I want to bring up a few misconceptions about guns that are commonly spread (whether it be on TL or by the media). Note that this is not a gun control thread.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The military version, an M-16 is. Rarely do these high-profile shootings in the USA or elsewhere involve assault rifles as they are actually quite difficult to obtain. The key difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is that the M-16 allows the operator to switch between different shooting modes, including fully-automatic mode (like a machine gun). The AR-15 is purely semi-automatic (only one bullet will fire at a time with a squeeze of the trigger).
Let me use Wikipedia to get an alternate wording on this, although feel free to look up legitimate sources if you take issue with any of this.
semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable
So why are semi-automatic rifles, which are fairly easy to acquire, referred to in news reports as assault rifle?
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
Simply put, it sounds more dramatic, or bad to say someone used an assault rifle (imagine that... the media trying to exaggerate!). You might think it is just semantics, but lumping together the weapons usually used by crazy non-military shooters in public with military-grade light/sub machine guns leads those ignorant on the actual gun situation in the respective country to believe the availability of advanced guns is worse than it really is. I wish the term 'assault rifle' were only used for guns that are fully-automatic.
However, I do want to point out that a fully-automatic weapon is not necessarily more effective for killing unarmed civilians than a civilian semi-automatic weapon for most untrained people; these are two separate issues.
2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill.
What the original/design purpose of a type of gun is doesn't really seem relevant to me in any type of a gun-control debate, but I'm not here to argue that. Assault rifles were actually designed with the specific intention of stopping/wounding. In war, when two armies were shooting at each other, killing an enemy soldier instantly wouldn't stop his friends from shooting at you. However, if your weapons wounded enemy soldiers, their friends would stop shooting at you to tend to his wounds. So the goal was to A) stop him from fighting and B) get the attention of other soldiers in the process. There has been debate about how much to focus on stopping VS how much to focus on not killing, but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing. As I said earlier, the original intention doesn't matter much to me when discussing modern use of gun models, but people are often making statement #2 so I felt it should be addressed anyway.
Summary:
This blog only addressed what classifies as an assault rifle, why this distinction does/doesn't matter, and what an assault rifle is designed to do. These are all open to discussion. If you want to discuss gun control, I suggest you go to the gun control debate thread (note that I have not offered an opinion on this topic here). If you want to discuss the Colorado shooting from last week, I suggest you go to that thread.
If you feel the topics of this blog are pointless to discuss, then I suggest you do not post here instead of making a post to explain how pointless you think this discussion is (yes, I actually am expecting that).
On July 23 2012 01:21 Azera wrote: Amongst civilians, does gun type really matter? A pistol and an M16, both can kill someone unarmed with relative ease.
This is going outside the scope of the thread. I did address the fact that an M-16 doesn't necessarily give the average person a 'killing' advantage over an AR-15.
However I wouldn't say that gun type doesn't matter unless it's a situation with a hostage being shot in vital areas at point-blank range (not the case in most shootings in public areas).
On July 23 2012 01:21 Azera wrote: Amongst civilians, does gun type really matter? A pistol and an M16, both can kill someone unarmed with relative ease.
This is going outside the scope of the thread. I did address the fact that an M-16 doesn't necessarily give the average person a 'killing' advantage over an AR-15.
However I wouldn't say that gun type doesn't matter unless it's a situation with a hostage being shot in vital areas at point-blank range (not the case in most shootings in public areas).
I think your first distinction is not really relevant : I've been told that the automatic mode on the FAMAS (the equivalent of the M-16 in the French army) is almost never used, and when it's used, it is as a deterrent. If the only difference between a M-16 and an AR-15 is the lack of autmatic mode, I don't see a problem with assimilating both weapons. This being based on the saying of sub-officer who spent 18 months total in Afghanistan in the French army, so... take it with a grain of salt
I agree that it's important to maintain a distinction between automatic and semiautomatic guns, but it's not that outlandish for media to call an AR-15 an assault rifle. To the average person who doesn't know much about guns, there are (1) handguns, (2) shotguns, (3) guns with a stock and a long barrel ("rifles"), and (4) guns with a pistol grip and a magazine and a longish barrel ("assault rifles"). Ignoring more specialized weapons (sniper rifles, etc), everything gets lumped into those four categories, and I think that's perfectly adequate terminology.
It's not very hard to convert a ar-15 into an automatic weapon through auto sear or otherwise. Let's not forget the image as well: the ar15 looks like the m4 and m16 we see in combat, allowing them to be grouped. Same reasons semi -auto ak's are considered assault weapons.
It might be appreciable to add the words "semi-automatic" in front of these statements, but for the general public an "assualt rifle" just means a big black gun held with two hands with a huge clip. As differentiated from other generic ideas of weapons, like the pistol and the shotgun and the hunting rifle.
It's a reasonable complaint, I suppose, but there are many more important details the short articles of a newspaper have to omit to satisfy peanut-brained readers before they nod off. As far as sensationalism goes, this is a little lower on my scale of offences. I think a full automatic weapon would mostly likely include those words "Fully automatic" in an article to emphasize the point. I also think such a weapon fired into an unsuspecting crowd would be much more gorey and dangerous. At least some of those bullets are going to be fatal, and I think the talk of supressing fire / stopping power is pretty generous. It's no bullet to the head, but it's still deadly.
edit: someone basically made my point while I was typing ;p oh well.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
an AR wouldn't even meet the definition of battle rifle, considering its 5.56x45. battle rifles are 7.62x51 nato or above
for reference, a bolt-action lee-enfield or mosin-nagant is a battle rifle. (.303 british, and 7.62x54r). you wouldn't certainly call them the politically-charged assault rifle though, because they don't look scary enough.
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces."
If you're trying to make the point that the AR-15 was designed as a selective fire assault rifle, it makes sense that you would leave out the rest of the paragraph.
"Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle."
2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill.
but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing.
Moving on, you strike me as a card carrying member of the NRA trying to get the word out on all the great uses of an AR-15 killing machine recreational tool so that there isn't a big push to get it banned. Amirite?
but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing.
Moving on, you strike me as a card carrying member of the NRA trying to get the word out on all the great uses of an AR-15 killing machine recreational tool so that there isn't a big push to get it banned. Amirite?
What? Most AR-15 use near me is recreational. Maybe I'm fortunate that people in my neighborhood aren't gunned down in the street by AR-15s...
I've pointedly avoided taking a stance on the things you accuse me of. Are you saying that I'm wrong with my assertion that people are wrong when they say #2, or are you saying that pointing out the inaccuracies in what someone said means I have an agenda?
Disclaimer: I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I own any firearms.
The big difference is that that ar-15 round is going to go into your chest and start bounching around killing you and shredding your internal organs. That is what you use to fight wars. A hunting rifle has the power and accuracy to shoot a clean shot straight though an animal . A hunting rifle is designed to minimize the amount of waste on an animal so you can eat more of it.
Its an infinity clear difference between weapons that you use to hunt (and probably better to defend yourself from the evil Chinese or government when you arn't trained to fight wars) and those that are designed to kill someone. No one is actually going to take an ar-15 out hunting or an ak-47.
What I'm trying to say is all guns are designed to kill but the ones that I want to keep are obviously and infinity different then war fighting guns. Any gun that has a clip larger then 5 is really not needed for civilian use in any light.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
an AR wouldn't even meet the definition of battle rifle, considering its 5.56x45. battle rifles are 7.62x51 nato or above
for reference, a bolt-action lee-enfield or mosin-nagant is a battle rifle. (.303 british, and 7.62x54r). you wouldn't certainly call them the politically-charged assault rifle though, because they don't look scary enough.
also cheers micronesia on a sane blog
Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
5.56mm is still a very powerful round, offering tons of damage and penetration. In fact, the greater control compared to a 7.62 might make it deadlier.
On July 23 2012 03:46 Sermokala wrote: The big difference is that that ar-15 round is going to go into your chest and start bounching around killing you and shredding your internal organs. That is what you use to fight wars. A hunting rifle has the power and accuracy to shoot a clean shot straight though an animal (the rifle I like to use goes though a ton of brush and could take down an elephant if aimed right). A hunting rifle is designed to minimize the amount of waste on an animal so you can eat more of it.
Its an infinity clear difference between weapons that you use to hunt (and probably better to defend yourself from the evil Chinese or government when you arn't trained to fight wars) and those that are designed to kill someone. No one is actually going to take an ar-15 out hunting or an ak-47.
What I'm trying to say is all guns are designed to kill but the ones that I want to keep are obviously and infinity different then war fighting guns. Any gun that has a clip larger then 5 is really not needed for civilian use in any light.
I do know people who have used ar-15's for hunting (albeit with a 5 round clip). I also a person who's hunted with the .50AE desert eagle (lol). To be fair, these weapons are quite unorthodox, but hey, some people might like the feel. Also, there is the whole "collector's" sector when it comes to power weapons.
Also, you might need more than 5 round clips for pistols.
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote: Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. A lot of factors influence how things will go. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
On July 23 2012 02:50 Chef wrote: It might be appreciable to add the words "semi-automatic" in front of these statements, but for the general public an "assualt rifle" just means a big black gun held with two hands with a huge clip. As differentiated from other generic ideas of weapons, like the pistol and the shotgun and the hunting rifle.
It's a reasonable complaint, I suppose, but there are many more important details the short articles of a newspaper have to omit to satisfy peanut-brained readers before they nod off. As far as sensationalism goes, this is a little lower on my scale of offences. I think a full automatic weapon would mostly likely include those words "Fully automatic" in an article to emphasize the point. I also think such a weapon fired into an unsuspecting crowd would be much more gorey and dangerous. At least some of those bullets are going to be fatal, and I think the talk of supressing fire / stopping power is pretty generous. It's no bullet to the head, but it's still deadly.
edit: someone basically made my point while I was typing ;p oh well.
This is basically the reasoning why the media calls it an assault rifle, it's because a two handed large clipped rifle is what people imagine when they say assault rifle. Saying it was a semi-automatic rifle is more accurate, but I dismiss your claim that it is called an assault rifle in order to exaggerate.
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote: Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
You have a firearm that let's you get tackled every time you're rechambering a round, there's no way you can deal with multiple people charging you. Not to mention these rifles are subpar in CQC. The armor penetration doesn't offer much against unarmored civilians as it is, only offering higher penetration through objects like chairs (though it will help if you were to fight the police).
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote: Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
You have a firearm that let's you get tackled every time you're rechambering a round, there's no way you can deal with multiple people charging you. Not to mention these rifles are subpar in CQC. The armor penetration doesn't offer much against unarmored civilians as it is, only offering higher penetration through objects like chairs (though it will help if you were to fight the police).
You assume multiple people will charge you. Recent events suggest otherwise: see Norway when the lone gunman proceeded to kill just about everyone on that island even though he was vastly outnumbered.
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote: Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
You have a firearm that let's you get tackled every time you're rechambering a round, there's no way you can deal with multiple people charging you. Not to mention these rifles are subpar in CQC. The armor penetration doesn't offer much against unarmored civilians as it is, only offering higher penetration through objects like chairs (though it will help if you were to fight the police).
You assume multiple people will charge you. Recent events suggest otherwise: see Norway when the lone gunman proceeded to kill just about everyone on that island even though he was vastly outnumbered.
Pretty sure he was using semi-automatic weapons though. It's much easier (and safer) to charge someone you know has to take a second to rechamber a round then reacquire a target as opposed to someone who is constantly shooting and only breaks in between magazines (Note this doesn't account for sidearms).
Also, a case of ar-15 for self-defense: Keep in mind I personally believe an ar-15 is terrible for self-defense given it's overpenetration (if it is using 5.56 ammo) while still suffering a lack of relative stopping power (5.56mm doesn't stop someone dead in their tracks compared to a shotgun blast). However, it's good to see the self-defensive side of it, and I'm pretty sure the ar-15 used didn't have a 100 round drum as well.
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote: Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
You have a firearm that let's you get tackled every time you're rechambering a round, there's no way you can deal with multiple people charging you. Not to mention these rifles are subpar in CQC. The armor penetration doesn't offer much against unarmored civilians as it is, only offering higher penetration through objects like chairs (though it will help if you were to fight the police).
You assume multiple people will charge you. Recent events suggest otherwise: see Norway when the lone gunman proceeded to kill just about everyone on that island even though he was vastly outnumbered.
Pretty sure he was using semi-automatic weapons though. It's much easier (and safer) to charge someone you know has to take a second to rechamber a round then reacquire a target as opposed to someone who is constantly shooting and only breaks in between magazines (Note this doesn't account for sidearms).
This is internet theorycrafting for a situation that probably neither of us have been in and it is starting to derail this thread. I have provided an empirical example, however, disproving what is essentially your hero theory.
Bottom line is, because of the situation, regardless of the kind of gun it was or how scary it looked, a lot of people were going to die in that theater.
On July 23 2012 01:19 micronesia wrote: An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The military version, an M-16 is. Rarely do these high-profile shootings in the USA or elsewhere involve assault rifles as they are actually quite difficult to obtain. The key difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is that the M-16 allows the operator to switch between different shooting modes, including fully-automatic mode (like a machine gun). The AR-15 is purely semi-automatic (only one bullet will fire at a time with a squeeze of the trigger).
Not all M-16s have fully automatic capabilities. When I was in the military we used the a2 model which only allowed semi-automatic and burst firing (3 shots).
All I know is no human on Earth NEEDS anything more powerful than a simple handgun or rifle that fires a single shot (not even close to semi auto, thinking about hunting rifles here).
NO OTHER GUN WILL EVER BE NEEDED.
Honestly, why the fuck are ANY guns made with the explicit purpose of killing humans be sold to the public? I'm actually curious as to WHY anybody would ever "need" an AR-15 or something of that caliber.
You're splitting hairs. It's the same rifle without automatic fire included. Although I do not know the details of the massacre that inspired the blog, I do know that it's not prohibitively difficult to modify an AR-15
Simple search of youtube
Interestingly, and further to your point, some variants of the AR-15 were not prohibited by the Assault Rifle Ban of 1994-5. Only versions with military oriented accessories (bayonet, suppressor, muzzle flash reducer docks) were prohibited.
But I still feel, morally, that you're just splitting hairs. You don't need a semi auto to hunt animals. The express purpose of a fully automatic or semi automatic weapon is to hunt man.
Edit: Again, I'll reiterate that you are technically correct. However I cannot imagine a scenario where you would need a hundred round drum magazine or the AR-15s for self defense or hunting.You can find evidence of casual gun owners firing at 60 rounds per minute, semi auto. I dare say that is enough to cause mass casualties.
It's impossible for me to say anything of substance without touching on gun laws or the recent massacre.
On July 23 2012 04:54 Probe1 wrote: You're splitting hairs. It's the same rifle without automatic fire included.
This is not splitting hairs, full automatic is not semi-automatic. In addition, conversion to full automatic is already illegal according to national firearms act of 1934.
In the United States, constitutional law and jurisprudence have made it so that issues of 'need,' 'want' don't apply because it is 'can' according to the law. Morally, the question should be guns or no guns period. Assigning tiers based on scary-looks and qualities is moot. This thread isn't about gun control though, its about misconceptions about what is or isnt an 'assault' rifle. Looks like a select-fire gun doesn't make it a select-fire gun.
On July 23 2012 05:10 Probe1 wrote: Not really. You're just putting it in black and white again.
Your argument is that it looks like another rifle that is different entirely. Semi-automatic: requires trigger pull for each round fired. Fully-automatic: requires only one trigger pull, weapon will continue firing. Even single-shot guns are 'semi-automatic,' they just have a magazine size of one and arent self-loading.
The preoccupation with the way a gun looks and the expectations people have based on those looks is at the heart of what the thread's OP is about.
does it look like the traditional 'assault' rifle shown in narrative in news and movies? Keep in mind that even in California law, which is the most strict in the country, the rifle depicted in that image is not legally an 'assault' rifle.
On July 23 2012 04:54 Probe1 wrote: Edit: Again, I'll reiterate that you are technically correct. However I cannot imagine a scenario where you would need a hundred round drum magazine or the AR-15s for self defense or hunting.You can find evidence of casual gun owners firing at 60 rounds per minute, semi auto. I dare say that is enough to cause mass casualties.
This point is moot. Any gun, 'assault' rifle or not, used by a person against unarmed civilians is enough to cause mass casualties. Even this hello kitty rifle above. Even a bolt action gun with 10-12 rounds per minute; I seem to recall 12 people died in that theater. If the man had barred the doors, even a break action survival single shot gun in the hands of that man would have enabled him to kill everyone in that theater.
On July 23 2012 01:19 micronesia wrote: 2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill.
What the original/design purpose of a type of gun is doesn't really seem relevant to me in any type of a gun-control debate, but I'm not here to argue that. Assault rifles were actually designed with the specific intention of stopping/wounding. In war, when two armies were shooting at each other, killing an enemy soldier instantly wouldn't stop his friends from shooting at you. However, if your weapons wounded enemy soldiers, their friends would stop shooting at you to tend to his wounds. So the goal was to A) stop him from fighting and B) get the attention of other soldiers in the process. There has been debate about how much to focus on stopping VS how much to focus on not killing, but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing. As I said earlier, the original intention doesn't matter much to me when discussing modern use of gun models, but people are often making statement #2 so I felt it should be addressed anyway.
To get this thread back on topic, there is good literature on why the switch to 'assault' rifles (meaning intermediate calibers) isn't about stopping power (or rather an intentional lack of stopping power), but rather about economy and discipline. Militaries began to see an alarming rounds-required-for-confirmed-kill ratio in the second world war, korea, and Vietnam, and attributed it to the ubiquity of fully-automatic firearms and larger calibers in the hands of soldiers.
There's actually a growing backlash against the intermediate caliber in US military circles due to experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the battle rifle is making a return.
While I appreciate the distinctions being made, frankly, after 4.5 years as a grunt who literally only used full auto on full machine guns, and only used burst fire when instructed to at the range... yes, it's technically not an assault rifle, and it's technically not designed to kill.
But the military, who have access to the literal assault rifle version, use the mode available to the public. Saves ammo, easier to control, and (in the case of the shitty cheap ones the army buys) less jams.
So yes, I agree with the points made, but they have little relevance to actual effectiveness, as semi is the most combat effective mode of fire, even in a target rich environment. Even .223 is a pain in the ass to control without something at least the size of an M249, and those are preferable off a bipod or vehicle mount, rather than the shoulder.
As for the political aspects, I can't imagine the value of getting into a debate about them online, where almost everybody is set on their opinion already.
What? I've always thought that to be classified as an assault rifle the gun had to have an automatic firing mode, as the first assault rifle the Sterngaver was...therefore an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
Fast Fact: Hitler coined the term 'assault rifle' after seeing a demonstration of the Sterngaver.
I have no idea why any of those points would even be important, but at least the second is an urban myth from all I know. The assault rifle was introduced for a number of reasons, and none of it were to wound soldiers over killing them. See the Background section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
In fact giving that assault rifles had the same caliber than classic bolt action rifles until the 60s I don't see how it would be less likely to kill someone with an assault rifle over a more conventional one anyway. Add to that that you would have to be an expert marksman to instantly kill with a single shot. Wounding was always more likely than a straight kill. Adding burst fire made it more likely that the enemy was killed, not less.
I have heard the same urban legend about the 5.56 caliber. That it was designed to wound, not kill Soviet soldiers. A way more likely explanation even here though is that it allowed an infantryman to carry (and spend) way more ammunition than with the old 7.62 standard.
If the wounding thing is an urban legend, it made it to my Drill Sergeants. That's not to say it's true, they're not generally picked for their gentle wisdom.
After reading this, i have a few questions ( i don't really have any knowledge on the subject ) :
1 : Isn't the M16 either semiauto or burst fire ( 3 shots ) ? I thought only the M4 had full auto 2 : isn't it relatively easy, for someone who has the knowledge, to add full auto capabilities on an AR15 variant ? ( modifying the lower receiver ? ) 3 : It was to my understanding that an experienced shooter can shoot pretty fast and more eifficient ( straight up hitting more targets with less ammos wasted ) on semi auto than on full auto 4 : I've heard somewhere that the 5.56 nato was designed to do more damage by "tilting" upon entering the target, don't knwo where exactly but i remember some kind of video demonstration where a soldier was shooting at a "Concrete masonry unit" wall and it seemed like it was " shredding " the wall a bit instead of making clean holes in it ( hence the " wounding myth " ? )
A rifle that qualifies as a "assault rifle" must have select fire capabilties, the civilian AR-15 is just semi-automatic so different nomenclature. Its widely avaliable as with the Remington shotgun he had and the Glocks are relatively affordable too.
edit: And civilian variant rifles have much smaller magazines. And judging from what happened he went happy trigger, I'm sure that semi-automatic feature didn't make much of a difference.
On July 23 2012 08:56 Marti wrote: After reading this, i have a few questions ( i don't really have any knowledge on the subject ) :
1 : Isn't the M16 either semiauto or burst fire ( 3 shots ) ? I thought only the M4 had full auto 2 : isn't it relatively easy, for someone who has the knowledge, to add full auto capabilities on an AR15 variant ? ( modifying the lower receiver ? ) 3 : It was to my understanding that an experienced shooter can shoot pretty fast and more eifficient ( straight up hitting more targets with less ammos wasted ) on semi auto than on full auto 4 : I've heard somewhere that the 5.56 nato was designed to do more damage by "tilting" upon entering the target, don't knwo where exactly but i remember some kind of video demonstration where a soldier was shooting at a "Concrete masonry unit" wall and it seemed like it was " shredding " the wall a bit instead of making clean holes in it ( hence the " wounding myth " ? )
1: Earlier incarnations of the M16 and M4 had full auto, new versions feature single/burst. Full auto is grossly inefficient in an assault rifle/carbine, and even crew served weapons and light machine guns, you generally fire 4-7 round bursts for better control of aim, ammo use, and barrel heat.
2: There's several somewhat iffy ways to do it with varying degrees of success, from what I understand, or you can replace the lower or a few parts inside the lower, assuming you can get the appropriate controlled parts.
3: Yes, semi is absolutely better for the majority of uses in anything that isn't at least mounted on a bipod.
4: That shit can tumble a bit, because it's light, but I can't be sure about the veracity of any of that stuff, because some of it has the ring of myth, regardless of how widespread they are. Plenty of people in the military buy into the wounding thing, though.
m16 are rarely used in full auto anyways. It's even scarier for me to imagine the gunman shooting a 100 round drum 1 bullet at a time giving him more time to selectively and purposely aim at his victim rather than spraying at the audience randomly. If he could shoot 70 people in 1 go then there's really little purpose in arguing over the definition of an assault rifle. This gun has no place in society.
On July 23 2012 08:56 Marti wrote: After reading this, i have a few questions ( i don't really have any knowledge on the subject ) :
1 : Isn't the M16 either semiauto or burst fire ( 3 shots ) ? I thought only the M4 had full auto 2 : isn't it relatively easy, for someone who has the knowledge, to add full auto capabilities on an AR15 variant ? ( modifying the lower receiver ? ) 3 : It was to my understanding that an experienced shooter can shoot pretty fast and more eifficient ( straight up hitting more targets with less ammos wasted ) on semi auto than on full auto 4 : I've heard somewhere that the 5.56 nato was designed to do more damage by "tilting" upon entering the target, don't knwo where exactly but i remember some kind of video demonstration where a soldier was shooting at a "Concrete masonry unit" wall and it seemed like it was " shredding " the wall a bit instead of making clean holes in it ( hence the " wounding myth " ? )
1: Earlier incarnations of the M16 and M4 had full auto, new versions feature single/burst. Full auto is grossly inefficient in an assault rifle/carbine, and even crew served weapons and light machine guns, you generally fire 4-7 round bursts for better control of aim, ammo use, and barrel heat.
2: There's several somewhat iffy ways to do it with varying degrees of success, from what I understand, or you can replace the lower or a few parts inside the lower, assuming you can get the appropriate controlled parts.
3: Yes, semi is absolutely better for the majority of uses in anything that isn't at least mounted on a bipod.
4: That shit can tumble a bit, because it's light, but I can't be sure about the veracity of any of that stuff, because some of it has the ring of myth, regardless of how widespread they are. Plenty of people in the military buy into the wounding thing, though.
Okay thanks, and while i'm at it : is 1) the reason why the military uses man portable machineguns ( M249 ) ? Like they need a machinegun because assault rifles can't lay down supressive fire as eifficiently ?
Edit : and also why is it that full automatic weapons are prohibited ? Since semiauto is more eifficient on an assault rifle anyway, why is auto forbidden ? Is it the result of hollywood movies ? Full auto looks scary so we'll ban it ?
On July 23 2012 08:56 Marti wrote: After reading this, i have a few questions ( i don't really have any knowledge on the subject ) :
1 : Isn't the M16 either semiauto or burst fire ( 3 shots ) ? I thought only the M4 had full auto 2 : isn't it relatively easy, for someone who has the knowledge, to add full auto capabilities on an AR15 variant ? ( modifying the lower receiver ? ) 3 : It was to my understanding that an experienced shooter can shoot pretty fast and more eifficient ( straight up hitting more targets with less ammos wasted ) on semi auto than on full auto 4 : I've heard somewhere that the 5.56 nato was designed to do more damage by "tilting" upon entering the target, don't knwo where exactly but i remember some kind of video demonstration where a soldier was shooting at a "Concrete masonry unit" wall and it seemed like it was " shredding " the wall a bit instead of making clean holes in it ( hence the " wounding myth " ? )
1: Earlier incarnations of the M16 and M4 had full auto, new versions feature single/burst. Full auto is grossly inefficient in an assault rifle/carbine, and even crew served weapons and light machine guns, you generally fire 4-7 round bursts for better control of aim, ammo use, and barrel heat.
2: There's several somewhat iffy ways to do it with varying degrees of success, from what I understand, or you can replace the lower or a few parts inside the lower, assuming you can get the appropriate controlled parts.
3: Yes, semi is absolutely better for the majority of uses in anything that isn't at least mounted on a bipod.
4: That shit can tumble a bit, because it's light, but I can't be sure about the veracity of any of that stuff, because some of it has the ring of myth, regardless of how widespread they are. Plenty of people in the military buy into the wounding thing, though.
Okay thanks, and while i'm at it : is 1) the reason why the military uses man portable machineguns ( M249 ) ? Like they need a machinegun because assault rifles can't lay down supressive fire as eifficiently ?
Edit : and also why is it that full automatic weapons are prohibited ? Since semiauto is more eifficient on an assault rifle anyway, why is auto forbidden ? Is it the result of hollywood movies ? Full auto looks scary so we'll ban it ?
1: Pretty much. Heavier barrel, belt feed, open bolt firing, and a pisston more reliable, unless you use the optional magazine well with a standard M16/M4 mag (you have to add a second spring to prevent it from jamming due to the higher cyclical rate of fire). All around better for volume of fire, but still conveniently man portable. Once you get up to the heavier 240B, (descendant of the M60), you're dealing with needing 2 men, what with the weight of ammo and spare barrels, on top of the additional weight of the weapon itself. It starts hitting the crew served range at that point.
2: No. We don't use full auto on assault rifles any more because it blows balls, burst is available, but it's generally just inefficient, so why use it? Just learn to hit the damn target. If they're wearing armor, you need to avoid it with that small of a round anyways, so firing more of them less accurately is useless. It's an effectiveness thing. If you miss with the first round, you're probably not going to hit with the second and third ones either, so it's three wasted instead of one. In a short enough span of time that a single shot would have had similar effect as far as suppressing a target.
Or were you asking why it's illegal for civilians without a Class 3 license? If you were asking that, I think it's mostly because automatic weapons CAN be better in certain scenarios where discipline goes out the window. Plus, they tend to be larger capacity, and if you have them set up properly, they can be brutal on a crowd.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PuWmE.jpg)
