Ottawa gunman launched attack with slow-loading, John Wayne-style rifle: experts

[Electric Monk]

OTTAWA - The Ottawa gunman's use of a slow-loading, old-time hunting rifle suggests his rampage was either a poorly concocted plan or an assault he never expected to walk away from, firearm experts say.

Or perhaps the 1800s-style weapon, made famous in Hollywood westerns, was a convenient option he pulled off somebody's wall.

(snip)

"If he knew anything about this weapon, he knew it would be a one-way trip," said Curtis Rutt, a former Canadian paratrooper and Ontario police sergeant who trained young officers.

"That's not a weapon that you would take to a gunfight and hope that you would ever return."

Rutt said the firearm would be a terrible option in such a situation, since it only holds seven rounds, must be reloaded one bullet at a time and requires the lever to be pulled down before each shot.

That motion, he added, must pull the lever all the way forward and then back — otherwise, the gun won't fire.

more...
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/ottawa-gunman-launched-attack-with-slow-loading-john-wayne-style-rifle-experts-280337252.html

Good thing he didn't have a semi-auto with 30 round detachable magazines, or things might have turned out much worse.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I was out back mending fences the other day and gave this a lot of thought.

It was then that my mind went all rogue and I realized that some folks will never, ever figure it out.

If Michael Zehaf Bibeau had wanted to kill more people, he could have found a different gun, or brought in more than one gun, or made a dirty bomb or any number of other mean things.

I think some folks get all their information from the teevee and mother jones magazine and never ever held or fired a rifle.

I paused and reflected and then went back to mending the fences, happily leaving the knots in the bad boards because they give the place flavor.

We will never be reduced to all having .30-30 Winchester lever action rifles.

The gun control group would never allow it!

[Electric Monk]

6. "If Michael Zehaf Bibeau had wanted to kill more people, he could have found a different gun"

Are you saying you think he only wanted to kill Cpl Cirillo at the war memorial and then commit suicide by police, because of his choice of weapon? I think a safer assumption would be that he used the best weapon that he was able to get his hands on.

[NYC_SKP]

8. The suicide by police part was inevitable, he must have known that.

Likely, he wasn't looking for a high head count, just wanted to make a statement on his way out of this sphere.

I think that's the case in 90% of these kinds of shootings.

[gejohnston]

2. there is no reason he couldn't have gotten one

street gangs have them in Canada have them. He didn't have a PAL, which means he did not have any legal means of getting the one he did. Actually, he could have done just as much damage with what he had.
The lever action really isn't that slow loading, and you can continually feed ammo in the magazine while firing.

[NYC_SKP]

3. You can sneak anything into Canada. This OP is just another limp attempt to make a case.

As if .30-30 rifles are OK and saved a lot of people compared to those big ugly movie guns.

[Eleanors38]

4. Didn't a noted U.S. Senator refer to the .30-30 as a "cop killer" bullet?

[benEzra]

7. Yes, and "armor piercing", since it will penetrate body armor

like any other centerfire rifle.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-02-26/pdf/CREC-2004-02-26-pt1-PgS1612-2.pdf#page=23

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

"It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America."

I personally wonder if the Senator was trolled by someone prior to that. The stats about the officers killed by .30-30 are accurate, but it's not unique in its ability to penetrate armor.

[benEzra]

5. Not as slow firing as they imply, but slower loading.

Rate of aimed fire is not far off a semiauto, though a semiauto can miss faster.

However, to keep it shooting, one has to keep thumbing fresh rounds in as they are expended (since that design allows topping off). People who learn about shooting from TV and movies probably don't realize that you can reload a tube-magazine gun before the magazine is empty.

I don't think they through through this sentence, though:

"it's not something that anyone would ever use for the purpose that he did."

Umm, yes, someone just did. A lot of people forget that the lever-action was designed as a military infantry rifle, and is considerably faster than a bolt-action and comparable to a pump.

[Electric Monk]

11. Ok, now compare and contrast with this

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. So what? The AR platform is too widespread to ban now...

[gejohnston]

13. so why didn't he use any of these

semi autos? They are non restricted, meaning they are regulated the same as the lever action? ARs are usually restricted, which only means you have to join a gun club and have an ATT.
http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/

Or these shotguns that are also non restricted
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/dominion-arms-grizzly-mag-shotgun-18-5-12-ga-variation/
This one is non restricted, but would be NFA (and banned in several states in the US)
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/the-unbelievable-outlaw-combo/

So why didn't he just go to the gun store or online and buy any of those? Oh wait, he didn't have a PAL because of his multiple felony convictions, so he couldn't have. Plus, as a Quebec resident, he would have to register them.
Since he could have probably get anything he wanted, including machine guns, on the black market, why that? Maybe the real answer could be that he liked Westerns. I don't have an AR or AK, but I do have a lever action. After all, he could have used a home made machine gun like Australian biker gangs.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/

[benEzra]

15. Or one of these:

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/natmil-tk-uzkon-br-99-semi-auto-shotgun-detail.html?Itemid=0

Those are even legal in *England*, and for people with a certificate there is no limit on capacity.

[benEzra]

14. I shoot competitively with a Rock River AR-15,

and hence am aware how fast you can unload one at nothing in particular, just like any other civilian gun that fires once per trigger pull (e.g., most of them); small-caliber rifles like the AR don't recoil much, which helps the split times. Before my AR, I shot a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle for years, not an "assault weapon" per Feinstein et al, that shoots the same ammunition at the same rate from the same sized magazines and could be emptied at nothing just as fast.

But I'm also aware that if you want to actually hit anything, especially if you are transitioning between targets, you have to shoot slower and aim. An AR-15 is a marvelously precise rifle, a big reason for their popularity as target rifles, and why I traded my Mini-14 for my Rock River; most ARs will keep every shot on a playing card at 200 yards, and the best will keep every shot on a quarter at that distance. That precision means you will hit what you aim at, and you *won't* hit what you don't aim at. In your video, notice how long Carbine Class Dude had to set up for that stunt, and that he wasn't transitioning between targets; with the optic, he may have put a shotgun pattern on a single target if it wasn't too distant, but it was mostly noisemaking for the camera, not effective shooting.

Like I said upthread, a lever-action has slower splits, as does a pump, but not an order of magnitude slower in effective fire. The biggest difference is the reload; a tube-magazine gun is topped off one round at a time as you shoot, whereas a magazine-fed gun (semiauto or not) is preemptively reloaded by taking a second to hitting the release and putting in another magazine rather than loading as you go.

But all that is moot, really. If AR-15's and other self-loading rifles were the existential threat that the gun control lobby would like to paint them, then rifles wouldn't be the least misused of all weapons in this country, would they? Rifles account for fewer homicides here than any other class of weapon, far fewer than knives and even fewer than bare hands and shoes.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2012 (FBI)

That's especially significant since AR's are the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, dominate centerfire target shooting, and are the most common civilian HD rifle; more broadly, more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt. AR's are not going away, and every new ban you guys push for sells another million of them. Give it a rest.

[jimmy the one]

16. I agree, your points are moot

ezra: I'm also aware that if you want to actually hit anything, especially if you are transitioning between targets, you have to shoot slower and aim... most ARs will keep every shot on a playing card at 200 yards... That precision means you will hit what you aim at, and you *won't* hit what you don't aim at.

Where does the average gun owner seeking home protection actually need such accuracy at such distance? he doesn't - about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers', per the 2nd amendment mythology.
Your tailing is invalid, shooter could very easily hit something he wasn't aiming at, happens now & then when a target range shooter's .223 goes thru a window or hits a building a quarter mile away. Or thru a person.

ezra: .. a lever-action has slower splits, as does a pump, but not an order of magnitude slower in effective fire.

How about half an order of magnitude? is that 'slower' enough? or better put, the inverse of an order of magnitude.
If you're trying to ameliorate the slower fire of the lever action when compared to an ar15's, you fail, it is generally much slower.

ezra: But all that is moot, really. If AR-15's and other self-loading rifles were the existential threat that the gun control lobby would like to paint them, then rifles wouldn't be the least misused of all weapons in this country, would they?

.. but will the ar15 et al catch on? as more & more people own them will their potential manifest in coming years?
.. the succinct opinion of one pro gun poster on this board: eleanors: The prospects for an "AWB" grow dimmer with time. As the American civilian population adopts the semi-auto carbine as its new utility weapon, and supplants bolt-action hunting rifles, small-caliber range/sport rifles, and even SD pistols, this not-so-new form will entrench itself into a growing constituency. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153960

So the least we could do is nip the cancer in the bud, stand up to & not cowtow to the whims & chicanery of the gun lobby & it's deceptive advertising, to allow anything & everything gunny based on the most specious of reasoning.

ezra: That's especially significant since AR's are the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, dominate centerfire target shooting, and are the most common civilian HD rifle;

Specious reasoning. It's rather that ar15's, as well as ak47s, are predominantly owned by gunnuts to satisfy their fetish for owning military style weaponry, usually without ever having served, or having to serve a single day in any military. Little big men with assault rifles.
If target shooting is the primary reason to own & possess a semi-assault rifle 'clone' - where the auto version was designed for battlefield use & increased killing potential - the argument is as utterly stupid as the nra idiots who succor it.
.. an AR is the most common civilian home defense rifle? you have a link for that? compared with all other rifles? But overall guns, isn't a handgun the 'most common' home defense gun? where one doesn't have to worry as much about putting bullets into the next room over?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. You tell 'em, jimmy! Broadsides full of cultural warfare have helped to make gun control...

...what it is today

P.S.: "So the least we could do is nip the cancer in the bud..." bit was a dead giveaway-
and it's too late for that, anyway.

Do you really think that somehow, someway you will both a) convince AR/AK platform owners that they are murderers-in-waiting AND b) have them go along with you politically?

[benEzra]

23. Thoughts...

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Where does the average gun owner seeking home protection actually need such accuracy at such distance? he doesn't - about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers'"

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that owners of the most popular centerfire target rifle in America care more about shooting at "U.S. soldiers" than they do at 200-yard paper targets? Seriously? We shoot around 14 *billion* rounds a year at paper, dude. The top centerfire caliber in the nation is by far the little .223 Remington, and the AR platform accounts for the vast majority of that.

No, the accuracy isn't a requirement at in-home distances (even a 4-MOA carbine can hit a quarter at 75 feet), but it's quite important for target shooting. Also don't forget that .223 is also the #1 long-range small-game hunting round in this country. Hunting is a far smaller piece of the pie than target shooting is, but a .22 centerfire that won't hit a playing card at 200 yards is pretty useless for hitting a prairie dog at 200.

"shooter could very easily hit something he wasn't aiming at, happens now & then when a target range shooter's .223 goes thru a window or hits a building a quarter mile away. Or thru a person."

A criminal shooting at nothing in particular is highly unlikely to result in the level of mass casualties that, say, someone shooting deliberately with a 9mm pistol and a backpack full of low-capacity magazines would cause.

As an aside (and contrary to popular myth), one of the reasons the AR is so popular as a defensive carbine and as a LE patrol carbine is that .223 with light JHP's offers less downrange hazard than the alternatives, including shotguns using buckshot, primarily due to less penetration.

"How about half an order of magnitude? is that 'slower' enough? or better put, the inverse of an order of magnitude. If you're trying to ameliorate the slower fire of the lever action when compared to an ar15's, you fail, it is generally much slower."

My point is that the commentators panning lever-actions as worthless antiques far less capable than semiautos are wrong; they were developed as combat weapons, after all, and are capable of delivering a comparable rate of aimed fire to a .30 caliber semiauto, albeit with a slower reloading mode in the case of tube magazines. If you could magically outlaw all semiautomatics (which hasn't even happened in England; Google "BR-99&quot , detachable-magazine lever-actions or pump-actions can deliver a comparable rate of effective fire, and even tube-magazine guns can deliver a respectable rate of sustained fire.

If rate of unaimed fire is your primary focus, a more apropos comparison would be to compare the AR-15 to other civilian semiautomatics (e.g., 75% of civilian firearms sold annually), which fire exactly as fast as the AR-15 does and can miss just as fast.

"but will the ar15 et al catch on? as more & more people own them will their potential manifest in coming years?"

The gun-control lobby needs to get its head out of the 1980s and look around; the AR-15 platform caught on two decades ago. Now, it's not entering the mainstream, it is the mainstream. Yet rifle homicide has continued to fall, even as the market has swung hard toward AR ownership. In terms of absolute numbers in civilian hands, the AR has passed most models of bolt-actions and will overtake the Remington 870 shotgun in a few years. The best estimate I've seen is around 5 million in U.S. homes, give or take. If you add in all the other civilian "assault weapons" out there (SKS, civilian AK, Kel-Tecs, FALs, CETMEs, Rugers, various rimfires) then more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt. And yet rifle homicide has continued to drop since 2004.

"ar15's, as well as ak47s, are predominantly owned by gunnuts to satisfy their fetish for owning military style weaponry, usually without ever having served, or having to serve a single day in any military. Little big men with assault rifles."

See, this is precisely why your side continues to shoot itself in the foot over rifle bans, even after 25 years of backlash. You don't understand us and you have no idea how popular the guns and magazines you want to ban are, and that ultimately dooms your proposals to failure.

The AR market took off primarily in civilian style guns---flattops with scopes or optics and either pencil-profile or heavy barrels depending on the intended use. In the 1960s through the early 1990s, you could only buy military-style AR's, basically non-automatic M16A1 or M16A2 lookalikes, and they weren't particularly popular, with less than a million sold 1961-1994. There was also a brief fad in military-style "M4geries" during the Feinstein-ban years, step-cut barrels and all. But civilian flattops were what made the market really take off around 2000-ish, because they are as amenable to scopes and other optics as any bolt-action, and the that's where the bulk of the market has been ever since. Civilian-profile barrels have largely superseded the M4-style, and the most popular magazines are, yep, civilian style polymer, not USGI surplus. Now 40+ companies build flattop AR's and they absolutely dominate the civilian rifle market. Even the Liberal Gun Club is dominated by AR's, as is every centerfire target shooting discipline short of F-class benchrest.

My own AR is as obviously civilian as a Winchester Model 70, to those who know anything about rifles. It is a Rock River midlength flattop, a civilian configuration never issued by any military on this planet, to my knowledge. I set it up with a 16" Wilson heavy target barrel, Vortex flash suppressor, and 2-6x civilian scope, soon to be swapped for an illuminated civilian 1-6x with 800-meter BDC as finances permit. At home it wears a Surefire G3 LED light (civilian) on a front-sight rail segment (civilian). And of course, it is non-select-fire, like all civilian rifles. Trending now are free-float tubes for better accuracy, variable-magnification optics, and a general move toward lighter weight.

For what it's worth, I do own one military rifle, a 1905-vintage Russian Mosin-Nagant bolt-action that bears the imperial crest of the Czar, and was later rebarreled by the Finns at Jyvaskyla in 1942. It's a historically interesting piece and turned out to be a good investment, as it's now worth more than twice what it was when I bought it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Well said, but you are citing facts to a culture warrior. Feelings are more important to them

[benEzra]

27. True, but typing is therapeutic...helps alleviate chronic facepalming.

Oh well. I think the prohibitionists learned in 2012-2013 that gun and magazine bans are unworkable, even if it hasn't sunk in across the board yet; we'll see. Maybe more constructive approaches will eventually come out of all this, but a whole lot of trust and consensus was very thoughtlessly thrown away in 2012 and 2013, and it is probably gone for good.

[jimmy the one]

28. you win a kewpie doll

ezra: Are you seriously trying to make the argument that owners of the most popular centerfire target rifle in America care more about shooting at "U.S. soldiers" than they do at 200-yard paper targets? Seriously?

Nope, didn't say that, reading comprehension gunner style I see, creating a false premise. Review what I wrote: ..about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers'"

You left the adjective 'tyrannical' off 'US soldiers', false premise on your part. Then you used the false premise to create another one, asking if AR owners care more about shooting them, when I didn't suggest that; I said about the only time an AR's precision would be needed in America would be when the tyrannical govt takes over, you didn't hear? (prairie dogs are several times larger than playing cards, maybe a half magnitude).

ezra: We shoot around 14 *billion* rounds a year at paper, dude. The top centerfire caliber in the nation is by far the little .223 Remington, and the AR platform accounts for the vast majority of that.

What an utter waste of money. How much does one fmj cost these days?

ezra: No, the accuracy isn't a requirement at in-home distances (even a 4-MOA carbine can hit a quarter at 75 feet), but it's quite important for target shooting.

Tada, give this man a kewpie doll. For a couple percent of gunners, a half percent of Americans who own an AR15, target range orgasms justify allowing assault rifle auto-clones in communities??? (Malvo agrees)

ezra: Also don't forget that .223 is also the #1 long-range small-game hunting round in this country... but a .22 centerfire that won't hit a playing card at 200 yards is pretty useless for hitting a prairie dog at 200.

I would rather forget it. I'm sure there are dozens of suitable rifles at that range, rather than AR's. Otherwise stick with shorter range 22 longs & shorts & get closer, 10% the kinetic energy of a .223.

ezra ..one of the reasons the AR is so popular as a defensive carbine and as a LE patrol carbine is that .223 with light JHP's offers less downrange hazard than the alternatives, including shotguns using buckshot, primarily due to less penetration.

You mean in house as well? the practical solution is birdshot for the shotgun, & comparing the AR to worse offenders doesn't get it off the hook. And where's the link to the AR being most popular HD rifle? or however you put it.

ezra: ..more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt. And yet rifle homicide has continued to drop since 2004.

Including in states which ban them I presume. I betcha moreso ratewise, how much you wanna? really dunno, you could win!
BTW, homicide rates have fallen since ~1993, along with falling gun ownership rates, (leveled off ~2000, roughly along with gun ownership rates) a real contributing reason imo for the drop in homicide rates has been the concomitant drop in gun ownership rates. Here's a really neat picture graph: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=154561

ezra: And of course, it is non-select-fire, like all civilian rifles.

But capable of being converted to full auto right? with a conversion kit or simple tools, like a flat file.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. How thoughtful of you to proclaim what others' true needs are

I will certainly support your nomination as Secretary of Needs when it comes up
for a vote in the U.S. Senate...

[benEzra]

32. Keep your kewpie doll, and I'll keep my AR, thanks.

"Review what I wrote: ..about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers'"

You left the adjective 'tyrannical' off 'US soldiers', false premise on your part. Then you used the false premise to create another one, asking if AR owners care more about shooting them, when I didn't suggest that; I said about the only time an AR's precision would be needed in America would be when the tyrannical govt takes over, you didn't hear? (prairie dogs are several times larger than playing cards, maybe a half magnitude"

I'm still not following you here. All target shooting and all humane small game hunting at any significant distance requires precision, and I'm not sure how you get from there to your shooting-soldiers fantasy. The X-ring of the standard SR-42 200-yard competition rifle target is 1.9" in diameter, smaller than a playing card.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/587150/nra-official-high-power-rifle-targets-sr-42-200-yard-rapid-fire-paper-package-of-50

The X-ring of an MR-1 600-yard target is 6", the same angular size as a 2" target at 200. Since AR's are the predominant rifles used to shoot such targets, then they darn sure need to hold under 2" at 200 under perfect conditions from a solid rest, no? And if you are doing *any* target shooting in the 400 to 800 yard zone, you had darn well better have a rifle that will hold 2" at 200, since dispersion scales more than linearly with distance.

You do know that any decent deer rifle on the rack at Wal-Mart will keep every shot on a playing card at 200 yards with good ammo and a solid rest, yes? So why should a less-powerful gun used for target shooting or small game hunting be *less* accurate than a deer rifle? I'm not following you here. Are you saying that rifles that are too accurate should be banned? If so, just how bad does accuracy have to be before it is acceptable to you?

FYI, the brain and heart/lungs of a prairie dog are no bigger than a playing card; their whole body is, what, 9-12" excluding the tail.

ezra: "We shoot around 14 *billion* rounds a year at paper, dude."

jimmytheone: "What an utter waste of money. How much does one fmj cost these days?"

Depends on how much accuracy you are chasing. For recreational shooting 300 yards and under, about 25 cents a round for .223 steel-case at Walmart. Brass case will run you 50 cents a round for PMC lightweight FMJ to a couple dollars a round for the heavier high-BC long range loads, though less if you reload. One of the nice things about shooting a centerfire .22 is that it only costs about half as much as shooting a .30 caliber. For me, a range trip with the AR or shooting a local match both end up costing about the same as going to see a movie, no biggie.

"target range orgasms justify allowing assault rifle auto-clones in communities???"

See, this sort of frothing at the mouth is precisely why your side loses. "Target range orgasms"? "Assault rifle auto-clones"? Back up and listen to yourself. In an insular echo chamber, that may sound witty and righteous, but when you are talking to gun owners it comes across as ignorant and unhinged.

"I would rather forget it. I'm sure there are dozens of suitable rifles at that range, rather than AR's. Otherwise stick with shorter range 22 longs & shorts & get closer, 10% the kinetic energy of a .223."

So what .223 semiauto would you prefer I use, and why? why is shooting at 200 yards OK with a mini-14 but not OK with a functionally identical AR-15? Is it because the AR is more accurate?

How do you feel about people shooting long range targets with .243's, 6.5's, .30-06's, and 7mm magnums? Nobody needs a gun with two or three times the energy of a .223, right?

"You mean in house as well? the practical solution is birdshot for the shotgun, & comparing the AR to worse offenders doesn't get it off the hook."

Yes, in-house; .223 JHP penetrates less drywall than any other defensive firearm other than a shotgun using birdshot, is less likely to penetrate an exterior wall, and is less lethal after wall penetration. Birdshot is great if you are assaulted by a determined duck, but against humans beyond contact distance, birdshot typically creates shallow, disfiguring-but-not-incapaciting wounds, which is why LE agencies prohibit using it. Ask Dick Cheney's hunting friend, or peruse the LE wound-ballistics literature.

Law enforcement agencies have done a lot of study on the efficacy and downrange hazard of various calibers (for example, see Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant, Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45). Or, if you don't have access to a university library, check out the photos in this piece on drywall penetration of various calibers. Handguns are more portable, and shotguns with buckshot or slugs are more devastating, but if you want precision + less penetration risk than either, get a .223.

"Including in states which ban them I presume. I betcha moreso ratewise, how much you wanna? really dunno, you could win! BTW, homicide rates have fallen since ~1993, along with falling gun ownership rates, (leveled off ~2000, roughly along with gun ownership rates) a real contributing reason imo for the drop in homicide rates has been the concomitant drop in gun ownership rates"

No, the drop has been across the board, even though AR ownership has nearly tripled since 2000. And of course, no state bans "assault weapons" broadly defined; California and a couple others require them to have non-protruding handgrips, smooth muzzles, and nonadjustable stocks, but they are still legal without those features. An AR with a straight stock is legal in all 50 states, and even in California you can have an AR with a protruding handgrip, flash suppressor, etc. if you go the bullet-button approach.

Btw, if you think rifle ownership has dropped, you are smoking something. Look at the BATFE rifle sales stats from 1994 to present, and the shotgun/rifle ratio in particular. The willingness to report rifle ownership to a stranger who cold-calls you certainly scales up and down with the political climate (if anyone calls me, the answer is "no&quot , but the hard sales figures don't lie.

"But capable of being converted to full auto right? with a conversion kit or simple tools, like a flat file."

Nope. Per the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, any gun easily convertible to full auto is a full auto for the purposes of the law. That's why there are no civilian semiautos that fire from an open bolt, because those guns can be converted to full autos with a file, as you state---so they are banned as machineguns even if not actually converted, and are a 10-year Federal felony to possess unless NFA registered prior to the 1986 cutoff.

If you followed the issue closely, you'd also know that all post-1986 AR's have different receiver geometry than M16s, specifically to prevent them from being able to use M16 fire-control parts or being easily converted to full auto, and all those pre-1986 conversion kits made for the then-lawful registered NFA market won't fit a modern AR. A machine shop capable of making a full auto receiver from scratch would certainly have the tools to convert one, but you can't McGyver a modern AR into a full-auto gun any more easily than you can a Mini-14 or a 10/22.

Again, get it through your head that we own AR's because they are the most accurate, most user-configurable small-caliber centerfire semiautos on the market, period. I used to own a Ruger Mini-14 that was functionally the same as an AR, but I sold it an bought an AR because the latter is far more accurate, more durable, easier to work on, more comfortable to shoot, and doesn't require major gunsmithing to customize. I can switch from a 1x red dot for IPSC style competition, to a magnified scope for 500-yard paper punching, in like 30 seconds. I can drop a .22 rimfire adapter in it and shoot .22LR, or I can pop two pins and swap on a larger caliber upper, as long as the overall length fits the small magazine well. And when not in use, it sits in the safe as a decent small-caliber stand-in for a 12-gauge. Not many guns are that versatile.

[blueridge3210]

34. Wow.

That's got to be the first page and a half post I've read in a long time that was fact based instead of a series of snarky put downs and one liners. It was also very informative; I learned some new, interesting material by reading it. Well done, sir. Well done.

[DonP]

36. Good to have you back Ben

[benEzra]

37. It's good to be back! Had some life events that took priority for a while, but all is good. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. good to see you

glad you're back

[jimmy the one]

41. peruse jeremiah johnson's wound ballistics

ezra: I'm still not following you here. All target shooting and all humane small game hunting at any significant distance requires precision, and I'm not sure how you get from there to your shooting-soldiers fantasy...

The shooting tyrannical soldiers fantasy belongs in the 2nd amendment mythology's armed fantasy doctrine, not mine. And gee, how all those varmints get plinked in the past using 22 shorts & longs?
.. I think you're lying & you followed me fine, you're just trying to wiggle out of your false premises, shifting focus by combining points into one bunch of hokum. Ok then, I'll repeat your post again: ..about the only time an AR owner would need to be able to hit a playing card at 200 yds would be if he was shooting at 'tyrannical US soldiers'"
... You left the adjective 'tyrannical' off 'US soldiers', false premise on your part. Then you used the false premise to create another one, asking if AR owners care more about shooting them, when I didn't suggest that; I said about the only time an AR's precision would be needed in America would be when the tyrannical govt takes over, you didn't hear?

I guess you haven't been able to come up with a link supporting this,eh? ezra: ... since AR's are the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, dominate centerfire target shooting, and are the most common civilian HD rifle;
By that do you mean most common by plurality? the way you worded it is ambiguous. A singular plurality might be 15% using all rifles. IE- the most popular firearm to commit suicide is the 22 caliber, true; misleading since about 20% of suicide is done with a 22, so 80% of suicides are done by larger calibers.

ezra: Birdshot is great if you are assaulted by a determined duck, but against humans beyond contact distance, birdshot typically creates shallow, disfiguring-but-not-incapaciting wounds, which is why LE agencies prohibit using it. Ask Dick Cheney's hunting friend, or peruse the LE wound-ballistics literature.

Oh please; I didn't know you were wanting to draw & quarter the guy with your pump, is that overkill really necessary? You just give your side of the double edged sword anyway. For most all intents & purposes birdshot is suitable for home defense & less hazardous to other members of the family in adjacent rooms, than buck or .223, which might penetrate steel helmets after it goes thru drywall.

my blogger support, perdone his awful spelling: Birdshot vs. Buckshot for home defense... I prefer birdshot in my shotgun. In a defensive sitituation your more than likely going to be in a hall or small room. Probally less than 7 yerds. The birdshot has plenty of power to get the job done. You don't have to worry about over penetration like you do with buckshot. This is really great, espically if you live in an apartment or have a wife and kids in the next room. http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/-firing-line/birdshot-vs-buckshot-home-defense
.....from texasfirst ..Some poor fella just killed a guy he THOUGHT was stealing his mama's palm trees down here in south texas with a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Now they've got him for murder, and though castle laws are TOUGH in Texas, this guy is in serious trouble. I'm a former Marine grunt with a family ranch to look after... If that poor fella had had two loads of birdshot loaded first, he coulda gotten his point across without killing anybody. But when there's a nutjob INSIDE your house, whatever will do the job without any blue-on-blue. SITUATION ALWAYS DICTATES. I keep a couple birdshot shells in and the rest buckshot..
..... i would go with bird shot, lower penetration because your kid may be on the other side of that wall
.. peruse jeremial Johnson's wound ballistics:

-- about 50 seconds into it.

[benEzra]

45. I did. First, the birdshot/buckshot/hollowpoint question.

Like I said, much beyond grappling distance, birdshot---and the lightest .223 hollowpoints, like 40-grain Federal Blitz---produce shallow wounds that are gruesome but not usually disabling unless you get lucky, which is why law enforcement no longer uses birdshot *or* 40-grain .223 loads.

At arms length or grappling distance, yes, birdshot can be devastating. But as the range increases, the shot exits the shot cup and begins to spread, and once it ceases to overlap much, it no longer penetrates much more than a pellet gun would. Still lethal on birds and squirrels, but causing only bad surface wounds for humans or deer-sized animals. That cutoff is somewhere between 5ish and 20 yards, depending on shot size, choke, barrel length, and whatnot.

Mr. Johnson's test was close to a best-case scenario: a long-barreled shotgun, across-the-room distance rather than down a hallway, and he is assuming the assailant is facing him straight on, upright, and arms at the sides, the only circumstance in which 6" of penetration (optimistically, it may be 3" with some loads) has a chance of reaching anything vital. Turn that assailant sideways like he's shooting at you or lunging at you with a knife, or put a big bicep across the chest, and not a single one of those tiny pellets would reach anything immediately incapacitating. Back the range up to 12 or 15, and the combination of shot spread and deceleration put you on the edge of the Dick Cheney Friend Zone. Here's a pic of a no. 5 (heavyish) birdshot pattern at 12 yards, the distance down my short hallway into my living room, and the shot has already spread too much to penetrate.

[img][/img]

Don't take my word for it; here's a site that publishes a lot of material by the International Wound Ballistics Association, closely linked to Dr. Martin Fackler:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm

Birdshot, because of its small size, does not have the mass and sectional density to penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach and damage critical blood distribution organs. Although birdshot can destroy a great volume of tissue at close range, the permanent crush cavity is usually less than 6 inches deep, and this is not deep enough to reliably include the heart or great blood vessels of the abdomen. A gruesome, shallow wound in the torso does not guarantee a quick stop, especially if the bad guy is chemically intoxicated or psychotic. If the tissue crushed by the pellets does not include a vital cardiovascular structure there's no reason for it to be an effective wound.

Many people load their shotguns with birdshot, usually #6 shot or smaller, to minimize interior wall penetration. Number 6 lead birdshot, when propelled at 1300 fps, has a maximum penetration depth potential of about 5 inches in standard ordnance gelatin. Not all of the pellets penetrate this deeply however; most of the shot will penetrate about 4 inches.
...
Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. A standard 2 ¾-inch 12 gauge shotshell contains 16 pellets of #1 buck.

More people saying the same thing:

http://shootershaven.com/defensive-shotgun-ammo-frequently-asked-questions-faq/
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-22-20-gauge-shotgun/

http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/26973/buckshot-vs-birdshot/

(Birdshot) would likely prove a bad guy’s demise at this close proximity (the Remington load packs about 1,400 ft.-lbs. at the muzzle). Note, however, how wide their patterns are already on a 12-inch target. Such patterns are already less likely than buckshot to deliver all of their energy to the bad guy’s vitals, and the disparity will only increase with distance. Averaging about 172 ft.-lbs. at the muzzle, an individual 00 buckshot pellet hits harder than a .32 ACP handgun round—just one or two delivered to an intruder would cause him to second-guess his vocation. An average No. 7 1/2 birdshot pellet, however, packs just 4 ft.-lbs. of energy. Therefore, to be effective for home defense, it’s imperative for birdshot to impact the target in a highly concentrated pattern.

If you choose to use birdshot in your shotgun, that's great; heck, if you had a semiauto or pump with a deep magazine (like the semiauto with extended mag that Mr. Johnson uses in the video), maybe heavy birdshot or 40-grain .223 hollowpoint would be a rational choice to limit penetration (say if you lived in a trailer in close proximity to other trailers, or an apartment with only drywall between you and your neighbors), as long as you were aware of their limitations. For typical suburban houses, a shotgun load or .223 load that comes closer to the FBI penetration standard of 12" is probably a better choice while still minimizing the risk of overpenetration/exits---say, no. 4 buckshot, or .223 55-grain hollowpoint/softpoint (my choice), or lightweight 9mm, though of those three the .223 will probably penetrate the least.

@jimmytheone: ".223, which might penetrate steel helmets after it goes thru drywall."

You're confusing civilian .223 hollowpoint with military full-metal-jacket ammo. Lightweight civilian .223 hollowpoints don't penetrate much in drywall because they tend to destabilize and disintegrate in the first wall (combination of high velocity, very high rpm, and fragile bullet construction. See the Police Marksman article I mentioned upthread, or the drywall test I posted. And even if you are shooting a shotgun using birdshot or a .22 short, you had better not be shooting in the direction of your kids behind a couple of interior walls; your kids should either be behind you or you had darn well better watch your angles. Remember Rule Four applies here, and not just to your kids' bedrooms; also be aware of windows and the layout of your neighborhood, and for safety's sake put a light on any gun you can't operate one handed.

(quoted by @jimmytheone: "If that poor fella had had two loads of birdshot loaded first, he coulda gotten his point across without killing anybody."

Ummm, no. Shooting birdshot at somebody that isn't an imminent to kill or maim you or commit a forcible felony on you will get you thrown in prison. If you aren't justified in using buckshot, you aren't justified in shooting, period, so hold your fire.

As to your other points:

@jimmytheone: "And gee, how all those varmints get plinked in the past using 22 shorts & longs?"

By people using the older .22 centerfires (at least since the 1920s), not .22 shorts and longs. Specifically, .218 Bee, .22 Hornet (archetype of the breed), .220 Swift, .222 Remington (ancestor of .223), or .22-250. The .22 rimfires (short, long, and long rifle) aren't really ideal for small game past 75 yards or so. .22 magnum rimfire can stretch that by another 50-75 yards, but to humanely hunt small game at 200 or more, you need a centerfire.

@jimmytheone: "I said about the only time an AR's precision would be needed in America would be when the tyrannical govt takes over, you didn't hear? "

Yes, I heard that loud and clear, and I think the idea that "the only reason a civilian needs an accurate .22-caliber rifle is to go to war against the gubmint" is hilarious. Sort of like saying "the only reason a civilian needs a car that handles well is to outrun the cops".

You need an AR's or bolt-action's precision if you are trying to hit a 1.9-inch X-ring of a 200 yard rifle target or the 6-inch X-ring of a 600-yard target. Or if you are trying to ring a steel target at 500 or 800 yards. Or if you are trying to break the clay disks you laid against the base of the berm. Or if you are trying to win a shooting match. Or if you are trying to humanely kill a prairie dog at 200+ yards. Even at closer range, remember that *any* degree of mechanical inaccuracy makes your shooting less accurate. If the best you can do is hold on a 2" circle at 100 yards due to the physical limits of your eyes or your muscles, an inaccurate rifle will make you shoot 4" groups or worse, because errors are additive.

If it's long-range capability that bothers you, a .270, .30-06, 7mm Remington Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, or .338 Lapua makes .223 look like the small caliber it is. The 7mm has more energy at 500 yards, and the .338 has more energy at *1600* yards, than the AR-15 has at 1 yard. FYI, the U.S. military uses scoped bolt-action Remington 700's in .308 and .300 Winchester Magnum for really long range shooting, not .22's, but in most cases the military goes to crew-served weapons and air support for long range anyway.

[jimmy the one]

46. iwba

ezra: Don't take my word for it; here's a site that publishes a lot of material by the International Wound Ballistics Association, closely linked to Dr. Martin Fackler:

Closely linked for sure, I think Fackler was the head of IWBA at one time or another, retired army surgeon now; one of the few gunnuts I respect. 'Treat the wound not the bullet that caused it'. I've seen many of his w-ballistic charts & read some of his briefs both in iwba & elsewhere.
There's a guy on here called squee I think, member of jpfo, ever heard of it/them, son of ezra?
Do you live in a dangerous neighborhood? most all civilians using shotguns for home defense I doubt would be that interested in using their sg to kill, rather than just deter. Are you watching too many 'lethal weapon' movies? Buckshot is fine for certain circumstances if you're certain someone is gunning for you, but I think birdshot is better & safer for most practical home defense applications.

ezra: Shooting birdshot at somebody that isn't an imminent to kill or maim you or commit a forcible felony on you will get you thrown in prison. If you aren't justified in using buckshot, you aren't justified in shooting, period, so hold your fire.

I think it's justified in texas, maybe Oklahoma too, to shoot at someone stealing from your property (maybe at night odd as it sounds). Years ago a Texan/or Oklahoman shot a Mexican chicken thief stealing his prize cockfighting chicken, & wasn't indicted. Compare that malicious brandishing can draw a year in prison, justice not only blind but nuts. Killing a man for chicken theft OK, 79c a lb at safeway.
... I doubt prison time if it's a bona fide threat & someone fires a warning shot; that's just a maximum penalty in the law to prevent unscrupulous gun owners from firing their weapons at the slightest provocation & then claiming they fired a warning shot in self defense, when there was really no serious threat to them to begin with. Warning shots shouldn't be absolute illegal, & shooting to wound should be accepted policy.
... and, why then did gun guru gary kleck list some of his dgu's (defensive gun uses), as warning shots? twenty-two percent of his dgu's involved the 'gun being fired', less 14% the gun being fired at somebody - & since he clearly adds that these were not just warning shots, the inference is that warning shots were included in the 22% totals:

KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47% involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot ; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155017

ezra: ..the brain and heart/lungs of a prairie dog are no bigger than a playing card; their whole body is, what, 9-12" excluding the tail.

Hitting it solid anywhere, but the tail & clipping it, will likely kill it whether by a 22 short or .223. The .223 likely kill it 'more often' ergo 'more humanely' overall, but still no guarantee any bullet would prevent a lingering death.

[benEzra]

49. More thoughts...

"Do you live in a dangerous neighborhood?"

No, and IIRC the town nearest me has only had one murder in the last few years. On the other hand, there were two home invasions within a block of my former residence in the space of two months a few years ago. Both were driven off by armed homeowners, as I recall, with no fatalities.

I don't expect a kitchen fire, either, but I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Fires are exceedingly unlikely, but if you're going to have an extinguisher at all, it'd be pretty foolish to choose one that won't put out a grease fire in the exceedingly unlikely event you have one, wouldn't it?

"most all civilians using shotguns for home defense I doubt would be that interested in using their sg to kill, rather than just deter."

As am I, and as are almost all civilians using *any* gun for defense of home.

Deterrence works in most cases, which is why most defensive gun uses involve no shots fired. My dad had a "save" with a pistol in the early 1970s, when I was a child; the two would-be assailants saw he was armed, backed off, and left. Best possible outcome for all concerned.

But if deterrence fails---as it will with the most dangerous of assailants---the gun had darn well better be loaded with something incapacitating, while also minimizing downrange hazard as the situation requires. That's why civilian LE doesn't use birdshot or .22LR, and why any civilian homeowner who *does* use it should be very familiar with its limitations (i.e., take shots very close, don't assume the first few shells will stop the attack, and ideally use something with a deep magazine).

"Buckshot is fine for certain circumstances if you're certain someone is gunning for you, but I think birdshot is better & safer for most practical home defense applications."

Out of curiosity, what make/model of defensive shotgun do you use, and what size birdshot do you load it with? Have you patterned at the distance of the longest shot in your home?

For you, birdshot may be a fine choice, especially if you are primarily a shotgunner. For me, I have 26 years' experience shooting .223 carbines, including a bit of IPSC style competition shooting in the last decade, and far less shooting shotguns. I also have seen enough of the wound ballistics literature to know that I wouldn't trust anything less than #4 buckshot at in-home distances and #1 buckshot outside.

But the nice thing is that it's a free country, so you're free to choose a shotgun with birdshot if that works for you, and I'm free to choose a small-caliber non-automatic carbine with low-penetration hollowpoints if that works for me. Live and let live, and all that.

"I think it's justified in texas, maybe Oklahoma too, to shoot at someone stealing from your property (maybe at night odd as it sounds)."

Still a phenomenally bad idea unless your life or your family's lives somehow depend on the property being stolen, IMO, and the guy you cited wasn't justifiable under that standard, was he?

My point is, if you are not justified in shooting someone with buckshot, you are not justified in shooting, period. If you are in a situation in which you can legally shoot with birdshot or a .22 Short, then buckshot and .223 JHP are on the same legal footing. You can't use any of them outside those circumstances.

"Hitting it solid anywhere, but the tail & clipping it, will likely kill it whether by a 22 short or .223. The .223 likely kill it 'more often' ergo 'more humanely' overall, but still no guarantee any bullet would prevent a lingering death."

Call me sentimental, then, but in my opinion, if you can't make a humane shot on the animal, you shouldn't shoot at all. I am not even a hunter at the moment, but I have no use for people who gut-shoot or limb-wound animals and let them die slow, painful deaths. And if I do take up hunting (GF's son is trying to talk me into getting my license and going with him on a deer hunt), I will use an accurate rifle a whole lot more powerful than .223, and will not take iffy shots. (Since you brought up movies, I think that scene in Avatar got the hunting ethos right, FWIW.)

So, again, the canard that "accurate rifles aren't needed for hunting or target shooting, just combat" is precisely backwards. You need *more* accuracy to humanely kill a groundhog or hit an X-ring than an average soldier would typically use in combat. Which is why the military's acceptance standard for the M16/M4 with M193/M855 was 4 MOA accuracy, even though civilian AR's will shoot better than 2 MOA with that ammo and 1 MOA is easily achievable.

[jimmy the one]

47. tyrannical gubmint as defined by nra

I wrote: "But capable of being converted to full auto right? with a conversion kit or simple tools, like a flat file."
.. ezra: Nope. Per the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Hughes Amendment to McClure-Volkmer 1986 {FOPA}, any gun easily convertible to full auto is a full auto for the purposes of the law.

I didn't say 'easily' converted, why do people think I say 'easily'? Reread, all I said was 'capable' with a conversion kit or simple tools. You can escape jail with a hacksaw blade, but it's not easy.

ezra: That's why there are no civilian semiautos that fire from an open bolt, because those guns can be converted to full autos with a file, as you state .. all post-1986 AR's have different receiver geometry than M16s, specifically to prevent them from being able to use M16 fire-control parts or being easily converted to full auto, and all those pre-1986 conversion kits made for the then-lawful registered NFA market won't fit a modern AR. A machine shop capable of making a full auto receiver from scratch would certainly have the tools to convert one...

Here's a thread this was recently gone thru, click on link, then 'view all', read what you want, let me know your op:
(another recent thread): What is an ARFA Kit The ARFA Kit contains all of the materials necessary to make the parts that will convert a Bushmaster AR-15 (or other AR-15 with similar specs) from semi-auto to full-auto.
The ARFA Kit includes the following:
•Completed Bolt Carrier Group Counter Weight and detailed instructions for installing the completed part.
•Mostly completed material necessary to make a Trigger Control Group Travel Reducer and detailed instructions for making the last and final bend to make the completed part. The instructions include a diagram and layout that can be used to determine when the part has been formed correctly. (Because the part is not completed until you make the final bend in the metal, using a pair of pliers, the kit, as-sold, is legal to own.) To make the completed part, you will need a pair of pliers. 8" Lineman Pliers work well.
You don't have to modify anything on the firearm itself. There are two parts. The first attaches to the bolt carrier group. The second simply drops into the lower receiver. They sell it in kit form and it is legal because you have to make one final bend in one of the pieces of metal. Once you do that, you better keep one of them hidden. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153566

ezra:I think the idea that "the only reason a civilian needs an accurate .22-caliber rifle is to go to war against the gubmint" is hilarious.

I wrote 'about the only time'; So then do you solemnly swear to disavow wayne lapierre & his hilarious 2nd amendment take on tyrannical govts?

DURBIN: Mr. LaPierre ... Your NRA members say, " It's not just about hunting. It's not just about sports. It's not just about shooting targets. It's not just about defending ourselves from criminals,".. "We need the firepower and the ability to protect ourselves from our government--from our government, from the police--if they knock on our doors and we need to fight back." Do you agree with that point of view?
LAPIERRE: Nra vice pres for life: Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our founding fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/lapierre-reveals-true-pur_b_2614348.html

What better rifle to accomplish this than assault rifles which are full auto military clones (semi mode)?

LaPierre isn't seeking to use his organization's political muscle to restore this funding. Instead, his formula for securing communities is the activation of neighborhood militias. Referring to the current situation in Egypt, LaPierre stated, "Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment is outdated had better take a look at what is happening in Egypt right now." His takeaway from the revolution is an idyllic fantasy about "[armed] citizens coming together, in the face of lawlessness, to protect their neighborhoods." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/in-wake-of-tucson-nra-adv_b_823275.html

[benEzra]

50. That's a pretty obvious scam, unless it's a BATFE sting.

"They sell it in kit form and it is legal because you have to make one final bend in one of the pieces of metal. Once you do that, you better keep one of them hidden."

That seems to me to be a pretty obvious scam, unless it's a BATFE sting. Under BATFE "constructive possession" rules, possession of that kit, if it worked as advertised, would constitute possession of an unregistered machinegun (10-year Federal felony) since the resulting collection of parts would be "readily restorable to full auto" under the NFA as defined by the BATFE, and would hence fall under Title II of the law. It doesn't matter if some trivial operation is left uncompleted; it would be just as illegal as a semiauto that fires from an open bolt, and for exactly the same reason.

So the only reasons I see that it's still in operation are (1) it doesn't work, but nobody can complain that it doesn't work because then they'd have to admit to attempting a 10-year Federal felony, or (2) it does work but the BATFE is on it. Otherwise, call your local BATFE office and have them shut it down under the National Firearms Act.

BTW, you said "with a file" in your previous post. That was referencing filing down the sear on a pre-1986 open-bolt semiauto, and all of those were reclassified as Title II restricted machineguns under in 1986.

benEzra: "I think the idea that 'the only reason a civilian needs an accurate .22-caliber rifle is to go to war against the gubmint' is hilarious."

jimmytheone: "I wrote 'about the only time'"

OK, so you think "about the only reason a civilian needs an accurate .22-caliber rifle is to go to war against the government."

So, in your view, accuracy is almost never a prerequisite for shooting 1.9" circles at 200+ yards or 6" circles at 600 yards, and in your view accuracy is almost never a prerequisite for humanely shooting small animals at long range.

What do *you* do when target shooting with inaccurate rifles, then...do you use the Force to guide your bullets? Whereas we non-Jedi have to, you know, aim them, and the achievable group size regardless of ammo choice can never be smaller than the random error introduced by the rifle itself.

In other words, for serious target shooting or humane small-game hunting, accuracy is not optional, it is mandatory. You can make noise with anything, but to hit things you'll need something accurate.

FWIW, I'm wrapping up here so I can take my GF's son, cousins, and my daughter to the range. We'll be shooting a couple of 9mm S&W pistols (evil semiautos, ya know), my civilian AR (evil semiauto), a Remington .22 squirrel rifle (another evil semiauto), and an actual weapon of war, the only bolt-action I currently own. The latter has a 109-year-old receiver and a 72-year-old barrel, and will shoot a playing card at 200 yards, too.

[jimmy the one]

56. 74% on the plus side, the unfake side

ezra: Out of curiosity, what make/model of defensive shotgun do you use, and what size birdshot do you load it with? Have you patterned at the distance of the longest shot in your home?

I don't have any guns anymore, gunfree about 15 years now; the sg I used to have was s&w 12ga, 5pump, which I only ever used to shoot skeet, been so long I can't recollect the type birdshot, & never measured any patterns, tho it did have the choke. Didn't hunt, home defense was only a distant consideration.

ezra: That seems to me to be a pretty obvious scam, unless it's a BATFE sting.

It gets a moderately safe rating, far from 'hi risk', & updated from 68 to 74 (click full review... hah, seems it might've updated exactly when I was logged on since it now reads 74 on both): Is arfakit.com a fake site ? Is arfakit.com legit and trustworthy ? .... How did arfakit.com get a Trust Score of 68%? When checking arfakit.com we looked at many factors, such as the ownership details, location, popularity and other sites relating to reviews, threats, phishing etc. Although a site like may have a high trust rating, it's worth just checking the countries involved as these could indicate that goods would be shipped from abroad rather than your home country. http://www.scamadviser.com/is-arfakit.com-a-fake-site.html
Notes:-The owner of the website is using a service to hide their identity {duh, surprising??) This website is 1 Years old Analysis Details:- Although being a new website, does not make it un-trustworthy, as with any new business you should be extra vigilant and do your own research before placing an order or making an investment. This site is using an anonymous service - which prevents us from identifying the site owner. This can sometimes be just so that the owner does not receive spam, but be aware that many scam sites use this as a method to hide their identify. If this is an ecommerce site - we would suggest you confirm the business address with the website owners.

this progunny doesn't call it fake: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/long-guns-discussion/39347-arfa-kit.html

ezra: so you think "about the only reason a civilian needs an accurate .22-caliber rifle is to go to war against the government." .. in your view, accuracy is almost never a prerequisite for shooting 1.9" circles at 200+ yards or 6" circles at 600 yards, and in your view accuracy is almost never a prerequisite for humanely shooting small animals at long range.

Those things are superficial, in spite of your protestations; doesn't matter much who wins the target shoot, of if you hit or miss the prairie dog, not life or death sitches. Kinda like football & lotsa things in america, what diff does it make who wins the superbowl?

ezra: What do *you* do when target shooting with inaccurate rifles, then...do you use the Force to guide your bullets? Whereas we non-Jedi have to,

Never saw that movie or series, star trek? anyhow, I did ok with skeet, caught on quickly; qualified in Annapolis shooting range as navy marksman (noncomm) with 45 pistol, first time I ever shot for badge (& last time too, only time), but they're what, 50 yard targets or slt, & navy issue (for a couple hours). Fighting against tyrranical soldiers who have similar rifles is indeed about the only time I can see where precision assault rifles would be 'needed', to far right gunners.

ezra: Under BATFE "constructive possession" rules, possession of that kit, if it worked as advertised, would constitute possession of an unregistered machinegun (10-year Federal felony) since the resulting collection of parts would be "readily restorable to full auto" under the NFA as defined by the BATFE, and would hence fall under Title II of the law. It doesn't matter if some trivial operation is left uncompleted; it would be just as illegal as a semiauto that fires from an open bolt, and for exactly the same reason.

Regardless, it makes it capable of being converted to full auto, as I contended. Of course the predominance of assault rifle owners don't even want full auto nor would take it if a gift, waste of ammo & expense, but that's really beside my point in that the conversion ability makes for another qualification as to what the TERM assault rifle has come to mean.

[benEzra]

57. So how inaccurate do civilian rifles need to be to be allowed?

"I did ok with skeet, caught on quickly; qualified in Annapolis shooting range as navy marksman (noncomm) with 45 pistol, first time I ever shot for badge (& last time too, only time), but they're what, 50 yard targets or slt, & navy issue (for a couple hours)."

So how inaccurate do civilian rifles need to be in order for target shooters and hunters to be "allowed" to own them?

"Fighting against tyrranical soldiers who have similar rifles is indeed about the only time I can see where precision assault rifles would be 'needed', to far right gunners."

We're talking about the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in U.S. homes, and you know it. Specifically civilian centerfire .22's like the AR and Mini-14, in the hands of civilian homeowners, target shooters, and small game hunters, not military weapons.

You also know that rifles are the least misused of all weapons in the United States.

The Mini-14 is specifically referenced by Dianne Feinstein as "particularly suitable for sporting purposes"...but you seem to be saying that accurate civilian autoloaders shouldn't be allowed. So I guess that would ban the AR and the Mini-14 Target, but not the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.

Or would you allow .223 autoloaders allowed to be accurate if they have stainless steel receivers and nonadjustable wooden stocks instead of aluminum receivers and adjustable polymer stocks?

And if you were really former military, you'd know that asymmetric long-range engagements in a military or paramilitary context would use sniper rifles like the M24 or M40, not the M4. Which are, of course, accurized bolt-actions in hunting calibers. Although the gun control lobby wants to ban accurate bolt-actions too, so at least you're consistent in that regard, I suppose...

"Regardless, it makes it capable of being converted to full auto, as I contended. Of course the predominance of assault rifle owners don't even want full auto nor would take it if a gift, waste of ammo & expense, but that's really beside my point in that the conversion ability makes for another qualification as to what the TERM assault rifle has come to mean."

All civilian repeating weapons can be converted to full auto. Bolt-actions, lever-actions, and semiautos can all be converted with add-on machined parts and a little rework, and have.

The key criterion for whether a gun is classified under Title 1 (civilian) or Title 2 (restricted) under the National Firearms Act is how much machining is needed to make those add-on parts. Post-1986 AR's are made to be as difficult to convert to full auto as a Mini-14, a 10/22, or any other civilian semiautomatic.

And those drop-in parts are themselves restricted as machineguns under the National Firearms Act, are a 10-year Federal felony to possess outside of police/military/government, and are aggressively prosecuted via stings and undercover operations. Even the mere allegation of manufacturing or possessing illegal conversion parts (for an AR, or a Mini-14, or a 10/22, or a Remington 7400 deer rifle, doesn't matter) are investigated and prosecuted with extreme prejudice.

The "conversion to full auto" canard is a red herring to cover for your real agenda, e.g. to ban the most popular autoloading rifles in U.S. homes. I can't think of a single murder that has ever been committed with a converted post-1986 AR, and I suspect the number is quite close to (if not exactly) zero.

It's not illegal full-autos you're after, and it's not M4gerys in the hands of some tiny fringe minority posing for the media in the woods. It's people like me, and the rifle in my gun safe, that you are after. But thankfully it's still a free country, and I can choose for myself. If you don't like AR's, don't own one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. "The "conversion to full auto" canard is a red herring to cover for your real agenda". Indeed

They've been banging on about it for months, as seen in this and subsequent posts
in the following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172153957#post9


No different from the idjits gassing about how 'ISIL/Ebola will be coming across
the border ANY DAY NOW!'

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Not much different from "Louisiana bars Ebola researchers from conference"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014937289

[jimmy the one]

42. I don't smoke

ezra: My point is that the commentators panning lever-actions as worthless antiques far less capable than semiautos are wrong; they were developed as combat weapons, after all, and are capable of delivering a comparable rate of aimed fire to a .30 caliber semiauto... If you could magically outlaw all semiautomatics, detachable-magazine lever-actions or pump-actions can deliver a comparable rate of effective fire,

Effective fire would suffer, since the recoil from a lever action would necessitate reaim more than a semi with same caliber bullet. When comparing a lever with the AR15, I think an order of magnitude slower could indeed be correct. An ar15 has such little recoil a strong guy could likely shoot it like a pistol braced on his shoulder. With such little recoil AR15 shooter can get off more effective shots to target than a lever (per time). I'd guess the Canadian lever action approx. 150gr bullet, while .223 about 55 -60, so more effective shots per minute due less recoil due ligher bullet. You're so concerned with precision how you neglect that consideration? Small guy lanza didn't need worry about recoil at newtown.
.. and the musket was designed as a combat weapon, & the henry circa civil war was a combat weapon, they've become relatively outdated as combat weapons.

ezra: .. could magically outlaw all semiautomatics (which hasn't even happened in England; Google "BR-99&quot ,

OK I did, evidently a shotgun legal in England, what else is new? sg's are indeed legal in England with proper documentation, there might be a hunting restriction. A proper comparison is by per capita, relative frequency & severity of weapon/ammo. With approx. 3 million firearms in UK, there just isn't the threat that exists in America with 100 times that (note 3 million is approx. the same amount or firearms in all of Switzerland with ~8 million peeps, UK ~60mill.)
..I'm surprised tho, 20 rd mags: Brand New Bora Barak BR99 Box Fed Shotguns.. These tactical shotguns .. £499.00 they include 2 five rd magazines (20 round mags available for £39.50 each).. www.gunstar.co.uk/bora-barak-br99-12-bore-gauge-shotgun-for-sale-in-west-susse/Shotguns/687652#OCCMVy3hAKPhsmHC.99

.. waita minute on the UK 20 rd mags, they're 'may issue' policy: wiki, UK: Shotguns Single-barrelled, double-barrelled shotguns, or those with a lever-action or, pump-action, or semi-automatic and fixed magazine capacity of no more than three (2 in the magazine and one in the chamber) cartridges are permitted on a Shotgun Certificate. Shotguns with a detachable magazine or larger fixed magazine are permitted on a Section 1 Firearms Certificate. Certain types of shotgun ammunition, such as rifled slugs and larger shot sizes can only be bought following the grant of an FAC (firearms certificate). >>> To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Shotguns

ezra: if you think rifle ownership has dropped, you are smoking something. Look at the BATFE rifle sales stats from 1994 to present, and the shotgun/rifle ratio in particular.. the hard sales figures don't lie.

The hard sales figures don't reflect personal or household gun ownership rates; What has transpired regarding guns as a whole is that more existing gun owners are buying more guns, as reflected by a recent stat I saw where guns per American has risen from ~5 up to 6.5 or so - like the 20/80 rule where fans are 20% of the people & buy 80% of the fetish. Gun ownership rates have indeed gone down. Dunno why rifles would be immune to the 'hoarding', maybe 100 million?:

[gejohnston]

44. one of your sidekicks did a preemptive debunking

on the poll results. See post 29
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172154964#post29

[Electric Monk]

22. Speaking of accuracy, in the video you posted (#5) they are often only just hitting the pond. nt

[benEzra]

24. Quite so. But they can reacquire the sights during cycling,

so aiming wouldn't slow them down significantly beyond what they are already doing. A semiauto can make noise faster, sure, but if you compare aimed fire to aimed fire with comparable sighting systems, the difference between lever, pump, and semiauto is not as large as one might think. Hence my point that a tube-magazine lever-action's primary handicap relative to later designs is the reloading, not the rate of aimed fire.

(And yes, they do make detachable-magazine lever-action and pump-action rifles, but tube magazines dominate the lever-gun market due to tradition, I suppose.)

[Straw Man]

9. Curtis Rutt is an idiot.

"If he knew anything about this weapon, he knew it would be a one-way trip," said Curtis Rutt, a former Canadian paratrooper and Ontario police sergeant who trained young officers.

"That's not a weapon that you would take to a gunfight and hope that you would ever return."

Rutt said the firearm would be a terrible option in such a situation, since it only holds seven rounds, must be reloaded one bullet at a time and requires the lever to be pulled down before each shot.

He was going to die regardless of what weapon he had. Otherwise, lone gunmen would be bringing down governments all over the world.

Holds only seven rounds? That's two more than Canada allows for semi-auto rifles, and a lever action is one of the fastest manual actions there is, second only to a pump. Furthermore, centerfire rifles with tubular magazines, such as that lever action, can be "topped off" with single rounds very easily, meaning that as long as the shooter has a pocketful of cartridges and a second or two pause, the rifle never has to run out.

The rate of fire? Positively glacial ....

[ileus]

10. I graduated from a lever action to a semi auto in 1984.

I sure wish I had that same Marlin 336 chambered in 35 Remington back.


But the good news is if I want the same ballistics I can buy a 300 blackout upper for my AR. That's the great thing about living in America, we're retained some of our 2A rights. I've been wanting a 6.8 instead of the 300 just so I could retain the 400yd option just in case that Whitetail or Coyote present the perfect opportunity.

Now's not the time to sit back and let the regressives drive the 2A conversation in America. If they'll agree to strip one basic right from you what others will they ultimately cave into giving up if pressured by their leaders?

[jimmy the one]

17. parliamentary lock box

elec monk: Good thing he didn't have a semi-auto with 30 round detachable magazines, or things might have turned out much worse.

Certainly, but to listen to some of the foaming gunnuts you'd think he was as armed as Rambo, &/or could've been;
.. & note that the guard who shot him was not carrying, he retrieved his pistol from a lock box:

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau ... shot a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial then proceeded to the Parliament. There, Zehaf-Bibeau, armed with a .30-30 Winchester lever action rifle shot a security guard in the foot, and entered the Hall of Honor. It was in this area that Vickers, armed with a pistol retrieved from a lockbox, engaged Zehaf-Bibeau, killing him. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338619/-Kevin-Vickers-Was-Not-Carrying-A-Gun?detail=email#

Demonstrates a big general difference between American gun policy & Canadian gun policy, & the after-affects thereof.
.. Canadian gun control makes it more difficult to obtain the killing potential that exists in America.

[gejohnston]

18. actually, it doesn't

he could have just as easily obtained some kind of AR or other semi automatic, even if he wasn't a convicted felon and had a PAL, which he didn't.
As for after effects, here is a study that says otherwise.
https://www.mediafire.com/view/?lpekoeub268b8af

[jimmy the one]

20. learn what 'actually' means

I wrote: Demonstrates a big general difference between American gun policy & Canadian gun policy, & the after-affects thereof. .. Canadian gun control makes it more difficult to obtain the killing potential that exists in America.

Johnston replied: actually, it doesn't .. he could have just as easily obtained some kind of AR or other semi automatic, even if he wasn't a convicted felon and had a PAL, which he didn't.

What part of 'more difficult' do you not understand? Canadian gun laws make it more difficult to obtain the killing potential that exists in America, from guns. Whether Canadian killer 'could' have gotten an AR is immaterial, it's that it is 'more difficult' to get it in Canada than in America. For several reasons, including local supply.

Johnston: As for after effects, here is a study that says otherwise. http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces

What's this? one of your dazzling links to irrelevant oblivion?
.. where the link is a general link to who knows what other than johnston?
I found nothing whatsoever to a 'study that says otherwise':

Johnston's link 'contends': Welcome! The CCES is a 50,000+ person national stratified sample survey administered by YouGov/Polimetrix. Half of the questionnaire consists of Common Content asked of all 50,000+ peopl

[gejohnston]

21. Canadian laws have nothing to do with it

What part of 'more difficult' do you not understand? Canadian gun laws make it more difficult to obtain the killing potential that exists in America, from guns. Whether Canadian killer 'could' have gotten an AR is immaterial, it's that it is 'more difficult' to get it in Canada than in America. For several reasons, including local supply.

No it doesn't, in fact criminals don't go to gun stores in the US, nor do they go to gun shows. That has been an established fact based on DoJ studies since the 1970s.
As for the link, check it again. It is a study showing that as Canada made their gun laws stricter, it had no effect. BTW, before 1977, he could have purchased a machine gun as easily as the lever action. Perhaps you should make an effort to learn what Canadian gun actually are and what law was enacted when. Actually means "in fact" which you are very short on.

Of course the study (which I accidentally included) was an interesting read, which is in no way of an endorsement on my part.

[jimmy the one]

29. fact check your own links

Johnston: As for the link, check it again. It is a study {by Langmann} showing that as Canada made their gun laws stricter, it had no effect.

I see you're back posting & endorsing rightwing studies made by either gunnuts or opponents of gun control: noted Dr. Langmann’s history of advocating against gun legislation. In 2010, he took a stand against a {physicians} resolution in support of the registry. “The gun registry has hurt and killed people,” wrote Dr. Langmann in a widely circulated May 2010 letter. Dr. Langmann’s Facebook page also notes his membership in the online groups for the National Rifle Association and “Against the Gun Registry.”

And whattayaknow dear readers? Langemann's study found that, surprise surprise, gun control in Canada had no affect. BUT: A Université de Montrèal study published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Justice similarly examined Canadian firearms homicide rates since 1974. The study also factored in external influences such as immigrant populations, the proportion of young men between the ages of 15 and 24 and the per-capita consumption of beer. That study, however, found that Canadian gun legislation was responsible for 5% to 10% drops in firearms homicides.

So go soak your head Johnston, stop posting biased studies from gunnuts & claiming they're fact.

AND: Mr. Langmann’s study also does not cover suicide, which accounts for nearly 3/4 of all firearms-related deaths in Canada... a Quebec Institute of Health study found that male suicide rates declined notably following the introduction of firearms legislation. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/05/gun-control-homicide-rates-not-linked-study/

Johnston: No it {Canadian gun laws & policy) doesn't, in fact criminals don't go to gun stores in the US, nor do they go to gun shows.

DUh, Johnston, u a glutton for punishment: or if it’s being smuggled in from the U.S. or from another country – those are people that aren’t registered to have handguns.” ... in 2011, 60% of gun traces performed led back to U.S. sources, with 70% being handguns. In the first six months of 2012, 55% of gun traces performed led back to U.S. sources, with 75% of those being handguns. “About 70% of the guns we seize are being smuggled into this country, mainly from the United States,” Blair told the crowd when asked about measures being taken to cull the flow of guns into the country. http://www.cp24.com/news/toronto-shootings-stir-handgun-ban-debate-1.968069 .... and it's not confined to Toronto.

Johnston: Perhaps you should make an effort to learn what Canadian gun actually are and what law was enacted when. Actually means "in fact" which you are very short on.

Perhaps you should learn to fact check your own links prior to posting them, in order to avoid foot sticking so much.

[gejohnston]

30. actually, I did check my facts

and once again you throw personal attacks and bullshit.
all you did is attack what you think is the guy's ideology, you did nothing about the substance.
BTW, the crime dropped mostly because of unleaded gas and aging population. The guns used in most crime are pistols, which have been subject to licensing and registration since 1934.

Most suicides in Quebec are hangings and poison. How in the fuck could a gun law affect that?

DUh, Johnston, u a glutton for punishment: or if it’s being smuggled in from the U.S. or from another country – those are people that aren’t registered to have handguns.” ... in 2011, 60% of gun traces performed led back to U.S. sources, with 70% being handguns. In the first six months of 2012, 55% of gun traces performed led back to U.S. sources, with 75% of those being handguns. “About 70% of the guns we seize are being smuggled into this country, mainly from the United States,” Blair told the crowd when asked about measures being taken to cull the flow of guns into the country. http://www.cp24.com/news/toronto-shootings-stir-handgun-ban-debate-1.968069 .... and it's not confined to Toronto.

Which has to do with what? Also, what does Blair base his claim on? It isn't relevant to the discussion.

Once again you continue to use personal attacks, lies, logical fallacies, and plain bullshit. Your word salads are empty of content.

[jimmy the one]

40. j wants hair of the dog

Johnston: Which has to do with what? ... It isn't relevant to the discussion.

I guess I need spoonfeed you on what you wrote. Johnston wrote: Canadian laws have nothing to do with it

Ok Johnston, here's the hard part, comprehension. If, as I wrote: 'Canadian gun control makes it more difficult to obtain the killing potential that exists in America', to which you say 'Canadian laws have nothing to do with it', then why are guns being smuggled from America? why don't they just buy the smuggles legally in Canada? .. prev link: In the first six months of 2012, 55% of gun traces performed led back to US sources, with 75% of those being handguns. “About 70% of the guns we seize are being smuggled into this country, mainly from {USA},” Blair told the crowd when asked about measures being taken to cull the flow of guns into the country. --- sure, they're getting across, but that's more a technical interdiction problem with their 'good friends in america', than their guncontrol laws.

Johnston: .. in fact criminals don't go to gun stores in the US, nor do they go to gun shows.

Some do, you need retract; and potential criminals do, law abiding citz on the brink.

Johnston: actually, I did check my facts and once again you throw personal attacks and bullshit. all you did is attack what you think is the guy's ideology, you did nothing about the substance. BTW, the crime dropped mostly because of unleaded gas and aging population. The guns used in most crime are pistols, which have been subject to licensing and registration since 1934. Most suicides in Quebec are hangings and poison. How in the fuck could a gun law affect that? .. Which has to do with what? Also, what does Blair base his claim on? It isn't relevant to the discussion... Once again you continue to use personal attacks, lies, logical fallacies, and plain bullshit. Your word salads are empty of content.

Wow, jumping thru mental gymnastic hoops, & the broken kettle defense: I didn't break the kettle. I didn't touch the kettle. It was already broke. I was away when it was broke. Somebody else broke it. So it's broke, wasn't worth much. I don't even like kettles.
... You posted rightwing propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, & now try to wiggle out with double double talk talk. You are not interested in a fair portrayal of the gun control issue, you are interested in skewing & distorting the issue as much as possible, so as to mock GC as worthless & pretend you've proven that 'more guns, more better'.
.. Time & again you cite rightwing 'gun studies' & fob them off as factual, disregarding the obvious, transparent spin & profit mongering inherent in the pseudo studies. Almost anything reflecting positive to guncontrol is anathema to you - then you support bg checks as if that exonerates you & makes you a staunch democrat, when even 85% of repubs supported it.
.. Over 75% of Democrats support gun control measures; you are in the party minority on this issue, & you have the unmitigated gall to argue against the dominant dem position by citing prejudiced pseudo studies usually from rightwing authors more intent on making themselves famous & rich via the gun industry.

Johnston: Your word salads are empty of content.

Wanting hair of the dog that bit you, eh? My posts are full of relevant & revealing content, just not the content you & some GN's want to hear.

[gejohnston]

43. That bullshit is not even

worth my time. Actually, your "revealing content" is a treasure trove of logical fallacies and poor writing.

[Eleanors38]

33. With all this "foaming" and "range orgasms," I've been missing out...

when sighting in the deer rifle. No wonder the lighting sucks at indoor ranges.

[DonP]

39. I feel left out - didn't see any orgasms at the range Saturday

We had "Sighting In Day" at our state assn range Saturday. I worked as a RSO and helped with a couple of first time shooters.

Perfect weather, upper 60's, clear and only a slight breeze. For $10 each, you could sight in any rifle, shottie, muzzle loader or handgun at 25, 50, 100 and 200 yards ranges. Targets were supplied and a couple of gunsmiths were on hand to adjust the dovetailed sights on 1911's and solve other short term problems for free. Chili, and soft drinks were provided too.

Over 200 people showed up and contrary to some beliefs, they weren't all "Overweight, middle aged white men".

None of them had "range orgasms" that I could see. But I guess gun control people watch for orgasms more closely than we do. Just like some of them like to collect pictures of concealed carry people's asses in Starbuck's, keep them in the family album and then use them in posts. Seems pretty strange to me but it's their hobby.

But we all had a good laugh, wondering what the gun controllers were doing while we were all out having a good time and meeting new people and savoring a nice Indian Summer day. Now we know the answer, they were probably sitting at their keyboards, typing long pointless rants and spewing spittle on the screens.

[benEzra]

53. I went to the range today, and didn't see any orgasms either.

Despite some really crummy, blustery weather, the range was moderately full on the rifle side, mostly AR's but a few bolt-actions also, a lever-action, and several people with handguns. We only shot at 100 because the wind was so bad we had to sandbag the spotting scope to keep the gusts from blowing it over, and my range bags are drying now from the drizzle, but it was a great day and everyone in our little party had a good time.

[DonP]

54. Must be a lack of "imagination" on our part

Just like they "see" all kinds of neo-nazis, machine gun "kits" and confederate flags at the gun shows they never go to. They imagine all kinds of things about what happens at shooting ranges they never see as well.

All I ever see is all different kinds of people either enjoying themselves and visiting with the folks in the next lane or concentrating on getting their groups tighter.

Meh, their loss.

[jimmy the one]

66. mo on big o

ezra: I went to the range today, and didn't see any orgasms either.
donP: Must be a lack of "imagination" on our part ... They imagine all kinds of things about what happens at shooting ranges they never see as well.

Fantastic, that's totally great that, this time, nobody had a big O - maybe the novelty wearing off?
While it was said metaphorically, I bet some weirdos have actually done it, wanting to shoot their gun off shooting their gun off (clandestinely of course, it would be a lewd or indecent exposure misdemeanor if done in public). Some do it while on atvs (aka wankmobiles), or just about anywhere, sometimes with gunmoll assistance, why not the range?

[DonP]

67. Coiuld you be any less relevant to either the discussion or the issue if you tried?

You're just another gun control "fan" that keeps losing in elections, in court and online and can't see anything in other than derogatory sexual terms.

Why don't you ply your trade in Bansalot or HoF where I'm sure they'll appreciate your word salad and "brilliance".

Nobody else give it any love.

[jimmy the one]

60. most sailors are gunless

We're talking about the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in U.S. homes, and you know it. Specifically civilian centerfire .22's like the AR and Mini-14, in the hands of civilian homeowners, target shooters, and small game hunters, not military weapons.

Not technically military weapons, but the full auto m16 was patterned after the AR15;

ezra: And if you were really former military, you'd know that asymmetric long-range engagements in a military or paramilitary context would use sniper rifles like the M24 or M40, not the M4.

If you were military familiar you'd know the navy does not emphasize riflery nor especially firearm operations/maneuvers as the army & m/c do, I didn't even shoot a rifle in boot camp (but only since I was on a truncated 3 wk boot rather than 3 mos - we only drilled with empty m1 garands (I thinks)); we swab decks & guzzle rum on the high seas, firearms more a danger. I never carried a loaded or unloaded firearm on active dutes, it was ~10 yrs later in active reserves I qual'd. The ships I was on only a few sailors were allowed to carry handguns on watch, mainly quarterdeck when docked & I guess gunners-mate guarding 5" guided projectiles (dd's, de's) &, on fast frigates, sams. Asea I think most always nobody carried a firearm.

ezra: The "conversion to full auto" canard is a red herring to cover for your real agenda, e.g. to ban the most popular autoloading rifles in U.S. homes.

I think they are banned in 7 states where over 25% of americans live (~80 million people generally cannot own asslt rifles).
And you have yet to provide a (reputable please) link contending that ARs are the most popular Home defense firearm, or did you say rifle. This gunguy makes some of my points: Nothing can compare to the 12ga at close range. Even birdshot will tear a human to shreds. You don’t lose much with a 20 ga at close range either,...
.... tho he does contend carbines are best suited for HD, he doesnt' care that much for the ar: what is the best home defense gun? A rifle carbine; .. {6th place} AR Platforms …. the Black Rifle, the hottest selling thing since {Bill Clinton}... prices range from $650.. If you have one, tell us what you like, what you don’t and what you probably should have bought instead, for the benefit of our shooting community. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/15/6-home-defense-carbines-5-are-not-ars/

ezra: It's not illegal full-autos you're after, and it's not M4gerys in the hands of some tiny fringe minority posing for the media in the woods. It's people like me, and the rifle in my gun safe, that you are after.

If it's an assault rifle in your safe, to all of the above I would say generally yes, as being more of a hazard to communities, when other less potent firearms are available to satiate gun mongering.

[benEzra]

61. The Remington 700 and Winchester Model 70 deer rifles...

"Not technically military weapons, but the full auto m16 was patterned after the AR15;"

The Remington 700 and Winchester Model 70 deer rifles are much closer to military sniper rifles than my Rock River AR is to a military M4, as I'm sure you know. The Army's M24 and M40 Sniper Weapon Systems are not just "patterned after" the Remington 700, they are Remington 700's, and the Model 70 was the U.S. Marines' combat sniper rifle in the Vietnam War.

Remington 700 in combat in Afghanistan:


Winchester Model 70 in combat in Vietnam:


And of course the military rifle that all civilian bolt-action deer rifles are based on, the German Mauser infantry rifle, originally designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges but also very good at killing deer and punching holes in paper:

"I think they are banned in 7 states where over 25% of americans live (~80 million people generally cannot own asslt rifles). "

Nope. AR-platform rifles are legal in every state. A handful of states regulate what they can be named, e.g. California bans using the "Colt AR-15" trademark on new guns, and a few regulate what few cosmetic or ergonomic features AR-15 variants and other civilian semiautos can have (e.g. requiring new ones to be fitted with nonadjustable stocks and bare muzzles or integral brakes, or requiring a stock without a separate handgrip), but the AR platform is popular in every state. Californians can even have new AR's with pistol grips and flash suppressors if they swap the regular mag release for a bullet button, and build the rifle or carbine on an off-list lower, or they can buy preban guns if they want to pay the price premium. And of course this straight-stocked AR-15 variant is legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia under any current and proposed bans I'm aware of, since it has a 19th-century-style stock.

FYI, AR's weren't banned at the Federal level 1994-2004 either; they actually rose to their current popularity during (and in part as a result of) the Feinstein non-ban. The Feinstein law just banned use of the trademark "Colt AR-15" for new civilian guns, required that the stocks of new AR-15's be fixed in one position instead of adjustable, and mandated smooth muzzles or integral brakes on new guns instead of flash suppressors. Those restrictions were annoying, but they didn't affect the legality of the AR-15 platform one bit.

I'm sure you are also fully aware that actual assault rifles like the M16/M4 are banned at the Federal level, by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, punishable by 10 years in Federal prison. We are talking about non-automatic Title 1 civilian guns here, guns which the military AFAIK does not use and never has.

"And you have yet to provide a (reputable please) link contending that ARs are the most popular Home defense firearm, or did you say rifle. This gunguy makes some of my points: "

A majority of home-defense firearms are handguns (mostly semiautomatic), with the remainder split between carbines (small rifles) and shotguns. AR's are the most popular home-defense rifle, by far; they are the Winchester .30-30 of my generation. The NSSF has done a few surveys over the years bearing this out, but firearms trainers and institutions consistently report that the overwhelming choice of those purchasing defensive carbine training is the AR, which jives with my own observation. I'm not sure if Gallup or anyone has ever looked at the issue, but I'll see if I have any "neutral third party" polls on the subject. A few years ago I spent several hours going through the BATFE sales stats of defensive-style rifles, and the AR platform outsells the others by 5:1 or more, so make of that what you will.

As to the "gunguy" you quote, I don't know who Michael Piccione is or what his background is, but your endorsement of his recommendations is ironic since he says the "hottest selling" of his recommended defensive rifles is the AR-15, and 4 more of his recommended rifles are "assault weapons" per the Violence Policy Center and work just like the AR.

-- the one he says is "hottest selling" is, yup, the AR-15;
-- the Ruger Mini-14 (a .223 semiauto like the AR that also takes 20- and 30-round magazines)
-- one is a Ruger Mini Thirty (same as a Mini-14 but chambered for the .30-caliber AK-47 round, 7.62x39mm)
-- one is an actual military semiautomatic, the M1 .30 caliber carbine, similar to the Mini-14 and Mini Thirty but chambered for the .30 Carbine cartridge from WW2;
-- the Hi Point carbine that shoots the 9mm pistol cartridge (same as a civilian Uzi) or the .40 S&W pistol cartridge;
-- a .357 lever-action (the model he recommends is no longer in production, but you can still get other models).

He also says the following about carbines vs. shotguns, most of which I agree with:

But what is the best home defense gun? A rifle carbine.

Why? For the most part:

Carbines handle better than shotguns.
Carbines have more power than handguns.
Carbines have a higher magazine capacity than shotguns or handguns.
Carbines have a longer range than shotguns or handguns.
Carbines are more accurate than shotguns or handguns.
Carbines are easier to shoot for family members not so familiar with shotguns and handguns.
Carbines have minimal recoil which enables them to shoot a lot of rounds fast.
Handgun rounds in a carbine are much more powerful and offer a two gun, one cartridge option.

Since you cite him approvingly, are you agreeing with him?

BTW he is correct on the lethality of birdshot only at very close range (near grappling distance, where the shot column has not yet dispersed). A shot down the hallway of even my small home is beyond that range, and I can cite numerous peer reviewed resources in the LE and wound ballistics communities of why birdshot is far less than ideal for defensive purposes beyond that range. But that's ground we've been over multiple times upthread. Stick with birdshot if you choose, but you are in a very small minority in that regard (assuming you actually keep a shotgun loaded in the safe at all).

"If it's an assault rifle in your safe, to all of the above I would say generally yes, as being more of a hazard to communities, when other less potent firearms are available to satiate gun mongering."

It's a non-automatic .22 in my gun safe, not an assault rifle.

What in the name of Isaac Newton makes you think that a non-automatic .22 caliber is more "potent" than a .30 caliber with a 20- or 30-round magazine that you yourself endorse upthread as an alternative to the AR?, especially given that it has the exact same rate of fire? And why do you feel that a class of gun involved in 1-2% of murders is "more of a hazard to communities" than a class of weapon involved in 50% of murders? Do you think an AR-15 fires faster than a pistol or something? Or do you think it is as powerful as a full-on rifle like a .308?

The Ruger Mini-14 that you endorsed and Dianne Feinstein defends fires the same ammunition at the same rate as an AR-15 from the same sized magazines, and has been used in worse mass shootings than any civilian AR ever has. The Mini Thirty that you endorsed as an alternative to the AR fires AK-47 rounds at the same rate of fire as a non-automatic civilian AK-47. The M1 Carbine that you endorsed upthread is an actual weapon of war, albeit one that works like a civilian carbine and is therefore classified as a civilian Title 1 gun.

You are so stuck in your "AR-15's are of the debbil" paradigm that you can't see the irony in recommending AR-15 type guns as alternatives to AR-15's, nor can you seem to grasp that the AR-15 is the least powerful of common centerfire rifles and is among the least misused of all weapons despite its popularity.

Again, per the FBI:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2012 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"] Total murders...................... 12,711
Handguns............................ 8,813 (49.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 1,848 (14.5%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,637 (12.9%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,583 (12.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 678 (5.3%)
Rifles................................ 320 (2.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 302 (2.4%)
[/font]

We own them, and we'll retain that choice; they are Title 1 civilian guns, after all, not Title 2 military weapons, and are rarely misused. If you don't like AR-15's (or civilian autoloaders in general), don't own one, but don't presume to choose for me, thanks.

[Duckhunter935]

62. Curious on what the excuse to ban this will be

I am sure they will try as it is black and scary.
Interesting concept and it looks like a very nice rifle.

http://outdoorchannel.com/video.aspx?g=shooting&f=KVKomFAWRC3s&guid=NhQ6kavOQ6ge3VmzUNlvd97aez3kbuHt

[Straw Man]

63. Hmm...

Curious on what the excuse to ban this will be

I am sure they will try as it is black and scary.

I'm guessing it will be "the shoulder thing that goes up."

That or maybe the mounting rail. After that comes the fact that it's a semi-auto: the bottom of the slippery slope.

[benEzra]

64. The only way to ban it would be to ban all detachable-magazine semiautos...

from .22 squirrel rifles to semiauto deer rifles. But then you could make a fixed-magazine straight-stock AR loaded with en bloc clips.

Not to mention that banning detachable-magazine semiautos is so far-out that it didn't even fly in California. And of course that bill would have only restricted new guns.

[jimmy the one]

65. what endorsements?

ezra: .. a .30 caliber with a 20- or 30-round magazine that you yourself endorse upthread as an alternative to the AR?,
The Mini Thirty that you endorsed
The M1 Carbine that you endorsed upthread

I didn't endorse any of those, you are fantastic at creating false premises, & in this case putting words in people's mouths. They were simply rifle carbines which the 'gun guy' preferred, whom I cited due his support for birdshot, & this: .. the Black Rifle {AR platform}.. If you have one, tell us what you like, what you don’t and what you probably should have bought instead, for the benefit of our shooting community.
By saying that, gun guy tends to refute your contention that the AR is most popular HD rifle. I suspect when you say 'most popular' you mean by plurality, such as maybe 25% prefer an AR & next closest rifle is perhaps 20%, whereas the supplemental 75% to an AR prefer something else.

ezra: It's a non-automatic .22 in my gun safe, not an assault rifle.

If it's the AR15 you described 'upthread' it's what's commonly referred to in politics, as an assault rifle. But disabuse yourself that I'm singling you out, or law abiding gun owners, with an abundance of other rifles to choose from.

gun guy link, added numerals: 1 Carbines handle better than shotguns. 2 Carbines have more power than handguns. 3 Carbines have a higher magazine capacity than shotguns or handguns. 4 Carbines have a longer range than shotguns or handguns. 5 Carbines are more accurate than shotguns or handguns. 6 Carbines are easier to shoot for family members not so familiar with shotguns and handguns. 7 Carbines have minimal recoil which enables them to shoot a lot of rounds fast.
ezra asks: Since you cite him approvingly, are you agreeing with him?

Approvingly only to his short support, gun guy & I wouldn't get along all that well re- guns.
1- Carbines handle better than sgs, true, but not as well as handguns for home defense.
2- Carbines have more power than handguns, true, but not as much as sgs. (rock/paper/scissors!)
3- higher mag capacity only helpful in remote instances, only important to the fringe.
4- bragging about 'longer range' for inhome use kinda ridiculous.
5- carbines more accurate then sgs & Handguns, in home use? on target range but irrelevant for HD due maneuverability compared with handguns.
6- Most specious: Handguns would be easier to shoot for family member not so familiar with sgs & carbines, yes?

7- CARBINES HAVE MINIMAL RECOIL WHICH ENABLES THEM TO SHOOT A LOT OF ROUNDS FAST, and with less rifle rise so as to produce more accurate shooting, at range.

ezra: AR-platform rifles are legal in every state.. a few regulate what few cosmetic or ergonomic features AR-15 variants and other civilian semiautos can have .. but the AR platform is popular in every state.

Well I guess you have a point here, more proof that laws can be circumvented. Some families of gun violence victims say they are frustrated by what they believe are efforts to skirt the gun control law. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NY-Gun-Control-Safe-Act-Assault-Weapons-Semiautomatic-AR-15-258323561.html

[benEzra]

69. Yup, just like ALL small-caliber autoloading rifles and ALL full-sized pistols.

" CARBINES HAVE MINIMAL RECOIL WHICH ENABLES THEM TO SHOOT A LOT OF ROUNDS FAST, and with less rifle rise so as to produce more accurate shooting, at range."

You do realize he's comparing per-cartridge splits between a shotgun and a small-caliber carbine, yes? That's the tradeoff you make when you choose a smallbore carbine instead of a .729 caliber riot gun; you are trading less per-shot lethality (birdshot excepted) for lighter recoil and more precision. With a carbine or a pistol, you are launching small projectiles one at a time, but very precisely, instead of blasting them 8 or 12 or 50 at a time in a storm of lead with commensurate recoil.

The thing is, that isn't specific to AR's; that's a characteristic of all small-caliber autoloaders. From the Remington 597 and the Ruger 10/22 to the Marlin Camp Carbine to the AR-15 platform and Mini-14, as well as pretty much all mid-size and full-size pistols chambered in .22 LR through 9mm/.40/.45.

Do you want to ban all small-caliber autoloaders, then? How about all mid-sized and full-sized handguns? If not, why not?

Well I guess you have a point here, more proof that laws can be circumvented. Some families of gun violence victims say they are frustrated by what they believe are efforts to skirt the gun control law."

What did you expect? You didn't ban small-caliber autoloaders, you banned fricking handgrips that stick out. So if a company changes their rifle so that the handgrip doesn't stick out, that's not "skirting" the law, that's complying with the law.

If your state passes a stupid law that bans cars with tinted windows, so you go buy a car with untinted windows, are you "skirting" the law?

BTW, you never said what make/model of shotgun you keep for HD, and what size birdshot you use; I'm curious.

In other news, I notice that rifle homicide *fell* again in 2013, which coincided with the biggest spike in semiauto rifle sales in U.S. history. Rifles accounted for only 2.3% of reported murders in 2013.

[jimmy the one]

73. 3% milk

ezra: BTW, you never said what make/model of shotgun you keep for HD, and what size birdshot you use; I'm curious.

I did indeed reply, one of my posts above, you missed it (no problem, you are a fairly civil poster except for a couple false premises which don't bother that much, and barbs are par for the adversarial course, I'm no saint either). The same post about boot camp iirc.
I don't own any guns anymore, gunfree about 15 yrs (I even renounced the 2ndA), don't need worry if I left a round in the chamber or it getting stolen, no panic attacks, no sweats about carrying concealed whether the handgun might misfire or get caught on a twig or drop out in a restaurant & go off or make others irate. No worries about getting arrested or sued for inadvertent brandishing (whether true or trumped up) or whatever else can go wrong accd'g to murphy when carrying a gun. They were always safer just in a gun safe in the home.

ezra: In other news, I notice that rifle homicide *fell* again in 2013, which coincided with the biggest spike in semiauto rifle sales in U.S. history. Rifles accounted for only 2.3% of reported murders in 2013.

those rifle sales are likely to existing gun owners, rather than newbies. AWBs never intended to restrict rifle ownership except for a few percent, about 3% of all listed firearms were affected by the 94 awb, iirc about 19 'assault rifles' were affected out of over 700 firearms.

[benEzra]

75. Specifically, 19 *names* were affected that could no longer be used in marketing.

"AWBs never intended to restrict rifle ownership except for a few percent, about 3% of all listed firearms were affected by the 94 awb, iirc about 19 'assault rifles' were affected out of over 700 firearms."

Specifically, 19 names were affected that could no longer be used for guns sold to non-LE civilians. For example, Colt could no longer use the trademark "Colt AR-15" for an AR manufactured for non-government civilians. But they could call it a "Colt 6920" and legally sell it, as long as it met the features test, and AR sales went through the roof during the ban's debate and in the years after it passed.

The biggest impact of the 1994 AWB on rifles was in the honor-system restrictions on combining "evil features". For example, you could have a protruding handgrip or a flash suppressor, but not both on the same rifle (the items were legal to buy but not legal to install, though the ban was not enforced). Hence, post-1994 Mini-14s with straight stocks could use flash suppressors, whereas post-1994 AR's with protruding handgrips had to have brakes or smooth muzzles instead. My AK was a ban-era import (2002 model SAR-1), so it had a smooth muzzle and no bayonet lug, and of course it wasn't stamped "AK-47".

"those rifle sales are likely to existing gun owners, rather than newbies. "

Some, perhaps most, were probably to people who already own at least one gun, yes; a relatively expensive rifle isn't most people's first gun purchase.

The thing is, every time a new ban on any particular type of gun is proposed, people who are in the "I'd like to own one of those someday, but it's not a financial priority right now" will make it a priority. That's why the Feinstein law tripled AR-15 and civilian AK sales during and after 1994, and why the mad rush to ban guns and magazines in 2013 drove demand, and sales, through the roof.

"I don't own any guns anymore, gunfree about 15 yrs (I even renounced the 2ndA), don't need worry if I left a round in the chamber or it getting stolen, no panic attacks, no sweats about carrying concealed whether the handgun might misfire or get caught on a twig or drop out in a restaurant & go off or make others irate. No worries about getting arrested or sued for inadvertent brandishing (whether true or trumped up) or whatever else can go wrong accd'g to murphy when carrying a gun. They were always safer just in a gun safe in the home. "

I respect your choice, and I don't criticize you for it. I just reserve the right to choose differently myself.

[jimmy the one]

68. m16 & ak47 comparison

ezra: What in the name of Isaac Newton makes you think that a non-automatic .22 caliber is more "potent" than a .30 caliber with a 20- or 30-round magazine .. especially given that it has the exact same rate of fire?

Yes you inferred correctly (elsewhere), I am particularly opposed to the AR15 models using 55gr+ ammo. Here's a comparison between the ak47 & the m16 (both automatic & select fire & semi), & at the bottom there is a quite dated comparison (1962 army) where the m16 wins the comparison hands down, the ak47 only won on reliability.... overall comparison, some aspects might not pertain to an AR15 but I think most would:

The AK-47's heavier 7.62x39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56x45mm round and is better in circumstances where a soldier has to shoot through heavy foliage, walls or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover. The 7.62x39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62x39mm round produces significant wounding in cases where the bullet tumbles in tissue, but produces relatively minor wounds in cases where the bullet exits before beginning to yaw. In the absence of yaw, the M43 round can pencil through tissue with relatively little injury and it's wounding potential is limited to the small permanent wound channel the bullet itself makes {as if by a dagger};

.. M16 was the 5.56x45mm M193 round. When fired from a 20″ barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber. These wounds were much larger than those produced by AK-47 and they were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon. As the 5.56mm round's velocity decreases, so does the number of fragments that it produces. The 5.56mm round does not normally fragment at distances beyond 200 meters or at velocities below 2500 ft/s, and its lethality becomes largely dependent on shot placement. {as often as not I have read, the .223 will fragment into 2 parts, 2 parts to one, as evidenced by the fackler style wound ballistic chart included}

Also note the advantage of m16's lighter bullets, half the weight of ak: Ergonomics .. The M16 is ergonomically superior to the AK-47 in most respects. It is much easier and faster to change magazines and get the M16 back into action than with the AK-47.
The M16 has a well designed safety lever located on the left side of the weapon that is easily manipulated by the users thumb while maintaining a strong hold the pistol-grip. With the AK-47 the safety is a large lever on the right side of the weapon that is not at all easy to manipulate. "It is slow, uncomfortable and sometimes stiff to operate." For most users, the hand must come off the pistol-grip to either apply or disengage the safety.. While the fire selector "is considered by many as the main drawback of the whole AK design", its most frequently criticized feature is its trigger mechanism. "The Kalashnikov trigger system (..) is all too often plagued with an objectionable, and sometimes quite painful, "trigger slap" and a creepy and unpredictable trigger pullhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

.. the M16's direct impingement gas operation system, straight-line recoil design and smaller caliber gives it less recoil than the AK-47 and makes it easier to control in full-auto - as well as more accurate & easier to control in rapid fire semi.

[benEzra]

70. Ummm, expansion/fragmentation is what keeps rounds from overpenetrating and killing your neighbors.

"When fired from a 20″ barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber."

Ummm, expansion/fragmentation is what keeps rounds from overpenetrating and killing your neighbors. Rounds that stay together without deforming, instead of expanding/fragmenting, penetrate walls like nobody's business. That's a bad thing.

Also, you've been arguing for prefragmented defensive loads this whole thread (what do you think birdshot is?) and now you're saying that multiple small wound tracks is a bad thing? You do understand that a 12-gauge shooting birdshot at close range will produce from 200 to 1000 separate wound tracks depending on shot size, right? So you're complaining because a 55gr .223 FMJ can turn into a dozen pieces of birdshot upon impact and destabilization....yet upthread you approvingly posted a video of a guy dumping 600 grains of prefragmented lead into a pork loin at close range and said that was what we should be doing instead. Do you see the disconnect?

If the round doesn't fragment, here's what you get instead (from the article you cite):

"The AK-47's heavier 7.62x39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56x45mm round and is better in circumstances where a soldier has to shoot through heavy foliage, walls or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover."

Read it again, and let it sink in. Rounds that don't deform/fragment shoot through walls and into the bodies of people behind them. Like your neighbors. Don't do that. And that's why I use civilian JHP in my AR, because it fragments more reliably than military FMJ does and thereby greatly reduces the risk of overpenetration.

There's also that little tidbit that civilian HD rounds are not military FMJ. Unlike FMJ, civilian jacketed hollowpoint or softpoint doesn't have to tumble before it deforms and fragments, meaning civilian loads can be designed to fragment sooner and penetrate less. That's what you want in a civilian load, within reason. The military, on the other hand, tends to want *more* barrier penetration, which is why they eventually ditched M193 FMJ in favor of M855 which doesn't fragment as easily, especially out of 14.5" barrels.

"The 7.62x39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62x39mm round produces significant wounding in cases where the bullet tumbles in tissue, but produces relatively minor wounds in cases where the bullet exits before beginning to yaw."

You do know that owners of 7.62x39mm carbines like the Mini Thirty and civilian AK aren't limited to World War II era FMJ loads, yes? Hornady makes a 124gr VMAX varmint load that penetrates a lot less because it expands and fragments instead of drilling through everything, just like the old Russian Ulyanovsk load (8M3) or East German FMJ. I know that because before I got up to speed on my AR, I shot a civilian AK (Romanian SAR-1, since sold, alas) with a Russian Kobra optic, and it was a neat little carbine---basically a magazine-fed .30-30, if you compare it to the lighter .30-30 loads.

"its most frequently criticized feature is its trigger mechanism. "The Kalashnikov trigger system (..) is all too often plagued with an objectionable, and sometimes quite painful, "trigger slap" and a creepy and unpredictable trigger pull"

Yup. That trigger discomfort existed in some early civilian AK's, too, but more recent civilian models have G2 style triggers that are much improved. I have to say that my SAR-1 trigger wasn't bad at all after a few hundred rounds through the carbine; after things smoothed up it actually had a better trigger than my Ruger did.

" It is much easier and faster to change magazines and get the M16 back into action than with the AK-47. "

In my experience, magazine changes aren't much slower with the AK if you know how to do it, whether you are reloading with retention or doing an emergency reload where you drop the empty magazine.

AK emergency reload (with annoying music to match):

AR emergency reload:

Mini-14 emergency reload:

So the AR is slightly faster than the AK and mini-14, but not really enough to matter. When I shot USPSA with my AK, I was faster than some AR guys on reloads and slower than others. I will say though that in that first video, the gloves aren't for show; when running the charging handle from under the carbine, you can scratch your hand up pretty good on the safety lever if you're not careful. Ask me how I know...

For fun, an M1 Garand reload] (no retention with that system!):

For more fun, Travis Tomasie reloading a 1911 racegun:

".. the M16's direct impingement gas operation system, straight-line recoil design and smaller caliber gives it less recoil than the AK-47 and makes it easier to control in full-auto - as well as more accurate & easier to control in rapid fire semi."

Good heavens, we can't have civilians owning rifles that are accurate and easy to control, can we? You seem to be arguing that I should only be "allowed" to own rifles that are inaccurate and hard to control, using nonfragmenting ammo that will shoot through my neighbor's house. No thanks.

BTW, semiautos in 7.62x39mm don't kick that much with lighter loads. It's an underpowered .30-30, not a full power rifle round. Full auto is a different story, but since full auto is limited to police/military/government and wealthy collectors by the National Firearms Act, under penalty of 10 years in Federal Prison, that's irrelevant to civilian defensive use anyway. And you do know they make .22 caliber AK's, right?

[jimmy the one]

71. on fragments

(note: this will be my last post for a while (I suspect at least 2 wks), since the winter freeze descending on the northeast will prevent me from traveling to various libraries where I post. Do not read silence as capitulation))

"When fired from a 20″ barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber."

ezra: expansion/fragmentation is what keeps rounds from overpenetrating and killing your neighbors. Rounds that stay together without deforming, instead of expanding/fragmenting, penetrate walls like nobody's business.

No, the blurb is not necessarily correct above, that is what it could do I suppose, but not normally what it does do to a human target. To the human target the tendency for a 55gr or 62gr .223 is to fragment into 2 (one approx. twice the size the other), resulting in 2 wounds from the one bullet, with cavitation possible in both wound patterns (some clarification below).

ezra: ... now you're saying that multiple small wound tracks is a bad thing? You do understand that a 12-gauge shooting birdshot at close range will produce from 200 to 1000 separate wound tracks depending on shot size, right?

Not with the godawful penetration of the .223. But, those multiple .223 small wound tracks, if they were to occur, would indeed present a pretty complicated situation, often a lingering death which was half the battle plan. But the norm is moreso the two fragments in the human target (later-100-200 yds).

ezra: So you're complaining because a 55gr .223 FMJ can turn into a dozen pieces of birdshot upon impact and destabilization....yet upthread you approvingly posted a video of a guy dumping 600 grains of prefragmented lead into a pork loin at close range and said that was what we should be doing instead. Do you see the disconnect?

The .223 does not generally do that to the human target (redundantly said); the 'endorsement' of the birdshot guy was to counter you that birdshot might stop mr duck, etc.. I don't really endorse either rifle or sg for HD, nor any gun, I endorse pepper spray & door locks & preventative measures.

ezra cites link: AK-47's heavier 7.62x39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56x45mm round and is better in circumstances where a soldier has to shoot through heavy foliage, walls or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover.

.. this depends on what a soldier encounters & what a civilian encounters. A 'wall' to a soldier might be a wooden barricade, to a civ just drywall & plywood, the latter of which both the ak & AR would easily penetrate - the ak would do better with the wooden barricade & soldier walls. A modern car's sheet metal does not offer much protection at all from either these bullets (maybe sap KE 5 - 10%?), while a soldier's troop transport would offer far more resistance. So the vehicular aspect isn't much in play here.

ezra: Rounds that don't deform/fragment shoot through walls and into the bodies of people behind them.. why I use civilian JHP in my AR, because it fragments more reliably than military FMJ does and thereby greatly reduces the risk of overpenetration.

I think you refer to 40gr? The 55gr .223 I doubt would deform passing thru a close wall, but still fragment into 2 parts if then hitting a human target. It doesn't fragment when passing thru a steel helmet (afaik), but afterwards if it does at all. It tends to fragment in 2 while inside a human target, not afterwards.

Albeit a blogger(?) who did drywall tests: Low to high (concede I was not that familiar with 40gr .223 before, thus missed your referring to it elsewhere): Fiocchi 40-gr VMax V-Max bullets started fragmenting within the first sheet of drywall and completely blew to pieces on their way out of the second sheet, leaving dramatic craters.

going heavier, the one's I'm talking about (I thinks, not a pro on this by any stretch, perhaps the tap is inapplicable?): Hornady TAP 55-grain Given that the first two .223 rounds had blown to pieces in the first section of simulated wall, we had similar expectations for the TAP fitted with the 55-grain ballistic-tip bullet... Although Hornady's website shows impressive fragmentation in ballistic gel, this same behavior was notably absent from the bullets in drywall. All three rounds tested drilled neat holes through every single wall. Either the polymer tip is clearly intended to aid external ballistics more than terminal ballistics, or its performance in drywall isn't representative of its behavior in moister media. The latter is most likely the case..

60-grain TAP The effect of 55-grain TAP was so contrary to expectation that it demanded immediate investigation of how the slightly heftier 60-grain equivalent performed. The results (..)more surprising. As usual, the entry holes were neat and tidy. But the second wall showed exactly two holes per bullet, with very consistent spacing between the holes from shot to shot. The bullets fragmented into two pieces in a very repeatable manner, perhaps snapping at the cannelure. http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

The point being, it appears the 55 & 60gr easily went thru first drywall without fragmenting, while the 40gr fragmented due being lighter. Then the 55gr did not fragment in the 2ndwall, but possibly would if hitting a human target imo. The 60gr went thru the first wall w'o fragmenting, then fragmented prior to hitting 2ndwall, which supports my contention, both that the 55 .223 will fragment into 2 parts after passing thru a first wall, either due hitting a human target (HT hereafter), or not.

[jimmy the one]

72. our mutual friend

... our friend Martin Fackler inter alios, contend the .223 55gr prior to 100 yds, will fragment in a Human target into one large fragment & the several particles you & wiki noted, but this does not take into account any losses of KE from passing thru a drywall, which, imo, would affect the fragmenting.

This bullet is fired from the US armed forces' first-generation smaller-calibre rifle, the M16A1. The large permanent cavity it produces, shown in the wound profile, was observed by surgeons who served in Vietnam, but the tissue disruption mechanism responsible was not clear until the importance of bullet fragmentation as a cause of tissue disruption was worked out and described. As shown on the wound profile, this {fmj} bullet travels point-forward in tissue for about 12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the cannelure. The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece, retaining about 60% of the original bullet weight. The rear portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm radially from the bullet path... The degree of bullet fragmentation decreases with increased shooting distance (as striking velocity decreases). At a shooting distance over about 100m the bullet breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments and, at over 200m, it no longer breaks.. This consistent change in deformation/fragmentation pattern has an important forensic application. It can be used to estimate shooting distance if the bullet is recovered in the body and has penetrated only soft tissue. (it's relatively that precise).
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

So I suppose I was part incorrect since less than 100yds/m it does fragment into several pieces (not just two), but again that does not take into account the sap of energy & decreased striking velocity from first passing thru a drywall as in home defense.
.. I also want to retract something I said earlier about Martin Fackler, referring to him as a 'gunnut', because I really dunno; I recall reading some criticism by him of some gun control, & support for owning guns, but that really doesn't in itself qualify him certainly as being a GN. Tentatively I'll call him just progun, but really dunno.

ezra: And you do know they make .22 caliber AK's, right?

Those are ak74's, right? You do confuse when you just write .22 rather than .223. I figure the 3 there for a reason.
I looked at a few of the firing links, but don't come away with anything I can discuss with confidence.

fackler link: Soviet 5.45x39mm - This is fired from the AK-74, the Soviet contribution to the new generation of smaller-calibre assault rifles and which produces the wound profile seen in Fig. 3. The bullet .. has a copper-plated steel jacket and a largely steel core, as does the bullet of its predecessor, the AK-47. A unique design feature of the AK-74, however, is an air-space (about 5mm long) inside the jacket at the bullet's tip. The speculation that this air-space would cause bullet deformation and fragmentation on impact proved to be unfounded, but the air-space does serve to shift the builet's centre of mass..This bullet yaws after only about 7cm of tissue penetration, assuring an increased temporary cavity stretch disruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits; other bullets need more tissue depth to yaw and in many cases cause only minimal disruption on extremity hits.

But an increased temporary cavity is not necessarily a bad thing for the target, in that it can collapse sometimes with little contributing damage, or miss vitals, and fackler's wound chart shows the ak74 tends no fragmentation. Perhaps this ak74 a way to fly for HD.

[benEzra]

74. Why are you so hung up on military FMJ? We are talking about CIVILIAN JACKETED HOLLOWPOINTS.

" our friend Martin Fackler inter alios, contend the .223 55gr prior to 100 yds, will fragment in a Human target into one large fragment & the several particles you & wiki noted, but this does not take into account any losses of KE from passing thru a drywall, which, imo, would affect the fragmenting."

Why are you so hung up on military FMJ? In the HD context, we are primarily talking about *civilian jacketed hollowpoints or softpoints*, designed to fragment more consistently and more readily than military FMJ in order to limit penetration. Mine is loaded with Federal 55gr JHP. Even more prone to early fragmentation are the 40-grain small-game loads, but they penetrate even less than birdshot and are therefore no longer used by law enforcement or most non-LE civilians either. Ditto for AK's and for every other civilian rifle.

"Those are ak74's, right? You do confuse when you just write .22 rather than .223. I figure the 3 there for a reason. I looked at a few of the firing links, but don't come away with anything I can discuss with confidence. "

The bore diameter is the same for all American centerfire .22's, at .224. Russian .22's measure about .221, but that's too small to have any effect ballistically. There are only a few standard bore diameters used across the spectrum: .17, .22, .25, .27, .30, .32, .36, .40, .45, .50, .68, .73 cover almost all of them. I think .22LR usually uses .224 barrels also but I may be wrong, though .22LR shoots fine out of an AR with a chamber adapter.

The different numbers (.220, .221, .222, .223) are just shorthand used by manufacturers and standardized by SAAMI to differentiate the different cartridge shapes/lengths. For example, .22 Hornet, .221, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250, .220 Swift, and 5.56x45mm NATO all have the exact same caliber (diameter) barrel and fire the same bullets. The "3" in .223 Remington was put there to distinguish it from its parent cartridge, .222 Remington, when they slightly modified the shoulder geometry to give it a touch more powder capacity than the .222. But the bore diameter is .224. .223 is roughly in the middle of the pack with regard to case capacity and velocity; .220 Swift can push light loads beyond 4000 ft/sec, whereas some of the others are in the mid-2000's.

It's kind of like 9mm/.38 Special/.357 Magnum, which shoot the same diameter bullets, roughly .36 caliber. Shotgun calibers are named differently for historical reasons, but a 12-gauge is .729 caliber and a 20-gauge is about .68 caliber, as I recall.

As to the .22 AK's, yes, some are non-automatic civilian AK-74 lookalikes or derivatives in 5.45x39mm (.221), like the one in the video, and some are in .223 Remington/5.56x45mm.

Almost all Ruger Mini-14's are .223 Remington, FWIW, though a few were made in 6.8mm SPC (around .270 IIRC). The Mini Thirty is 7.62x39mm.

"But an increased temporary cavity is not necessarily a bad thing for the target, in that it can collapse sometimes with little contributing damage, or miss vitals, and fackler's wound chart shows the ak74 tends no fragmentation. Perhaps this ak74 a way to fly for HD. "

First, only Russian military 5.45x39mm 7N6 FMJ acts like that, and 5.45x39mm 7N6 FMJ is banned from further import because the BATFE considers it "armor piercing" (remember, what doesn't fragment tends to shoot through things). However, 7N6 achieves wounding similar to military .223 FMJ by being designed to tumble upon impact more readily than .223, thereby tending to travel through the target sideways and causing a much-larger-than-.22 wound.

Because it doesn't fragment, though, 7N6 would be more likely to shoot through walls, a bad thing from a HD standpoint. Using a civilian jacketed hollowpoint in that caliber would make a lot more sense in the HD role, to limit drywall penetration. I believe Hornady makes a civilian VMAX load in that caliber.

[Kaleva]

48. It's a 1 way trip for most everyone who goes on a shooting spree.

Regardless of the gun used, the number of guns and/or the amount of ammo that person has on hand.

The shooters who go on to live long lives in freedom make up a very small club.

[CJCRANE]

51. Some news reports said he loosed off 50 rounds.

I don't see how that's possible, outside a Sam Peckinpah movie.

Maybe that was the total number of shots fired, including by police.

[Electric Monk]

52. Which, FOX? CBC reported he shot 3 at the War Memorial, and up to 4 inside the building. 7 total. nt

nt

[CJCRANE]

55. Thanks for the info. I can't remember. It was probably an early report

before the facts were confirmed. As is usual in these kind of events, it takes a while for the story to settle down.