guns was successful, saying in the five years before its passage, assault weapons made up 4.82 percent of ATF crime gun traces, compared with 1.61 percent between 1995 and 2003._

So, in other words, your statement that you weren't posting a diatribe against gun control doesn't hold water.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So, in other words, your statement that you weren't posting a diatribe against gun control doesn't hold water.


Honestly, I was just trying to take a cheap shot at that great waste of subhuman life, the legislative branch of the United States.

I am sure others will attack me for this statement, but I am okay with certain gun control laws, especially those that promise 999 year prison sentences for any criminal caught in possession of a firearm.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> You're making the obvious logical error of confusing correlation with causation.
> 
> _A 2004 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence concluded the U.S. ban on AKs and other guns was successful, saying in the five years before its passage, assault weapons made up 4.82 percent of ATF crime gun traces, compared with 1.61 percent between 1995 and 2003._


(edited)

You castigate him correctly in your first statement then run on to make the same mistake in the second. The weapons on which gun traces are done are far from representative; taking conclusions from those is methodologically suspect. (but great if you've got an axe to grind!)


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> You're making the obvious logical error of confusing correlation with causation.
> 
> You also failed to quote the two statements in the article that would be inconsistent with your thesis:
> 
> _"Once the Wall fell, these guns were everywhere," said Carlos Baixauli, an agent with ATF._


Beat me to it. The AK was relatively difficult to find and fairly expensive before the collapse of the USSR. In 2000, by comparison, I bought a number of Romanian SARs (the Romanian AKs) for ~$230 each.

Bill


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was working at Home Despot, and ironically became friends with our store LP ( loss prevention, aka rent a cop) a guy who thought Pat Buchannan should be president and the Turner Diaries stuff for a great movie. hte inevitable breakroom debate over gun control brought out the usual stale arguments. I quietly slipped out to our plumbing and hardware departments. I returned with a few pieces of PVC, a nail, .22 blank for nail guns and a few other items ( I don't want to give COLT competition from AAAC members.) In a few minutes I fashioned a 'knuckle pistol' and without loading, demonstrated it's crude operation. people were shockled, one running for the store manager. Pat, the LP just looked at me in amasement and pocketed the now deadly devise. We took it out back and he bravely fired the assembly into a bag of fiberglass insulation, blowing an exit hole the size of his fist. gun Control--- ROFLMAO


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

While I think guns are a problem, and should be "controlled", I'm not sure how feasible it would be. I hate them, and feel that they are terrible things to have, but the country has been inundated with them for more than 200 years. Simply banning guns, or even certain types of guns, wouldn't work well. I like to compare the potential success of a "gun ban" in America to the success of Prohibition in the 1920's. Alcohol was banned, and no one stopped drinking. The alcohol, instead of being purchased legally, was now helping to build up organized crime syndicates, and brought with it many other dangers. I think legalizing narcotics would also bring a sharp decrease in crime, and violence related to drugs. Think of the increased revenue for the government through narcotics taxation...hell, we could use those additional funds to invade Iran, North Korea, AND Cuba instead of having to choose just one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> No, this is not a diatribe for or against gun control in America, but it is a consideration of the effectiveness of those laws. Today, over at msnbc, and according to ATF records, there has been a seven fold increase in the number of AK47 assualt rifles siezed or linked to crimes since the 1993 ban on assault rifles.
> 
> So, Congress passes a law banning assault rifles, and the result is a seven fold increase in the use of those weapons to commit crimes. I believe that this indicates an underutilized strategy by our elected idiots. Pass a law banning the use non-polluting energy, and see a seven fold increase in the use of such devices.
> 
> ...


Please actually educate yourself on the issue.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> Beat me to it. The AK was relatively difficult to find and fairly expensive before the collapse of the USSR. In 2000, by comparison, I bought a number of Romanian SARs (the Romanian AKs) for ~$230 each.
> 
> Bill


Certainly, no one knowing what a RomAK or an SAR is actually calls them assault rifles, do they?

Why would you feed into this mis-information? That MSNBC article should see the author sued and probably jailed it so irresponsible and fallacious.
That whole article is full of [email protected] It's an increase in tracings of 7.62x39mm weapons. Of course, over half of that is because they just started maintaining the database ... and you must know as well I do the majority of those other half are the 10 SKSs every survivalist bought.

I hardly think our soldiers are fighting Iraqi insurgents armed with Century Arms semi-auto copies of AKs with 7 US-made parts (is it 7 or 9? I'm a M14 guy myself) as the article implies.


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

Quoting the "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" is about as logical as quoting the NRA. Both have huge agendas on opposite sides of the matter and both are routinely ignored by people looking for facts.



jackmccullough said:


> You're making the obvious logical error of confusing correlation with causation.
> 
> You also failed to quote the two statements in the article that would be inconsistent with your thesis:
> 
> ...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Gun control? That means using both hands, right?


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

*Self defense*

Gun control = regular trips to the pistol range!!

My cousin (former Green Beret, now a retired Police Officer) was in the process of getting mugged at knife point and he pulled an "Indiana Jones" on his assailant - pulled out his Glock. The aspiring mugger literally soiled himself... :devil:

Remember:
Peace through superior firepower!!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Simply banning guns, or even certain types of guns, wouldn't work well. I like to compare the potential success of a "gun ban" in America to the success of Prohibition in the 1920's. Alcohol was banned, and no one stopped drinking. The alcohol, instead of being purchased legally, was now helping to build up organized crime syndicates, and brought with it many other dangers. I think legalizing narcotics would also bring a sharp decrease in crime, and violence related to drugs.


Minus the rhetoric, I agree with the argument.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Readers may recall the infamous shootout between police and two, AK 47 armed bank robbers. The irony is anyone with any number of 'Lampshade' $ 89.99 rifles with standard loads would have held a ballistic package capable of outranging and defeating their body armour. The firearms debate is crippled by both sides talking two different languages and seeing themselves almost in two different countries. I want to continue my right to bear arms, just as my earliest ancestors did, only they were probably thought as simple tools, in spite of the cannibalised hhommo erectus fossils with bashed braincases and butcher marks. I also want a society where people have the right NOT to bear arms and be assured a measure of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.To that end, I must morally continue to quietly possess a few Aechulian handaxes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Readers may recall the infamous shootout between police and two, AK 47 armed bank robbers. The irony is anyone with any number of 'Lampshade' $ 89.99 rifles with standard loads would have held a ballistic package capable of outranging and defeating their body armour. The firearms debate is crippled by both sides talking two different languages and seeing themselves almost in two different countries. I want to continue my right to bear arms, just as my earliest ancestors did, only they were probably thought as simple tools, in spite of the cannibalised hhommo erectus fossils with bashed braincases and butcher marks. I also want a society where people have the right NOT to bear arms and be assured a measure of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.To that end, I must morally continue to quietly possess a few Aechulian handaxes.


True. The whole argument is fallacious. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" or "Only guns with 'assault' in the name kill people."


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Certainly, no one knowing what a RomAK or an SAR is actually calls them assault rifles, do they?
> 
> Why would you feed into this mis-information? That MSNBC article should see the author sued and probably jailed it so irresponsible and fallacious.
> That whole article is full of [email protected] It's an increase in tracings of 7.62x39mm weapons. Of course, over half of that is because they just started maintaining the database ... and you must know as well I do the majority of those other half are the 10 SKSs every survivalist bought.
> ...


I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. You will note that I did not refer to the AK or any other weapon as an "assault ruifle," and I agree that it is a misnomer.

My comment was only to the effect that it is no surprise that the number of AKs increased after the USSR fell. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that the article is rubbish--although, I had not considered the SKS, a weapon I hold in about as much regard as the Mini-14.

I am primarily an AR and M14 guy but couldn't resist buying a few SARs at those prices.

Bill


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I still kick myself for passing on a rifle. I was in Arizona, guest of my saddlemaker at an early SASS shoot. We are walking to the truck and some guy walks up with a Montana built C. Sharps in .45- 120 with 200 rounds of ammo, dies and components. He wanted $ 800 for it, said he was tired of having his shoulder brusied at $ 3 a round and the kids wanted a sand rail. I had shaken hands earlier to buy a custom made Chileno bit of incredible workmanship ( and the nearly invisible pin to remove that most wretched feature ever put on a bit for actual use) and would have been eating beans for a season buying both. That, and having to buy a special press just to reload a round only marginally faster than a .45- 90 that could shoot readilly available .45- 70 rounds cooled my undershot riding heels. Now I have daydreams of popping off pagan biker gangs armed with chicom tire jacks in a post apocalyptic scenario and own merely a german 9.3x 62 and my loden jacket with an edleweisse in the lapel.Life isn't very fair to us Walter Mittys sometimes, but i won't shoot anybody over it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I am keeping out of the argument, for now. 

but KSINC, I am not sure I understand your comment about an AK not being an assult rifle. was this being ironic? the AK is about the closest think you can get to the definition of an assult rifle - romanian or not.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> I am keeping out of the argument, for now.
> 
> but KSINC, I am not sure I understand your comment about an AK not being an assult rifle. was this being ironic? the AK is about the closest think you can get to the definition of an assult rifle - romanian or not.


A true "assault rifle" is generally classified as a light machine gun. What most people in the US own--and what was addressed by the "Assault Rifle Ban"--are semi-automatics (a non-select fire AR-15, by way of example, is not an assault rifle). The "Assault Rifle Ban" did not address assault rifles at all--it addressed specific features on scary looking semi-automatics.

Bill


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

smujd said:


> A true "assault rifle" is generally classified as a light machine gun. What most people in the US own--and what was addressed by the "Assault Rifle Ban"--are semi-automatics (a non-select fire AR-15, by way of example, is not an assault rifle). The "Assault Rifle Ban" did not address assault rifles at all--it addressed specific features on scary looking semi-automatics.
> 
> Bill


hmmmmm......

my understanding is that an assult rifle is a rifle that is light enough to assult with it. basically, the design came out of a desire to have a weapon that had good enough accuracy to be a strong defensive weapon - like a rifle; but was also light enough and short enough to run with, like a machine pistol. true, I can't think of any that aren't full automatic, but automatic is really a very small issue.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'Assault rifle' comes from sturmgewar, or storm weapon as coined by Adolf himself when shown the new G 43. The weapon features specifically a full auto capability, high magazine capacity shooting mode coupled with smaller, but still ballistically rifle type cartridges vs the pistol cartridges such as the famous TommyGun, STEN or german machine pistoles in.45 acp and 9MM luger respectively.In retrospect, it was probably unfortunate the firearms industry promoted such obviously controversial, though fully legal firearms to the public with such predictable results.Personally, I'll take a star stamped, match M 1 Garand and three enbloc clips of Ap against any homie with a AK and one 30 round stick magazine anyday. Just give me 1000 meters distance to start.Oh, and the old WW1 long bayonet if he tries a driveby.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. You will note that I did not refer to the AK or any other weapon as an "assault ruifle," and I agree that it is a misnomer.
> 
> My comment was only to the effect that it is no surprise that the number of AKs increased after the USSR fell. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...





smujd said:


> A true "assault rifle" is generally classified as a light machine gun. What most people in the US own--and what was addressed by the "Assault Rifle Ban"--are semi-automatics (a non-select fire AR-15, by way of example, is not an assault rifle). The "Assault Rifle Ban" did not address assault rifles at all--it addressed specific features on scary looking semi-automatics.
> 
> Bill


There ya go! I knew we were on the same side! I cached some SARs too. I'm glad we agree that is irrelevant to the article.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I am keeping out of the argument, for now.
> 
> but KSINC, I am not sure I understand your comment about an AK not being an assult rifle. was this being ironic? the AK is about the closest think you can get to the definition of an assult rifle - romanian or not.





Kav said:


> 'Assault rifle' comes from sturmgewar, or storm weapon as coined by Adolf himself when shown the new G 43. The weapon features specifically a full auto capability, high magazine capacity shooting mode coupled with smaller, but still ballistically rifle type cartridges vs the pistol cartridges such as the famous TommyGun, STEN or german machine pistoles in.45 acp and 9MM luger respectively.In retrospect, it was probably unfortunate the firearms industry promoted such obviously controversial, though fully legal firearms to the public with such predictable results.Personally, I'll take a star stamped, match M 1 Garand and three enbloc clips of Ap against any homie with a AK and one 30 round stick magazine anyday. Just give me 1000 meters distance to start.Oh, and the old WW1 long bayonet if he tries a driveby.


Globetrotter,

I think they sufficiently answered your question. If you still have a question or quibble with my comment just let me know and I'll be happy to explain. Perhaps you just never fully understand the opportunism, hyperbole, and outright lies the US Media/Brady Bunch has applied to the 'assault rifle' issue either.

I agree with Kav that the NRA does not have clean hands either and I am no longer a member.

I guess it's partly generational, but I'm an M14 man. However, I am also right there behind Kav on the M1. M1/M14 collecting is an addiction far worse than shoes or crack cocaine too.

Hey Kav, is that Green Party accepting new members?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Globetrotter,
> 
> I think they sufficiently answered your question. If you still have a question or quibble with my comment just let me know and I'll be happy to explain. Perhaps you just never fully understand the opportunism, hyperbole, and outright lies the US Media/Brady Bunch has applied to the 'assault rifle' issue either.
> 
> ...


KSINC, wasn't a question - I still don't agree, but I really don't understand, as you say, the whole assult rifle issue in the US.

the M14 is a great weapon, but I wouldn't want to carry it with 400 rounds of ammo, or use it to clear a room, which is the greatness of an assult rifle:flexibilty.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> hmmmmm......
> 
> my understanding is that an assult rifle is a rifle that is light enough to assult with it. basically, the design came out of a desire to have a weapon that had good enough accuracy to be a strong defensive weapon - like a rifle; but was also light enough and short enough to run with, like a machine pistol. true, I can't think of any that aren't full automatic, but automatic is really a very small issue.


Definitionally, fully automatic cabaility is central to what constitutes an "assult rifle." An assult rifle MUST have all of the following:
1. Carbine sized individual weapon which can be fired from the shoulder.
2. Select fire.
3. Fires from a locked breach.
4. Employs an intermediate round (less than the battle rifles and more than handguns).
5. High(er) capacity detachable box magaine.

Bill


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I cleared a room once with 80 Vietnamese AND B 1 Bob Dornan in it. Honest! It was in little Saigon and I had earlier eaten a cold can of Hormel Chile see and suddenly needed a bathroom.....


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> the M14 is a great weapon, but I wouldn't want to carry it with 400 rounds of ammo, or use it to clear a room, which is the greatness of an assult rifle:flexibilty.


Get the best of both worlds: the AR-10.

Bill


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

smujd said:


> Definitionally, fully automatic cabaility is central to what constitutes an "assult rifle." An assult rifle MUST have all of the following:
> 1. Carbine sized individual weapon which can be fired from the shoulder.
> 2. Select fire.
> 3. Fires from a locked breach.
> ...


fair enough.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

smujd said:


> Get the best of both worlds: the AR-10.
> 
> Bill


what is that? googled a picture and it looks like an M-16


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> what is that? googled a picture and it looks like an M-16


The AR-10 is an AR chambered in .308 Win (7.62x51mm NATO). The original AR-15 was a scaled down AR-10. It has most of the benefits of the AR-15 with the additional benefit of a larger round.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> KSINC, wasn't a question - I still don't agree, but I really don't understand, as you say, the whole assult rifle issue in the US.
> 
> the M14 is a great weapon, but I wouldn't want to carry it with 400 rounds of ammo, or use it to clear a room, which is the greatness of an assult rifle:flexibilty.


Disagree all you want, but first please explain how it is possible that a weapon manufactured after 1972 was imported into the United States before 1968?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> Get the best of both worlds: the AR-10.
> 
> Bill


I had an AR-10T and got rid of it back when they had some extraction problems and mags were becoming such a problem. Mine only ever shot the IMI .308 correctly and when Coles couldn't get it anymore I traded mine out. Since I was already buying M14 mags from Coles and waiting for the back-ordered conversion kits, I just kept the mags and bought a bunch of surplus battlepaks from Eric and never looked back.

I often wonder what those that gripe about the Interchange would have thought of the old Armalite forum.  What was that moderator lady's name ... Marla? Mandy? something? I can never remember. SHE had the only job tougher than Mr. Kabbaz.

I still have an Armalite M15A4 'commando' that I love dearly and my first competition rifle was an Armalite, of course. Then I got a Compass Lake upper and now a White Oak upper, but I still have the original Armalite lower.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

smujd said:


> The AR-10 is an AR chambered in .308 Win (7.62x51mm NATO). The original AR-15 was a scaled down AR-10. It has most of the benefits of the AR-15 with the additional benefit of a larger round.


interesting - aside from as a curiosity, I find it hard to understand the value in such a weapon. I've handled an armalite chambered for .45, that I understood the purpose of.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I had an AR-10T and got rid of it back when they had extraction problems were such a problem. Mine only ever shot the IMI .308 correctly and when Coles couldn't get it anymore I traded mine out. Since, I was already buying M14 mags from Coles and waiting for the back-ordered conversion kits, I just kept the mags and bought a bunch of surplus battlepaks and never looked back.
> 
> I often wonder what those that gripe about the Interchange would have thought of the old Armalite forum.


LOL.

That's really odd. I have always had problems with IMI ammo and haven't purchased it in years. I'm down to my last ~20 Portuguese battlepacks and can't decide whether to feed the AR-10 or the M14s...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> LOL.
> 
> That's really odd. I have always had problems with IMI ammo and haven't purchased it in years. I'm down to my last ~20 Portuguese battlepacks and can't decide whether to feed the AR-10 or the M14s...


Feed the Port to the blaster.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Disagree all you want, but first please explain how it is possible that a weapon manufactured after 1972 was imported into the United States before 1968?


KSINC, I think we are disagreeing about different things - I'm not talking about whether or not a specific weapon fits the legal requirements/distription in terms of import and liscensing. I find it hard to believe that an AK, or anything in the famly of the AK, is not an assult rifle. whether it should be licensed, or legal or not I'm not going to voice my opinion - but it is a fapidly firing rifle that uses a light round and can be carried easily, but has more accuracy than a machine pistol - that makes it an assult rifle in my book.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Olympic Arms! LOL


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm off to a flight, will be back in 18 hours or so.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> interesting - aside from as a curiosity, I find it hard to understand the value in such a weapon. I've handled an armalite chambered for .45, that I understood the purpose of.


As a general rule, curiosity is more than enough for me to buy a gun. :icon_smile_big: The other big benefit of the AR-10 is that it's chambered for .308 Win. As much as I love my AR-15s, the round simply isn't big enough for my comfort. 5.56mm will do the job most of the time, but it has lousy penetration through objects and does not have sufficient power for larger targets (while you wouldn't take an AR-15 hog hunting, and AR-10 is perfect).

It's kind of like 9mm v. 45 acp. 9mm is a great round and I have plenty of 9mm pistols I enjoy, but when it comes down to the lick log, .45acp is where it's at for me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> KSINC, I think we are disagreeing about different things - I'm not talking about whether or not a specific weapon fits the legal requirements/distription in terms of import and liscensing. I find it hard to believe that an AK, or anything in the famly of the AK, is not an assult rifle. whether it should be licensed, or legal or not I'm not going to voice my opinion - but it is a fapidly firing rifle that uses a light round and can be carried easily, but has more accuracy than a machine pistol - that makes it an assult rifle in my book.


I'm disagreeing with two specific points.

#1 that select-fire isn't required for something to be an "assault rifle" which was addressed by others and I think you now understand.

#2 that being Romanian doesn't matter

IIRC and I may be a little off it wasn't until 1956 that China and South Korea were licensed to manu the 47, then the type 68 was German and Poland, Hungary, and Romania were licensed on the type 72 variant.

That's why guys like us want the RomAK SARs because they are the most plentiful, more recent, least used variant available on the market today. They are not brought into the US or possessed as 'assault rifles' because that would be illegal. They are de-milled, semi-auto only kits and there is a whole cottage industry of US-made required parts like pistol grips for instance to comply with the import regs.

If there was any way possible for a civilian to possess a RomAK or type 72 variant in select-fire in the US we'd know about it.

They come in like this https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/WX104-19830-1404.html
and are rebuilt and sold like this


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The misunderstanding being demonstrated here is exactly the genius of the assault weapons ban. Assault rifle is a well defined term that includes at least burst fire and is generally the primary weapon of armies. It does come from the WWII German terminology.

They knew if they said "assault weapon" most gun-illiterate left-leaning newspeople (which is the vast majority in the USA) would see that as entirely interchangeable with "assault rifle". The AWB banned only semiautomatic firearms. It did not address Class 3 machine guns at all. (CNN was famously caught showing footage of automatic weapons in stories about the AWB.)

Since the only people that bother to understand the distinction are the committed of each side that already knew what side they were on, the lie "worked" and it was smooth sailing in Congress and the MSM. Then pissed-off gun owners and Newt Gingrich kicked them out of Congress in 1994 and the Democrats have been afraid to touch the issue since.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Funny how things come full circle. I owned an argentine 1909 carbine, now possessed by a close friend. Old Karl got things right in the first place, his 7.65x 54 being everything the .308 and it's military cousin would evolve into decades later after countless cartridges based on that headcasing dimension. The thing has a ghost Lyman peep site and ivory ramp front soldered onto the old front post, a cleaned up, but still two stage trigger and feedramp along with enough stripper mounted surplus hardball to give a peronist a warm fuzzy feeling all over.That little carbine has outshot many a more expensive rig and has a list of hopefull buyers 12 deep. I think my total investment putting it together was $120, and again, I would be happy to mix it up with any kalazshnikov.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

radix023 said:


> The misunderstanding being demonstrated here is exactly the genius of the assault weapons ban. Assault rifle is a well defined term that includes at least burst fire and is generally the primary weapon of armies. It does come from the WWII German terminology.
> 
> They knew if they said "assault weapon" most gun-illiterate left-leaning newspeople (which is the vast majority in the USA) would see that as entirely interchangeable with "assault rifle". The AWB banned only semiautomatic firearms. It did not address Class 3 machine guns at all. (CNN was famously caught showing footage of automatic weapons in stories about the AWB.)
> 
> Since the only people that bother to understand the distinction are the committed of each side that already knew what side they were on, the lie "worked" and it was smooth sailing in Congress and the MSM. Then pissed-off gun owners and Newt Gingrich kicked them out of Congress in 1994 and the Democrats have been afraid to touch the issue since.


very true.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> hmmmmm......
> 
> my understanding is that an assult rifle is a rifle that is light enough to assult with it. basically, the design came out of a desire to have a weapon that had good enough accuracy to be a strong defensive weapon - like a rifle; but was also light enough and short enough to run with, like a machine pistol. true, I can't think of any that aren't full automatic, but automatic is really a very small issue.


This is a target rifle. It has no use outside of target shooting. https://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5808&return=Y

It would be illegal under just about every "assault" weapons ban proposal I have seen because it has a thumbhole stock and a removeable magazine, two "assault" characteristics.


----------



## EAP (Jan 19, 2007)

The real assault weapons ban occurred in 1986 when legislation prevented the registration of any new transferable Class 3/Title 2 weapons to the NFA Registry.

Before the ban, and if one's state of domicile permitted, owning a select fire weapon was mainly a matter of the paperwork required to execute a BATF Form 4 and convincing the jurisdictional Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) you were of sound character. Of course, no one with criminal intent would go to the trouble to send off the money, paperwork, photos and fingerprint cards to transfer a machine gun. The incremental cost was minor beyond the $200 tax stamp. Being pre-Internet and involving navigation of US tax code (the National Firearms Act of 1934 was tax law and made the possession of non-taxed machine guns illegal with severe penalties), not many people took the effort.

At the time I worked at the Nevada Test Site and M4A2 carbines were prolific within the security ranks, themselves prolific. There was a group of engineers that were into Tommy Guns and used the range, however I eventually went for a registered receiver M4A2. It was loud, it was fun, and if shooting surplus IMI of that era also made a great fireball. I also acquired a registered autosear HK MP5A2/A3, more practical as it shoots 9mm and can be shot in a standard indoor range. I seldom shoot it now as being a pre-86 transferable as it has insanely appreciated, however it's fun to go to an indoor range where you hear the typical pop pop pause pop, key off a burst, then hear utter silence as faces start to peer around the barrier. Kind of Men's Warehouse meets Savile Row in the target sports. The greatest fun however is letting others have the pleasure to shoot it and watching the smile on their faces.

Regarding the AWB, the semiauto variants of these were always illegal, as the barrels were too short. At the time you could pay $200 and register a semiauto as a short barrel rifle, however the very same $200 could likewise register a machine gun, and barrel (and all other cosmetic) restrictions no longer apply. The AWB only prohibited certain 'evil looking' cosmetic features on semiauto long rifles, and if anything only rubbed their existence into the general populace's collective face who then ran out and purchased them in mass, criminal elements included, but now minus dangerous features such as bayonet lugs therefore assuring the public safety.

Nice to see other enthusiasts/collectors here.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was on a caretaker crew for two old 255' Wind Class Cutters. I'm making my rounds as this sailboat cruises up, nails me with a waterballoon hard enough to knock me onto the nonskid deck. The two guys and their salamander hipped girls thought it very funny while passing a bottle around. I calmly got up, entered the 5.5" forward turret and activated power to point and train the barrel on the slowly ( lousy sailors) escaping sailboat. The girls began to freak out and within seconds everybody had tipped overboard, spilling no small treasure of booze, a boombox and camera into the bay. They slowly managed to regain the boat and I walked out waving goodbye. Like the saying goes, ' sometimes the mere presence of a firearm is enough to dissuade a crime.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

smujd said:


> As a general rule, curiosity is more than enough for me to buy a gun. :icon_smile_big: The other big benefit of the AR-10 is that it's chambered for .308 Win. As much as I love my AR-15s, the round simply isn't big enough for my comfort. 5.56mm will do the job most of the time, but it has lousy penetration through objects and does not have sufficient power for larger targets (while you wouldn't take an AR-15 hog hunting, and AR-10 is perfect).
> 
> It's kind of like 9mm v. 45 acp. 9mm is a great round and I have plenty of 9mm pistols I enjoy, but when it comes down to the lick log, .45acp is where it's at for me.


yeah, I guess for hog hunting, although there have to be much better tools for hog hunting that that


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> yeah, I guess for hog hunting, although there have to be much better tools for hog hunting that that


With that I can agree. It's hard to beat a bush/tanker-length M14 for hogs though.

BTW my bug-out bag only has 120 rounds of .308 (not 400) and it's not that heavy. I'd rather have it with me than 390 rounds of .223.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I'm disagreeing with two specific points.
> 
> #1 that select-fire isn't required for something to be an "assault rifle" which was addressed by others and I think you now understand.


this reminds me of a story about a small pickup truck that used to be imported into the US from japan in the 70's. duty was higher on a pickup truck than a 4 seater, so the viehicle was imported with 2 plastic seats in the back, making it a 4 seater. I disagree with the definition of assult rifle as requiring full auto, not because I give a S*** about how it affects your ability to own one, jsut in principle. there is pretty much nothing that you can do to an AK that makes it anything but an assult riffle, one that isn't automatic is simply an assult rifle that has been limited in its fire selection. but this is something that we will simply continue to disagree on - basically because in my mind I see the definition as an objective term for a specific group of tools, and in your mind the legal issue of how it affects your ownership rights is a great deal more relevant.



> #2 that being Romanian doesn't matter
> 
> IIRC and I may be a little off it wasn't until 1956 that China and South Korea were licensed to manu the 47, then the type 68 was German and Poland, Hungary, and Romania were licensed on the type 72 variant.
> 
> ...


[/quote]

ok, I am not sure I understand, but I don't disagree with you - if you have a taste for romanian AK's, so be it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> With that I can agree. It's hard to beat a bush-length M14 for hogs though.


that was more or less what I was thinking. if you want a heavier round, get a gun that was developed for that heavier round from day one of r&d.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Even if a gun's only purpose is to kill humans, why should that play a part in whether you can own it or not? The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is largely to maintain our ability to kill humans.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> that was more or less what I was thinking. if you want a heavier round, get a gun that was developed for that heavier round from day one of r&d.


Yep. You should see & try the SAI M1A 'SOCOM' if you haven't. I'm sure it will give you hours of enjoyment! LOL

SAI has become such a joke in recent years.

As the man once said, "wood is good and plastic is for spastics."


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> Even if a gun's only purpose is to kill humans, why should that play a part in whether you can own it or not? The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is largely to maintain our ability to kill humans.


well, as we have had this discusson on AAAC maybe a dozen times in the past few years, I am not sure I even want to touch this. but, as some of you may remember, I haven't discussed "whether you can own it or not", but "whether you should want to own it or not"

a really good example, by the way, is these type of rifles, what ever you want to call them. what are the advantages of this group of firearms?

1. light
2. accurate
3. use light ammunition
4. high rate of fire
5. large capacity, removable magazines (basically, fast loading)
6. relativlily easty to manuver in a small area/ considering the accuracy and firepower
7. robust over hundreds of thousands of rounds
8. extremly low cost of ownership

what are the weaknesses?

1. low single shot killing power, compared to other hunting weapons
2. less accurate than longer firearms, or firearms with optical sights
3. not very pretty
4. not as compact as handguns

effectivly, the only real use that makes sense for these type of firearms is to be owned by an organization in the killing of people business.

look at KSINC's preferance for an M14 - that is perfectly logical. more accurate, more killing power per round, probrably less maintanance for the number of rounds he fires with it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Yep. You should see & try the SAI M1A 'SOCOM' if you haven't. I'm sure it will give you hours of enjoyment! LOL
> 
> SAI has become such a joke in recent years.
> 
> As the man once said, "wood is good and plastic is for spastics."


intersesting


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

That the M14 is more accurate is actually a not necessarily thing. There are many AR15s (and the Sig 556) available more accurate than an M14 that has not been significantly tooled.

Let's say I'm willing to ignore hobbies and say that these weapons you consider to be assault weapons are good for nothing other than killing humans. So what? What's your point? If you aren't saying that is a reason to ban them, why are you saying anything at all? Just passing time?

The use of light ammunition btw is good for those of us who like to punch holes in paper. So much of this anti-assault legislation is also anti-competition legislation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> intersesting


That's a good word for it. LOL

When they came out the dealers couldn't keep those things in stock, but the classifieds are full of them. It's an amazing triumph of marketing (and Darwinism).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I briefly owned a INTERARMS African mauser in .458 magnum. Don't ask me why, but a friend did, and I complained bitterly about the elephants dancing on my roof at night. She looked at me with the concerned look of a nurturing mother. "But Chris, there are no elephants on your roof, the only elephants around are at the l.A. Zoo and the one owned by the Hare Krishnas." I smiled, and gave the 98 a pat on the ebony capped forestock.Funny, she never went out with me after that? All fireams have a use, especialy when people start telling us what they are, and are not. Who afterall, needs a sportscar that can go 200 MPH and lacks any room for a sack of groceries?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> That the M14 is more accurate is actually a not necessarily thing. There are many AR15s (and the Sig 556) available more accurate than an M14 that has not been significantly tooled.


well, I don't really have the energy to argue too much about this, but I strongly doubt that a production AR-15 could be more accurate than a production M14 (I have no knowledge of the sig 556, but I would suggest that it is very difficult to see a situation where a standard 5.56 round would be more accurate than a 7.62 round fired by an M14)



> Let's say I'm willing to ignore hobbies and say that these weapons you consider to be assault weapons are good for nothing other than killing humans. So what? What's your point? If you aren't saying that is a reason to ban them, why are you saying anything at all? Just passing time?


yes, just passing time. I am not interested enough to get involved in the whole legality issue of what should be owned or not. to me, it is a personal choice - like what you wear. I stronlgy believe that you should own the firearms that you need, and no more, that that is a better position to be in. I am not a cowboy, I don't own cowboy boots. I am not a farmer, I don't own overalls. I am no longer a soldier, I don't own an assult rifle.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> well, I don't really have the energy to argue too much about this, but I strongly doubt that a production AR-15 could be more accurate than a production M14 (I have no knowledge of the sig 556, but I would suggest that it is very difficult to see a situation where a standard 5.56 round would be more accurate than a 7.62 round fired by an M14)


With good ammo, a just out of the box 556 will do 0.75" at 100yrds. Same goes for the better AR-15s. An M14 is a PITA to keep sub-MOA (plus you have to tool it big time to get down there).

Yeah, I'll give you after 200yrds the .223 is no good, but up to there it's a great round in the right gun.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> Yeah, I'll give you after 200yrds the .223 is no good, but up to there it's a great round in the right gun.


no argument there. 5.56 is a fantastic round for the distances that a normal person, or a typical rifleman need to be concerning themselves about. I have seen people hit a man at 400- 600 m with an m-14 (with an optical scope), several times - its a different league.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> no argument there. 5.56 is a fantastic round for the distances that a normal person, or a typical rifleman need to be concerning themselves about. I have seen people hit a man at 400- 600 m with an m-14 (with an optical scope), several times - its a different league.


Believe it or not, that can be done with a .223 too (well, 400, not 600), as long as the shooter knows his gun well. Shooting a man sized target isn't all that hard. This about it: .75" at 100 yards is like 7.5" at 1000 yards. Well within the accuracy of hitting a man, as long as you are a good enough shooter to account for wind drift and drop of the particular load you use.

FWIW, those military issue M14s were typically around 3" at 100yrds. If you don't need to kill something at the end of your shot (i.e. target shooting), and you aren't shooting past 300yards, I'd rather have the .223 - cheaper ammo means you'll practice more.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I have only three guns: Browning 30-06 w/ Burris scope, Remington 11-87 Sportsman Supermag and an old Remington Sportsman 48 that was my grandpa's gun.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yep. You should see & try the SAI M1A 'SOCOM' if you haven't. I'm sure it will give you hours of enjoyment! LOL
> 
> SAI has become such a joke in recent years.
> 
> As the man once said, "wood is good and plastic is for spastics."


Given my deep love for the AR platform, it pains me to admit that the M1A SOCOM has been my favorite rifle for most of the past year. I can see the benefits of using .223 for large bodies of troops (weight, cost, low recoil, etc.), but I would not be surprised to learn that many special ops groups use the .308 and some version of the M14 platform.

Comparing guns is fun but ultimately an exercise in futility. Much like shoes and other specialized items, each gun has arenas in which it shines. If you want to stop a truck at 400 yards, it's hard to beat a Barrett. If you want to stop a man at 400 yards, it's hard to beat an M14. If you want to stop a man at 15 yards, it's hard to beat a 1911. I have 5 pocket pistols because certain ones work better with different types of pants (and the .25 acp 1908 vest pocket Colt was just too neat to pass on at $125).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> Given my deep love for the AR platform, it pains me to admit that the M1A SOCOM has been my favorite rifle for most of the past year. I can see the benefits of using .223 for large bodies of troops (weight, cost, low recoil, etc.), but I would not be surprised to learn that many special ops groups use the .308 and some version of the M14 platform.
> 
> Comparing guns is fun but ultimately an exercise in futility. Much like shoes and other specialized items, each gun has arenas in which it shines. If you want to stop a truck at 400 yards, it's hard to beat a Barrett. If you want to stop a man at 400 yards, it's hard to beat an M14. If you want to stop a man at 15 yards, it's hard to beat a 1911. I have 5 pocket pistols because certain ones work better with different types of pants (and the .25 acp 1908 vest pocket Colt was just too neat to pass on at $125).


GET THEE BACK SATAN!!!!! LOL

Of course, they use the M14 platform. I'm right there with you ... except I don't believe in redesigning an M1A to make it 16" instead of 22".

The 18.5" M14s keep the original design intact. Although I still like the standard USGI walnut I do have one of Fred's fiberglass stocks.

If you must have 'attachments' try one of these and you will dump the SOCOM 
https://www.smithenterprise.com/products02a.html#bipod

I have a Colt 1911 and a Colt Pony Pocketlite DAO for the same reasons as you. We agree.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was at a shooting range one day with a group of match paper shooters/killers. There was a stir on the firing line as this senior gentleman was producing some impressive groups. The man was a WW2 vet with bifocals and a slight hand tremor. The rifle was an early and very beautifull Arisaka in 6.5 complete with crysanthemum, a box of NORMA ammmunition he was relaoding between strings with a LEE pocket loader and a mix of primers, Sierra bullets and a can of powder sitting in a wooden box. "Beware the one rifle man."


----------

