Military function versus military style

[krispos42]

I was watching Rachel just now, and she had a clip of Obama in Minnesota using the bully pulpit for gun control, including a ban on "military style" assault weapons.



Military STYLE.


Not a word about military FUNCTION, which would be defined as semi-automatic and fed from a detachable magazine.



So the issue is STYLE.



Military function is not on the chopping block. Oh, sure, Feinstein wants to ban all AR-15s and AK-47s regardless of military STYLE features, but as a whole, semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines are not going to be banned.

Apparently, the AR-15 or AK-47 mechanical system of detonating a rifle cartridge is not acceptable for some reason, despite being proven, durable, robust, reliable, refined, well-established, and safe. Some OTHER method of smacking the primer on a rifle cartridge must be substituted. Ruger, I'm sure, is positively drooling over that one. All they have to do is make a Mini-14 that takes AR-15 magazines...




style (n): A manner of doing things, especially in a fashionable one.


Why is an AR-15 styled the way it is? Because the design elements of rifles in general has evolved.

Pistol grips on a rifle are not good for bolt-action or lever-action guns. It makes working both kinds of action more difficult, because the trigger hand must move to manipulate the action. So it never caught on. I'm sure there are some out there, but it's a tiny minority.

So the traditional "Fudd guns" or "cowboy guns" will not generally have these things.

But for semiautos and pump-action guns, the trigger hand does not need to move to manipulate the action. So having a protruding pistol grip is more ergonomic. It's easier on the wrist and lets your trigger hand absorb more of the recoil.

The Army was slow to adopt this, accepting it for submachine guns (full-auto rifles that shoot pistol ammunition) during WW2 but not for battle rifles until the Vietnam War.

So why is this something so terrible? Why is it so terrible that Feinstein not only included it in her original (two-or-more) ban back in 1993, but is including it with her stricter (one-or-more) ban of 2013?



Then there is the adjustable stock. AR-15s commonly have a quick-adjusting telescoping stock. Squeeze a lever, and you can adjust the length of pull of the gun to fit your frame and your clothing. This is extremely logical and reasonable. Why have a non-adjustable stock, or one that requires dis-assembly and the addition of spacers?

I can understand a ban on folding stocks, I guess... when folded, a rifle can be below the minimum legal overall length. But if a telescoping buttstock keeps the rifle at or over legal minimum even at the most collapsed position, then what's the problem? Again, why is this such a terrible thing that it was featured in both the 1993 and 2013 bans?



And the barrel shroud, defined as "...a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel; and does not include—
(i) a slide that partially or completely encloses the barrel; or
(ii) an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel."

Did you read that? Protecting a person's hands from hot steel is expressly forbidden by law. You can have the stock extend up under the barrel, but you can't shield the barrel.

How on earth is this reasonable? Can you imagine legislation that outlawed guards on lawnmower drive belts? Or protective covers over hot light bulbs?

Yet again, this was a feature of both the 1993 and the 2013 bans.



A flash hider is a little gizmo that attaches to the end of the barrel and it reduces the "fireball" that comes out of a gun when it is shot. While not really noticeable in daylight, the flash becomes significant at night, and the flash hider reduces this effect. It helps keep the shooter from being flash-blinded.

Why is this bad again? Why is wanting to keep a person who's shooting a rifle from getting blinded by flash a good thing?
And yet, it's also a feature of both bans.



These are all "military style" features. They are convenience and ergonomic and safety features that are widely used in both civilian and military circles. and that is for one reason:

The overlap between military-desirable features and civilian-desirable features has a huge overlap. But because there are large number of civilian-owned guns that follow the more traditional "Fudd" or "cowboy" lines, and the military has largely abandoned such guns, it become "military style". Even though I'd bet that there are far more "military-styled" guns in the hands of American civilians than issued by the Pentagon.



I hope I've brought some clarity to the issue, if nothing else. But it's late and I'm tired, so off to bed for me.

[madville]

1. Death by a thousand cuts

Get what you can now, then move a little further the next time events allow.

Nothing actually effective can be done in the current climate or in one swipe, it's going to take time and many more events.

[Loudly]

2. If the barrel is too hot to touch, chances are it can fire too many rounds.

Temperature as a limiting characteristic actually presents a wonderful opportunity to regulate into oblivion.

[ManiacJoe]

4. How many rounds in what length of time would it take to become "too hot to touch"?

Your post suggests you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

[Loudly]

6. A thermometer doesn't have a political agenda.

Just measure it. Pull the trigger a few times and see where we are.

What does the termperature reach up to?

Well that's too hot on the face of it.

Back off the product to something that can't run that hot.

[iiibbb]

10. You realize that insane gunmen are insane, not stupid?

They'll wear gloves if it bothers them that much... if prior to their suicide the adrenaline even allows them to notice their burned hands.

Thinking of the MoH winner from WW2 who held machine guns with his bare hands for an hour.... will have to find his name.

[Bay Boy]

12. That would be John Basilone

portrayed in the HBO series "The Pacific".

[iiibbb]

13. Thank you

[ManiacJoe]

19. Thank you for confirming.

The next time you go to the range, give it a try. You will see just how slow you can go and still heat things up.

What you will find is that if you fire one round ever 10 seconds, you will have made the barrel too hot to touch is less than two minutes, regardless of the gun being used, even bolt actions, except maybe for .22lr guns.

[rdharma]

3. 100% background checks NOW!

100% background checks NOW!

[tjnite]

9. I hope that was sarcasm

Truly.

[Agschmid]

17. Why?

Do you feel background checks are a bad thing?

Can you explain why?

Can you explain how it would negatively effect someone's ability to do what they legally can with weapons such as guns?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Eleanors38]

28. For years, most pro-2A regulars here have supported "universal" b.g. or...

NICS tests. The question is HOW, given the influence if the commerce clause. The feds, under the clause, can regulate dealers because they are engaging in commerce wherein the product (guns) pass between states; hence under fed regs and NICS. Intrastate sales do not fall under the CC rubric.

Do you have any ideas as to how potential court challenges can be avoided, and keep new "universal" legislation from being struck down?

[Straw Man]

5. Beg to differ.

Not a word about military FUNCTION, which would be defined as semi-automatic and fed from a detachable magazine.

Military function would be select-fire (semi-auto, burst, full auto) and detachable magazine.

[rdharma]

7. Straw Man - An appropriate moniker!

You seem quite fixated on terminology!

Fact is there is no damn difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 except the questionable value of fully auto fire of the M-16.

[Straw Man]

16. Look up "straw man."

Fact is there is no damn difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 except the questionable value of fully auto fire of the M-16.

Tell the military about the "questionable value" of full-auto fire. Maybe they'll change their minds about requiring full-auto or burst-fire for their weapons. Then explain to the ATF that they should open the full-auto registry.

Then you can point out any inaccurate characterizations I made in my post.

[iiibbb]

20. Full auto fire's value isn't for aimed fire, it's to provide cover fire and allow a squad to flank

the enemy by holding them down while part of the squad moves.

It's not automatic fire like they used to mow down advancing waves of soldiers with heavy machine guns in WW1.

Automatic fire from a single rifle has suspect value because the shots will not be well aimed.


This argument does not support his argument obviously, but that's what automatic fire is meant for on an infantryman's rifle.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Full-auto can act like a very long range shotgun for aimed fire.

If you are firing at an enemy soldier at 300 meters you will likely miss, but your miss will still be pretty close to him. A three round burst greatly increases you chance of hitting him. Same logic applies if he is closer, but moving.

Sometimes the enemy will get stupid and bunch up, then you can hose the group down.

There are uses for full-auto and for burst fire, but the emphasis will remain on aimed semi-auto fire.

Full-auto burns through a lot of ammo in a real hurry if the gunner is not highly disciplined.

[krispos42]

8. True, but those are already tightly regulated...

...and the consensus is that select-fire is not an issue. You might say that semi-auto is as close to true military function as possible without spending a buttload of money.

Additionally, the military generally uses their rifles in semi-auto mode. Or at least that is my understanding; I did not serve and do not want to imply otherwise.

And prior to the adaptation of the 5.56mm round, the battle rifles of the US military was with semi-autos, the M-14 and the M-1 Garand.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. The M-14 was capable of full-auto.

It had a selector switch. However, for non-combat uses (training) the selector switch was removed so that it function as semi-auto only. The selector switches could be quickly reinstalled if needed.

[krispos42]

14. It was my understanding....

...and this may be wrong, but that the selector switch was only installed on M-14s equipped with a bipod. I guess the idea was to make a squad support weapon, like the BAR, only it didn't work too well because the rifle was too light.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. All the ones I saw in Vietnam had the selector switch installed.

I went to Vietnam before the M-16 was issued to everybody. At that time the M-14 was the standard. There was an version of the M-14 that had a pistol grip and bipod, but I never saw it. There is a trick to firing the M-14 on full auto. Grab the front of the sling, just under the sling swivel, and use it as a front grip to hold the rifle down. Fire very short bursts of aimed fire.

Later, after VN, I got to shoot the M-16. I didn't like it.

[krispos42]

18. Ah, okay, thank you.

I was under a different impression, obviously.

[Puha Ekapi]

22. I served

post-Vietnam (late 70's/early80's) and we still had some M-14's to play with. Now that is a rifle right there. I preferred it to the M-16.

[spin]

23. My experience with the M16 was only in basic training in the Air Force. ...

I personally did not like the weapon and much preferred the M1 carbine which I qualified with once a year while in the remainder of my Air Force career during the Vietnam era.

Perhaps if I had been a combat soldier in Nam I might have had a different view. Somehow I doubt it as these firearms needed a lot of improvement before they reached the level of reliability and accuracy that they offer today.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. I understand the logistics behind the choice of the M-16.

A soldier can carry a lot more rounds of 5.56 than he can of 7.62. And superior logistics win battles and wars. I might like it the 5.56 better if fired from a different rifle than the M-16 series. I think the Mini-14 is a better rifle.

What I don't like about the M-16:

I don't like the long tube in the gas system. It takes heat back into the receiver and can get fouled up causing malfunctions.

I don't like the buffer assembly being in the stock. It keeps the rifle from being given a folding stock, like the M-1 carbine.

I don't like that tiny pin in the bolt that is easy to get lost, especially in the dark. I was able to field strip and reassemble the M-14 in the dark.

I don't like the sights being so high above the barrel. It makes you have to raise your head higher to use them. Sticking your head up that extra couple of inches can get you shot.

If I were a soldier in Afganistan I would be griping daily, wanting an M-14 for its longer range and greater energy.

[spin]

27. You summed it up nicely. (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. excellent post. K&R

thanks, Krispos.

[armueller2001]

26. You got it all wrong... according to Carolyn McCarthy, a barrel shroud

is a "shoulder thing that goes up".

They don't even know what they're trying to ban. A metaphoric "spray fire from the hip" if you will.