Firearms

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, Backlighting said:

Now here's a piece of history on the auction block:

http://www.guns.com/2016/08/05/nazi-officer-hermann-goerings-gold-plated-pistol-up-for-bid/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=57a49f6604d301751585f504&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

If I owned that crap I'd melt it down and drop in the ocean well off the continental shelf.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If I owned that crap I'd melt it down and drop in the ocean well off the continental shelf.

--Brant

If you owned it and paid 250K for it? --J

[BaalChatzaf]

On 7/31/2016 at 11:02 PM, Backlighting said:

Well it looks like the Germans are recognizing reality. Now if they can only enact immigration control.

Germany sees record requests for self-defense weapons amid fears of lone-wolf attacks

https://www.rt.com/news/354061-germany-weapons-licenses-increase/

Not only immigration,  but expulsion.....

Time to get the box cars dispatched.

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, Backlighting said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Backlighting said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Backlighting said:

If you owned it and paid 250K for it? --J

If I owned it and paid two bits for it.

--Brant

thought ya got me didn't ya?

[Backlighting]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

 

If I owned it and paid two bits for it.

--Brant

thought ya got me didn't ya?

lol.

[Backlighting]

Going after the gunsmiths now.

From the article:

"The Department of State is issuing new guidelines requiring many machine shops and gunsmiths nationwide to register with ITAR. The cost? $2,250 per year. ITAR, or International Traffic in Arms Regulations, are designed to prevent firearms and firearm technology from being exported out of the country.

But the actual reason behind this sweeping change in guidelines may have a darker goal: to increase the cost of offering gunsmithing services. The changes were implemented without warning or input from the people and the industry"

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/new-itar-guidelines-look-a-lot-like-executive-gun-control/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160805_FridayDigest_81&utm_campaign=/blog/new-itar-guidelines-look-a-lot-like-executive-gun-control/

[Backlighting]

Now here's a beast...quite an ingenious design I'd say.

 

[merjet]

The 16 shells capacity probably makes it illegal for duck hunting.

http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/threads/the-reason-for-only-3-shells-in-a-shotgun.172013/

[Backlighting]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

The 16 shells capacity probably makes it illegal for duck hunting.

http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/threads/the-reason-for-only-3-shells-in-a-shotgun.172013/

I was thinking it would make a fine home defense firearm as well as an addition to law enforcement and even the military. --J

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, merjet said:

The 16 shells capacity probably makes it illegal for duck hunting.

http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/threads/the-reason-for-only-3-shells-in-a-shotgun.172013/

But what if there are 16 ducks?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, Backlighting said:

I was thinking it would make a fine home defense firearm as well as an addition to law enforcement and even the military. --J

Too complicated in firing.

--Brant

[turkeyfoot]

14 hours ago, Backlighting said:

I was thinking it would make a fine home defense firearm as well as an addition to law enforcement and even the military. --J

I dont go as deep as you all with expertise on firearms. 

But I agree. Less chance of wall penetration and its a point and shoot that has a higher likelihood of hitting a target. Although I like a revolver for its fewer moving parts. When racking the first round an unmistakable warning has been served. The only issue I see is the potential target doesnt die which could prove worse than a killing considering the castle doctrine. Hope thats not too malevolent.

[Backlighting]

New legislation introduced by Michigan Democrats seeks to make it a felony to own weapons defined as assault weapons. It includes rifles, semi auto pistols & certain shotguns:
http://fox17online.com/2016/10/20/house-bill-seeks-to-make-owning-an-assault-weapon-a-felony/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_FOX_17

[BaalChatzaf]

35 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

New legislation introduced by Michigan Democrats seeks to make it a felony to own weapons defined as assault weapons. It includes rifles, semi auto pistols & certain shotguns:
http://fox17online.com/2016/10/20/house-bill-seeks-to-make-owning-an-assault-weapon-a-felony/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_FOX_17

A rifle used to shoot at targets is a target rifle  and a rifle used to shoot at people (e.g. military use)  is an assault rifle. 

No rifle has ever chosen its target and no rifle is designed exclusively to shoot at a particular target.  This is up to the shooter,  not the weapon.

So I conclude that the category  "assault weapon", "assault rifle"   is a bogus  category. 

[Backlighting]

7 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A rifle used to shoot at targets is a target rifle  and a rifle used to shoot at people (e.g. military use)  is an assault rifle. 

No rifle has ever chosen its target and no rifle is designed exclusively to shoot at a particular target.  This is up to the shooter,  not the weapon.

So I conclude that the category  "assault weapon", "assault rifle"   is a bogus  category. 

Of course. What's next... assault bottles, assault hammers, assault shovels, etc. Pick your own implement. --J

[Mikee]

"What's next..."

The Assault Air Bike!: 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A rifle used to shoot at targets is a target rifle  and a rifle used to shoot at people (e.g. military use)  is an assault rifle. 

No rifle has ever chosen its target and no rifle is designed exclusively to shoot at a particular target.  This is up to the shooter,  not the weapon.

So I conclude that the category  "assault weapon", "assault rifle"   is a bogus  category. 

There are rifles, shotguns and handguns. An assault rifle is a rifle. Typically it applies to M-16 .223 weapons. In Vietnam in the 1960s these were just referred to as rifles. "Assault rifle" is modern parlance I think created to demonize the category to set it up for civilian banning.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

If all these "assault rifles" were painted pink, or yellow, would they still be assault rifles?--J

[merjet]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Assault rifle" is modern parlance I think created to demonize the category to set it up for civilian banning.

I agree. Various defining features are used (link). By one such definition, the M-16 is an assault weapon, but the M-14 is not since it doesn't have a pistol grip.

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, merjet said:

I agree. Various defining features are used (link). By one such definition, the M-16 is an assault weapon, but the M-14 is not since it doesn't have a pistol grip.

That's why we couldn't use the M-14 in Vietnam--it wasn't an assault weapon. I did have fun firing it in basic training, but the .30 cal. slug just punched little holes in people while the .223 blew up their insides. Ironically, the M-60 machine gun used the same bullet and had a pistol grip. Never heard it referred to as an assault machine gun. And it only punched little holes in people too.

--Brant

[merjet]

On 10/25/2016 at 8:53 PM, Brant Gaede said:

That's why we couldn't use the M-14 in Vietnam--it wasn't an assault weapon. I did have fun firing it in basic training, but the .30 cal. slug just punched little holes in people while the .223 blew up their insides. Ironically, the M-60 machine gun used the same bullet and had a pistol grip. Never heard it referred to as an assault machine gun. And it only punched little holes in people too.

--Brant

You didn't say who "we" was. Many US soldiers in Vietnam had M-14's rather than M-16's. I think infantry units had priority to get M-16's.

There is a little about the M-16's smaller 5.56 mm bullet doing more damage -- due to tumbling and/or fragmentation -- than the M-14's 7.62 mm bullet in the Wikipedia M-16 article.      

[Brant Gaede]

19 hours ago, merjet said:

You didn't say who "we" was. Many US soldiers in Vietnam had M-14's rather than M-16's. I think infantry units had priority to get M-16's.

There is a little about the M-16's smaller 5.56 mm bullet doing more damage -- due to tumbling and/or fragmentation -- than the M-14's 7.62 mm bullet in the Wikipedia M-16 article.      

I think the Marines kept the M-14 the longest apropos using them in Vietnam. I heard my brother set the record for the M-14 qualification at Camp Pendleton in 1966. If so it likely still stands. In Advanced Individual Training, Light Weapons, I fired it as an automatic rifle with a bipod. There is a switch to make it full auto but a second party had to activate it. The idea was not to burn up the ammo. The M-14 was designed as the replacement for the M-1 Garand, the best battle rifle ever up to that time. I do not know when and if the M-16 went to Europe as a NATO rifle. I don't think it had any business there, but I never had any grunt footprint in Europe.

The .223 was a rifled round. If deflected it could "tumble" a la this myth more easily than the .30 cal. NATO round and had less penetrating power. It's a common civilian high velocity varmit cartridge used by scoped bolt action rifles. The damage comes from its velocity-mass ratio. The light slug did more damage, all else equal, than the heavier .30, which tended to go in and out. Generally any shot to a body cavity at relatively close range was a kill shot. A tremendous amount of energy is released inside the body. It could virtually blow off a limb. I saw on the arm of a Vietnamese shoulder where he had been shot in the upper arm by a .30 AK 47, a pure flesh wound. There were two little scars, one for enter and one for exit as the only sign of damage and he had full use of  the arm. The outlawed dum-dum bullet had nothing on the .223 round even though the .223 was full metal jacket and did not therefor fragment.

I was issued an M-16 on arrival in Vietnam in Sept. 1966. If you loaded more than 18 rounds in the 20 round magazine it would fire two rounds and jam. The other ways it could jam was if the extractor stripped the edge of the cartridge leaving it in the breach or if the mechanism got dirty. The AK 47 type weapons were much more reliable that way. I carried a cleaning rod taped to my rifle to ram out the stripped cartridge although I never had to use it. My A-Team was the first outfit in Vietnam to get the 30 round magazine, unofficially, as a box of them were shipped to us from Ft. Ord, CA where they were being tested from a friend to a friend. We each got one for the gun--"This is  my rifle, This is my gun. This one's for for fighting, This one's for fun! Sound off! One, two, three, four, Who the hell we fighting for?!"--and carried the 20s on the belt.

--Brant

 

 

[Peter]

I barely touch the M16. I liked the M14 and in training, when a couple of my shots bounced off the ground and into the target, I shot expert, as I have mentioned before and as shown on my DD214. And I received the Good Conduct Medal for being a boy scout. I still think of it as wasted time, but I dwell on it occasionally and I am proud that I served.

Peter    

[Backlighting]

How Many Guns Are in the U.S.? Likely More Than You Think

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/how-many-guns-are-in-the-u-s-probably-more-than-you-think/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20161104_FridayDigest_94&utm_campaign=/blog/how-many-guns-are-in-the-u-s-probably-more-than-you-think/

[Peter]

If the economy collapses, or if there is a nuclear war, or any other catastrophe occurs how will you protect “your turf?” I live on a peninsula so it would be easier keeping the looters out from up north or across the bay (with a militia) because people here are the right folks, but if I lived in a suburban area I would be worried.

Peter