Assault Weapons are NOT machine guns. Heck they're not even assault rifles.

[Tim01]

Assault Weapons are a bunch of guns that some people got together and labeled "assault weapons" in 1994.They are not very powerful as guns go, and none of them are capable of firing in full auto. They look like military rifles, but they are not. They are semi auto just like many handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. The idea that an "assault weapon" can be shot fully auto like a machine gun is either a mistake or a lie.

This is one of those things that can't be said enough. Sorry if I am preaching to the choir. Maybe new people drift through now and then.

[valerief]

1. Then we should be giving them to schoolchildren as toys. Amen. nt

[Merchant Marine]

3. Sometimes

they are given to children as tools, along with training and education in their use. Statistically its safer than buying your teenager a car.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Merchant Marine]

24. Accusations

of alcoholism. I thought this was the party of tolerance and understanding?

[iverglas]

77. was somebody being intolerant and un-understanding

of alcoholics?

Missed it ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. That is an illegal and incredibly stupid suggestion.

[Katya Mullethov]

65. We started using Tannerite as an added incentive for good grades

For our 13yo grandson . Straight A's and you get a dozen bottles and a stack of AR magazines . An added benefit is , it makes him just that much harder to brainwash .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. I was responding to the arm all schoolchildren talking points above.

[iverglas]

78. apparently, so was "Katya"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Yes about an individual situation. Not the arm all schoolchildren talking points.

[iverglas]

82. what, only her family's kids get to have guns???

How ... élitist ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. So to be clear you think it's a good idea to arm all schoolchildren?

[iverglas]

84. sorry, Davey

That's one too many spins on the merry-go-round of utter nonsense for tonight.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. I got the question mark right didn't I?

[pkdu]

2. And they are needed why exactly? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Why is usually the purview of the purchaser? I bought mine because it was a good investment.

[pkdu]

8. Really?..how much did yours cost/when and what is it worth now? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. It was about a year ago now.

At least that seems about right. I paid $500 for it with 8 magazines and 500 rounds of ammo. I could sell it for at least 2x that now. Even more if some idiot in Congress tries to reintroduce the AWB.

David

[pkdu]

10. model/age and place/site to back up the current $1000+ claim? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Sorry you'll just have to take my word for it.

I got quite the deal on it, especially with the accessories.

David

[virginia mountainman]

39. I will Bite....

I have a "few" LOL, Norinco SKS's, bought new, back in the early 1990's from a department store..

I paid about $99 a piece for them, that is why I was able to buy so many, here is an add from Gunbroker on their value today.....

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=132271285

Starting bid of $399

I also purchased, in 1997 a new MADDI semi auto AK47 clone...I gave $300 for it then, DURING the ban, yes in it current configuration, it was COMPLETELY LEGAL under the stupid ass AW Ban...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=132235054

Buy it now price on that one is, $875.

I also have a NHM91, that was also made by Norinco, I bought this slightly used back in the mid 1990's for $200...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=132490013

Its starting bid here is $700

Damn fine investments, with many pieces doubling or tripling their value over the past 15 years. I also own several other semi auto rifles, but their value has not increased as dramatically as these three, but they ALL are worth more now, than when I bought them..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Scary part is that is for Norincos...good ones go for more

[TheWraith]

75. Holy crap.

$100 for a Norinco SKS? If I could get that price I'd buy a pair! So what if it's the Chinese knockoffs. No wonder Clinton banned arms imports from China--the execs from Remington and Colt were probably weeping on the floor begging him to.

[TheWraith]

71. Try Gunbroker.com.

It's an auction site like eBay. Or check the classified ads on someplace like TheFiringLine.com.

[Merchant Marine]

25. Semiautomatic rifles

Are eminently useful for hunting, shooting competitions, home defense, and national defense.

[MichaelHarris]

35. Who

ya gonna defend us against?

[Callisto32]

51. Sometimes, you get invaded. Ask....any identifiable group of people.

Is it likely? Not in the mainland U.S. I don't think. But to deny that it is a possibility is silly. To advocate the initiation of force against other people is even sillier. Yes, "asking" that the owners of certain items register those items and then punishing them if they do not, is initiating force.

[Merchant Marine]

62. All enemies

foreign and domestic.

[Tim01]

70. Heck, we've already had one civil war and we are a very young country. nt

[TheWraith]

72. A famous Japanese admiral once said you couldn't invade the US mainland...

Because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It's the same national defense approach that the Swiss have taken.

In any event, I'm a lot less worried about external threats than I am the Glenn Beck type nutbars.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Why is need even an issue?

[DissedByBush]

79. No reason required

You should NEVER have to explain why you wish to exercise a constitutional right.

[paulsby]

107. the "need canard"

rears its head.

[Tim01]

112. I need mine for hunting, sport shooting, defense, and just in case. Is that good enough? nt

[eqfan592]

113. Yes, I'm sure you have a demonstrated 100% need for every single thing you own. (snark) (nt)

[Tim01]

114. Should we make illegal anything we don't need, which might be dangerous?

Ban all cars that can exceed the speed limit. Ban all alcohol. Ban drugs.(Oh, my bad. Drugs like pot are already banned). Ban tobacco. Ban unhealthy food. Ban unsafe sports.

[ZombieHorde]

6. I did not know that. I thought they were full auto. Live and learn I guess. nt

[oneshooter]

15. The designation difference

is the key.

M16, M16a1, M16a2, M4, are all full auto weapons.Military and police only. Very few, less than 200 available for civilian ownership. Cost $15-20,000 Must undego a VERY anal backround check and pay a $200 tax for each one.

AR15, AR 15a2, M4a1 ( also callsd a M forgery} civilian legel semi-auto rifle. Lots of them to choose from as they are made by 8-10 manufacturers. Prices range from $1100-2100. Backround check and permits vary from state to state.

AK-47 Full auto Com Block rifle. Very few, less than 200 available for civilian ownership. cost is the same as the full auto M-16. Purchase requires the same backround check and tax as the M-16.

AKS-47 Semi auto version of the AK-47. Lots to choose from, imported from several countries. Prices range from $700-1000.Backround check and permits vary from state to state.

Hope this helps.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

30. Couple of corrections there

The M4A1 is also military issue; the difference is that the M4 fires three-round bursts, while the M4A1 fires full auto.

The AKS-47 is also military. In any AK designation (AK-47, AKM, AK-74), the "S" indicates a folding stock. Any semi-auto-only derivative is by definition not an AK, since the "A" stands for avtomat, automatic. There are more semi-auto-only Kalashnikov derivatives than you can shake a stick at, and they all have different designations. "AK derivative" is probably the best collective term for them.

[TheWraith]

73. Fully automatic weapons are governed under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You can buy them, but as pointed out below, they're INSANELY expensive, require a lot of paperwork and waiting, and are a limited supply because in 1986 they closed the NFA registry. No new fully automatic firearms are on the US market, and they may never be again.

The NFA also regulates weapons which are easily converted to automatic (which is why converted semi-autos are almost non-existant in the US), weapons over .50 caliber (shotguns excepted) and weapons which don't conform to conventional standards--guns that look like canes, shotgun pistols, things like that. Because they're so niche and hard to get, you almost never see NFA regulated guns in the real world.

[DissedByBush]

80. The anti gun rights crowd thrives on such lack of knowledge

They want you to think they are full auto and somehow extraordinarily dangerous.

That makes it easier to get your support for their gun bans.

[SteveM]

86. Here's how the deception got started...

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over full automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restriction on these weapons." -- Josh Sugarmann, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Nothing like starting a movement with a publicly-expressed lie.

[nevergiveup]

7. "This is one of those things that can't be said enough"

:eyes:

[tridim]

11. Most kids quit playing "army men" at around 12 years old.

If they're just like regular guns, get a regular gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. They are regular guns.

[Merchant Marine]

26. Sorry

You guys banned all the regular guns.

[Callisto32]

52. What do you mean, "just like a 'regular' gun"? What makes a gun irregular?

[tridim]

53. It's the OP's claim, not mine.

[Euromutt]

66. Care to quote the relevant passage from the OP?

Because I don't see it.

Moreover, you said:

If they're just like regular guns, get a regular gun.

"Like regular guns" means you think so-called "assault weapons" are not regular guns; this is reinforced by your exhortation to "get a regular gun" rather than a so-called "assault weapon."

So what, in your opinion, is a "regular gun"? Lack of semi-automatic action? Non-detachable magazine? That'll come as surprise to owners of Browning BARs (http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/family.asp?webflag_=002B&offset=0) and Benelli R1s (http://www.benelliusa.com/rifles/benelli_r1_rifle.php), to name but two.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. They ARE 'regular guns'.

The AR-15 is one of if not THE most popular center-fire rifle in America. It's based on the M-16, which IS an assault rifle. But the AR-15 is not, it's semi-auto. It is an 'assault weapon', per Congress in the 1994 AWB, but it is not an assault rifle. The terms are mutually exclusive.

How common does a rifle need to be, before you consider it a 'regular gun'?

[Cant trust em]

12. I love the gun debate on DU.

So refreshing.

[MichaelHarris]

16. My favorite part of the OP

"They are not very powerful as guns go"

yeah, right: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-1997-Bank-of-America-North-Hollywood-Shootout

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. In the grand scheme of things assault weapons aren't usually chambered in powerful rounds.

It's common knowledge.

David

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. In comparison to other rifle cartridges it's in the middle toward the low end though.

Largely due to the short cartridge length. That limits the amount of powder and thus the velocity of the .308 Winchester or 7.62 mm NATO or 7.62x51mm. Hope that helps.

David

[MichaelHarris]

21. you guys

would try and legitimize a talking turd if it wore a NRA pin.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Huh? No need to legitimize the .308 Winchester it's a fantastic round.

Accurate, short cartridge length makes it great for a shorter deer rifle. It's a little underpowered for larger game like elk and moose. It performed very admirably for the US military, in every conflict in a variety of weapons, since 1957. I had a Remington Model 7 chambered in .308 that I used to hunt with. I quit hunting years ago though and sold it.

David

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Best I can tell most of the RKBAs here are not NRA members, but your trashing of them

follows the Brady Bunch and VPC templates.

[Merchant Marine]

27. Accusations

of alcoholism are utterly unnecessary and entirely crude. Alerted.

[MichaelHarris]

31. thanks

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. I see you are playing journalist again. If you only had the ethics of a real journalist.

[MichaelHarris]

32. anything

about that video wrong or misleading? Once again you do the childish, "attack the poster" when you mouth fails to produce the truth. You're very simple-minded Dave.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. A childish attack like accusing someone of alcoholism?

[spin]

57. You are misleading when you lead people to believe..

that the rifles used were "assault weapons" which are semi-auto, while the rifles the criminals in the video were fully automatic. (The OP was Assault Weapons are NOT machine guns. Heck they're not even assault rifles.

If you don't understand the difference, please do some research.

The reason less powerful rounds are used in true assault rifles is that they are easier to control in full auto mode and yes, they can kill at a short range in either semi-auto or full auto mode. But the military went to burst fire assault rifles because even with the lower powered rounds, full auto wasted a lot of ammo and were less accurate, Burst fire means that usually 2 or 3 rounds are fired with each pull of the trigger.

To aid in your research I'll post a helpful link:

Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted a number of studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Several things were learned which applied directly to personal weapon design. Perhaps most important, research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.<11> Third, psychological studies found that many riflemen (as much as 2/3) never fired their weapons at the enemy. By contrast, those soldiers equipped with rapid-fire weapons (submachine guns and the early assault rifles) were far more likely to actually use their weapons in battle.<12> This combination of factors led to the conclusion that a fairly short-range weapon capable of rapid fire would be the most effective general purpose weapon for infantry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Late_1950s.E2.80.931960s:_Lighter_rifles_.26_smaller_bullets

For some reason, I suspect you do know the difference but choose the typical anti-gun tactic of trying to confuse facts and terminology. True military assault rifles are definitely intimidating. Far more so than the crippled assault weapons which merely resemble military rifles and look evil, but only fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Why don't you just argue that all rifles should be banned as even a .22 caliber single shot rifle can easily kill someone. For that matter, why not argue that all firearms should be banned from civilian use.

Is it possible that while you truly believe this, you realize that there is absolutely no way you could pass a law to accomplish your goals? So you use the approach of passing laws that ban weapons in incremental steps. While you realize that such laws will do little or nothing, their failure will enable you to push for new laws to ban other firearms. Eventually, you accomplish your original goal.

[beevul]

69. Misrepresenting machineguns as assault weapons, mike.

You did that.

You KNOW you did that.

We KNOW you did that.

Everyone hereabouts not blinded by thier own biases that reads this thread, will know that.

But then, misrepresentation is THE stock and trade of the anti-gun lobby...err...the few dozen people that are left that it is made up of.


And you even follow it up claiming someone elses mouth failing "to produce the truth".



Almost to the last, when someone from your side of the debate accuses someone of lying, or misrepresenting facts or truth, it is just after that person him/her self has done just that.

Oh sure, there are exceptions, but then we all know what exceptions are exceptions to, don't we.


Has it never occured to you that the reason WE win and YOU lose in the arena of legislation, is because people are much smarter that YOUR SIDE gives them credit for being?

Like...you know...people KNOW when they are being lied to. People know when things are represented as something they aren't. Particularly people who value the second amendment, where THAT issue is concerned.

I understand, your side would have to learn an entirely new bag of tricks, and you would have truth and facts to contend with, but at least your side would be viewed by the masses as being potentially trustworthy.

[Statistical]

29. .308 a good hunting round.

Very few "assault weapons" and no true assault rifles chambered in it though.

.308 was one of the last battle rifle cartridges and was used in the M14


While a powerful round the Army found it "too powerful". High recoil reduced followup shot times. The heavy weight limited the amount of ammo that could be carried.

The battle rifles gave way to the assault rifles which traded a smaller less lethal round for higher carrying capacity.

The vast majority of assault rifles today are chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x39mm which are rather anemic compared to the .308.

The vast majority of so called "assault weapons" being copies of assault rifles are chambered in them also.

[MichaelHarris]

33. really?

http://www.notpurfect.com/main/hk91.htm


I could list a few more if you weren't playing with numbers (.308/7.62) I owned an HK-91 in the 80s. To quote the OP, "They are not very powerful as guns go", is a very stupid statement.

[Tim01]

36. I'll say it again, they are not that powerful as guns go.And I know what I am talking about.

I'll be shooting "assault rifles" with a bunch of other guys today. And they all agree with me. We won't be shooting anything that powerful. Maybe one person will have a .308, but probably not.
And I own one of the most powerful and comparatively rare assault weapons chambered in .308. Most assault weapons are in 7.62x39 or .223.

All of these rounds are very mild compared to my very good hunting rifle in 300 win mag, or my .458 win mag which actually is just as powerful as "assault weapons" are said to be. Either of these hunting rifles make "assault weapons" pleasantly mild in comparison.
And then there are the 12guage slugs.Might as well be throwing cinder blocks from catapult.

[Euromutt]

37. No, not stupid at all

Admittedly, the phrase might be amended to "not very powerful as rifles go."

During and shortly after the second world war, the Germans, the Soviets and the Americans all came to the conclusion that the rounds used by their infantrymen were needlessly powerful. Yes, they could hit a target up to a kilometer away, but various studies (like the American "Project SALVO" study) indicated that rank-and-file riflemen very rarely engaged targets beyond 200 meters, and that the same results could largely be achieved with less powerful ammunition, and concomitantly lighter rifles. Moreover, mobile warfare led to many "meeting engagement" (mil-speak for "stumbled into each other") firefights, at very short range, in which raw firepower appeared to be the decisive factor. Developing a lightened round would permit the rifleman to fire his individual weapon on automatic. Hence, both the Germans and the Soviets both developed a shortened rounds in the same caliber as their existing rifle rounds (the Germans developing the 7.92mm Kurz to replace the 7.92x57mm Mauser, and the Soviets developing the 7.62x39mm to replace the 7.62x54mm) as well as selective-fire rifles with large magazines to fire the new rounds. The Germans developed the weapon that would eventually be designated the Stg.44, while the Sovs developed what would become the AK-47. "Stg." is the abbreviation of Sturmgewehr, lit. "storm rifle," more loosely "assault rifle."

NATO lagged behind for about a decade, clinging to its WWII rifle rounds, before finally adopting the 7.62x51mm NATO as its new standard round. This was a compromise between parties in the US military, specifically between those who wanted to adopt a "Kurz"-style round and those who didn't want to relinquish the .30-06. As a result, the 7.62mm NATO is a slightly shortened and lightened .30-06, but nowhere to the degree that the 7.92mm Kurz or the 7.62x39mm were. As a result, the weapons that were made to fire it aren't considered "assault rifles," but rather, "battle rifles."

Long story short, while the 7.62mm NATO is more powerful than the usual "assault rifle" rounds like the 7.62x39mm Russian, the 5.56x45mm NATO, the 5.45x39mm Russian and the newly developed Chinese 5.8x42mm, it is not as powerful as every standard rifle cartridge of WWII. The American .30-06, the .303 British, the 7.92x57mm Mauser, the 7.62x54mm Russian, even the 7.7x58mm Japanese, all are more powerful than the 7.62mm NATO/.308 Winchester.

And then we've only covered cartridges designed to be used on humans. Once you get into moose- and bear-killing cartridges, we're talking a lot more power.

[Statistical]

38. I never said it was impossible to find a.308/7.62x51

I just said it wasn't very common. MOST semi-autos are chambered in the even lighter 5.56x45mm or 7.63x39mm round.

The .308 is a compramise between the full powered .30-06 Springfield used in the M1 and the lighter cartridges in assault rifles. The 7.62x51mm is the last of the battle rifles.



The militaries of the world moved a long time ago from full automatic large caliber battle rifles like the G4 (which is the basis for the HK41 and HK91).

They moved to the lighter calibers more commonly found in semi-auto rifles for reasons of capacity and control.

The AR-15 and AK-47 undoubtably the most common semi-auto rifles are normally chambered in much smaller rounds that the .308.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Ownership does not confer knowledge...7.62 NATO is a medium cartridge compared to others

[Callisto32]

54. The most common chamberings of "assault weapons" are

(.223/5.56X45) These are NOT the same cartridge. Though they are very similar in dimensions, the 5.56 is loaded to higher pressures. It is unsafe to fire a 5.56 in a rifle chambered .223, but not the other way around. Both of these cartridges are generally considered adequate for coyotes at the most. They are small projectiles, at high velocity The Lyman Reloading Handbook lists bullets in weights from about 40-80 grains usually at velocities around 3k fps.

7.62x39 This is a round that is considered adequate for harvesting White Tailed Deer, but only at short ranges. Data lists this round as firing a 123
-150 (usually 123) grain projectile at around 2400 fps. You can do the math on the energy carried yourself.

As far as rifle cartridges go, these are not all that powerful. There are many, many cartridges that launch a projectile carrying more energy than these. To believe that these cartridges are in the same category as .338 Lapua Magnum, .30-'06 Springfield, or even .220 Swift is perhaps easy if you have only a tertiary knowledge of ballistics and terminal performance. But, if you run the numbers, you will see that they are, in comparison to many common calibers (I admit .338 is rarely seen, at last around the deer harvesting fields of central PA) not really all that much fire and brimstone.

[TheWraith]

74. .308 is almost non-existent in "assault weapons."

It's a great round, to be sure, and damn powerful--I own a .308 rifle myself. But it was far TOO powerful to be fired on full automatic and remain controllable, which is why virtually all military weapons (and thus their neutered civilian knockoffs) standardized on much weaker rounds like 5.56, 7.62x39, and 5.45x39. Plus there were other reasons for the military to choose a smaller weaker round.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. It IS non-existant in assault weapons.

.308 is basically the lower boundary (and most popular) of the Battle Rifle class weapons. As a 'short' .30 caliber, 7.62x39mm is basically the upper bound of Assault Rifle class weapons.

[TheWraith]

92. Some like the FN FAL knockoffs qualify as "assault weapons" under the usual nonsense rules.

However, you're correct that "assault rifle" ends well below .308 territory.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Most of the civilian knock-offs fall in Assault Weapon territory

due to the grip configuration of modern, more ergonomic weapons, and the detachable magazine, which allows for, potentially, any sized high cap magazine to be inserted.

That's what I think the OP is trying to drive home. Assault Rifle is a military weapons nomenclature, Assault Weapon is a legal term, and never the twain should meet.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. "I'll substitute a Battle Rifle for an Assault Rifle in a 'caliber' debate, no one will notice"

Michael's thought process revealed.

The paratrooper version of the 91 might, maybe, almost qualify as an assault rifle, but no, not really, because the cartridge disqualifies it.

Oh hey, YOUR OWN SOURCE reveals your pathetic attempt at deception:

"Though originally designed as an assault rifle, on today's battlefield, the G3 is considered to be a battle rifle, due to its use of the 308 cartridge. As such, I would not compare it to the M-16, Ak-47, or any other assault rifle."

Same is true, even of the Paratrooper version of the FN-FAL. .308 is a Battle Rifle round, not an Assault Rifle round. An Assault Rifle is a select fire weapon of INTERMEDIATE POWER BETWEEN THAT OF A SUB MACHINE GUN AND A BATTLE RIFLE.

Quit playing games with military nomenclature. You are completely transparent.

[Merchant Marine]

23. Thank god

They weren't armed with the WW2 era M1 Garand. 30-06 can penetrate engine blocks- the cops would've had no cover at all.

[MichaelHarris]

34. Hey

maybe you could supply them with some. Wait, they're dead.

[Statistical]

49. Strange that they died and no cops did given that assault rifles are "so powerful" n/t

[Euromutt]

40. Did you notice that the robbers didn't manage to kill anybody?

Phillips and Matasareanu put out 1,100-1,300 rounds, with which they managed to wound 20 people, but they didn't inflict any fatal wounds. What was terrifying about the North Hollywood shootout was the sheer volume of fire the pair were able to put out with their automatic weapons while their home-made body armor rendered them nearly impervious to the LAPD patrol officers' 9mm and 12-gauge buckshot rounds. But even so, they didn't manage to kill anyone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. That they did not kill anyone and that it took so long to get them down was amazing

Back as far as the Watts riots, LAPD would shoot buckshot at the ground to "discourage" rioters. Same tactic might have worked at NoHo.

[Callisto32]

55. Honestly, I think that that shootout could have been ended pretty quickly

if the police had had a way of putting down precision fire. Even a good .22 long rifle probably could have done it just by putting a round someplace that was not armored, like an eye....

It was a situation where the police were woefully unprepared for what they had to do because their equipment just wasn't selected with this in mind. Luckily, many police forces are now armed with AR's in addition to their more traditional sidearms and shotguns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Others have argued it was partially due to LAPD training to focus on the

center of mass. Leg shots would have stopped it much sooner. Its easy Monday AM quarterbacking vice being there in real time

[AtheistCrusader]

89. They were shot in the legs a bunch, actually.

I think that's what brought the first one down, finally.

For this sort of problem, there's really no substitute for .308.

[X_Digger]

42. You tell me..

http://rowelab.com/ar15v3006.jpg

Which of these is legal for hunting deer? (In most states,
only the one on the right- granddad's hunting gun fires most
of these.)

Here's a chart that Tim01 put together comparing power

Caliber_____________________Energy in ft lbs

.22 Hornet (45 Sp)_________ 723
.357 Mag. (180 HP)_________ 960
.30 Carbine (110 RN)_______ 967
.222 Rem. (50 Sp)__________ 1094
.223 Rem. (55 Sp)__________ 1282____ AR15
.204 Ruger (33 BTSP)_______ 1308
7.62x39 (125 Sp)___________ 1552____ AK47
.45-70 (405 FP) ___________ 1590
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 FP)_____ 1650
.22-250 Rem. (55 Sp)_______ 1654
.220 Swift (55 SpBT)_______ 1765
.223 WSSM (55 SpBT)________ 1810
.30-30 Win. (170 FP)_______ 1827
.30-30 Win. (150 FP)_______ 1902
.32 Spec. (170 FP)_________ 1910
.35 Rem. (200 RN)__________ 1921
.243 Win. (100 Sp)_________ 1945
.243 Win. (80 Sp)__________ 1993
6.8mm Rem. SPC (115 Sp) ___ 2002
.257 Roberts (120 Sp)______ 2060
6.5x55 SE (140 Sp)_________ 2100
8x57 JS (170 RN)___________ 2100
6mm Rem. (100 Sp)__________ 2133
.243 WSSM (100 Sp)_________ 2147
.45-70 (300 HP)____________ 2182
7x57 Mauser (140 Sp)_______ 2200
.300 Sav. (150 Sp)_________ 2303
.260 Rem. (140 Sp)_________ 2351
.25-06 Rem. (120 Sp)_______ 2382
.25 WSSM (120 Sp)__________ 2382
.303 British (180 Sp)______ 2420
7mm-08 Rem. (140 Sp)_______ 2542
.338-57 O'Connor (200 FP)__ 2558
.240 Wby. Mag. (100 Sp)____ 2576
.308 Win. (150 Sp)_________ 2648
.270 Win. (130 Sp)_________ 2702
.270 Win. (150 Sp)_________ 2705
.308 Win. (180 Sp)_________ 2743__2nd popular hunting rnd
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (120 Sp)___ 2744
6.5x68 S (140 Sp)__________ 2779
.280 Rem. (140 Sp)_________ 2797
.30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp)______ 2820
.264 Win. Mag. (140 Sp)____ 2854
.257 Wby. Mag. (120 Sp)____ 2910
.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp)______ 2913___Most popular hunting round
.444 Marlin (240 FP)_______ 2942
.35 Whelen (200 Sp)________ 3177
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 SpBT)___ 3221
7mm Rem. SAUM (150 Sp)_____ 3221
.270 WSM (150 Sp)__________ 3304
7mm WSM (150 Sp)___________ 3410
.350 Rem. Mag. (200 Sp)____ 3419
.450 Marlin (350 FP)_______ 3427
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 Sp)____ 3501
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp)____ 3501
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 Sp)____ 3502
.300 WSM (180 Sp)__________ 3526
9.3x62 (286 SpBT)__________ 3544
7mm Wby. Mag. (150 SpBT)___ 3627
7mm Ultra Mag. (160 Sp)____ 3637
.338 Win. Mag. (225 Sp)____ 3860
.300 Wby. Mag. (180 Sp)____ 4195
.300 Ultra Mag. (180 Sp)___ 4221
.375 H&H Mag. (300 Sp)_____ 4262
.338 Ultra Mag (250 Sp)____ 4540
.340 Wby. Mag. (250 Sp)____ 4801
.458 Win. Mag. (500 RN)____ 4850
.416 Rigby (400 RN)________ 4990
.375 Ultra Mag (300 Sp)____ 5073
.416 Rem. Mag. (400 Sp)____ 5115
.378 Wby. Mag. (270 SP)____ 6062
.460 Wby. Mag. (500 RN)____ 7504
Cartridge (Wb + type)______ ME (ft lb) 

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. You missed the Nitro 600 at 8400 ft lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.600_Nitro_Express

[AtheistCrusader]

99. fffff screw the sub .50 class, the real fun begins at 13,000 ft lbs.

[Statistical]

59. The muzzle velocity table actually favors smaller cartridges

I table showing momentum would emhasize how weak the 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 really are.

Muzzle Energy = 1/2 m v^2
Momentum = m * v

Not that the table isn't good but I guess what I am saying is it put light cartridges (like 5.56 NATO) is the best possible light. Wounding charecteristics tend to correlate more with momentum that with ME and the light rounds fall apart in a comparison like that.

[X_Digger]

63. Yup, any way you look at it..

.. most 'assault weapon' rounds are low powered compared to other common rifles.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Penetration tends to favor velocity, knockdown is mostly kinetic energy on impact

But first and foremost, its shot placement. The shooter at the Holocaust Museum used a .22 pump rifle. Most of shooters consider that inadequate for any kind of defense, relegating it to target use. It was clearly deadly.

I'm in the KE camp. Slower/heavier rounds are less likely to penetrate, but even with a vest you are not going to be real interested in continuing the fight after absorbing that much energy

[Statistical]

68. Real world testing tends to show the exact opposite.

First of all kinetic energy means nothing.
Knockdown is non existent at personal firearm cartridges.

You would kill or even slow someone down with the kinetic energy in a pistol (and most rifle) cartridges.

Physics being what it is, if the round had enough energy to knock down the target it would also knock down the shooter.

The only thing that matters is the size and depth of the wound channel.
Larger wound channel = more trauma and more likely to hit a critical area that incapacitates the attacker (vital organ, major artery, central nervous system).

All things equal in ballistic gel the slower/heaver loads (i.e. 147gr 9mm) tend to penetrate deeper than faster/lighter loads (115gr 9mm).

About 10 years ago ammo manufacturers couldn't design rounds to expand reliably at "low speeds" and that combined with hollow point clogging gave slow rounds as bad rep.

Modern ammo designs seems to have solved all those problems. Looking at ballistic reports for Federal HST I can't find a single instance where 115gr or 124gr outperforms the 147gr cartridge.

That is major reason LEO are moving back to "slow & heavy" cartridges (147gr 9mm, 180gr .40, 230gr .45ACP).

I do agree that shot placement is far more important though.

[slackmaster]

43. Um, MichaelHarris, the guns used in that shootout were machineguns, not "assault weapons"

Nice job of completely missing the point.

:argh:

[benEzra]

58. OK, name three .30-caliber rifle chamberings LESS powerful than an AK.

.30 carbine is the only one less powerful than 7.62x39mm that I can think of, and that one is an "assault weapon" round too. Face it, the most popular "assault weapon" calibers define the low end of the centerfire rifle power spectrum, not the high end.

FWIW, the North Hollywood bank robbers used illegal machineguns and homemade body armor, but in terms of the standoff the body armor was probably the more significant factor. And despite all that, the LAPD could have resolved the situation in the first few minutes had a few officers had rifles in the trunk instead of shotguns. Prior to that, not many PD's had put much thought into dealing with armored suspects.

Police Marksman touched on the lessons learned from North Hollywood and the LAPD's lack of ranged weapons shortly after:

Fairburn D., "So, You're Ready for a Rifle?" Police Marksman May/Jun 1997, pp. 24-26.

[Statistical]

60. Yup a bolt action hunting rifle and good aim could have ended the situation from a distance n/t

[benEzra]

61. Yup. Even a .223 or a .30-30.

Problem was, every LAPD officer on the scene was shooting a short-ranged gun incapable of precise shots at range, and incapable of penetrating the thugs' armor.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. For the shotguns, were they even using slugs?

Or were the police stuck with buckshot?

[Statistical]

103. I believe they only had buckshot but most vests will hold up to shotgun slug.

Large cross section and slow speed (relativey speaking) makes it difficult for a shotgun slug to pierce armor.

LAPD tactics dept had a wakeup call on that day.

The media spun it as a failure of gun control. The LAPD thankfully saw it as a failure of equipment and tactics.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. My favorite part of your posts, are the puddles of disingenuousness you leave like a trail

everywhere you post.

1. None of the Police Officers were killed, as .223 is a fairly anemic round, and won't go through both sides of a cop car, with enough mass and energy to kill a human, reliably.
2. The weapons in the videos are not civilian Assault Weapons, they are military Assault Rifles. The 'power' of those weapons is not in it's bullet, but in it's cyclic rate, for suppressing fire. The Civilian knock-offs lack that power.

Had those robbers been rocking M240's instead (or really anything in .30 caliber), there would have been a lot of dead cops that day.
Fortunately, criminals don't tend to be too bright.

[iverglas]

76. STOP THE PRESSES!

[armyowalgreens]

94. I'm actually interested in knowing your stance on assault weapons...

That includes all semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47.

[iverglas]

95. uh, they're ugly?

Your "assault weapons ban" is nothing to do with me, if that's what you're after.

Where I'm at, most of these things are restricted-access and I think access is not nearly restricted enough. But that's me, and that's where I'm at.

[armyowalgreens]

96. So what do you think would happen if all restrictions on assault weapons were lifted?

[iverglas]

97. I think there would be a lot of people with access to those weapons

who should not have access to those weapons. And there would be a lot of those weapons circulating freely on the market to people actually prohibited, for quite good reason, from having access to those weapons.

Or were you recommending registration?

From what I've seen, many very unsavoury individuals seem drawn like moths to those things. I have yet to be totally convinced that they want them to hang above their mantels and admire of an evening.

Hold on though. Wasn't that AWB thing eliminated? So what restrictions are there on assault weapons that you're referring to being lifted?

[armyowalgreens]

98. I'm just talking about Canadian law.

And yes the AWB had a sunset clause and Bush let it lapse.

So now you can basically own any rifle as long as it isn't fully automatic.

I personally have no problem with it. I understand the unsavory characters you are referring to. A lot of them are truly "right-wing nutjobs". But in reality, the vast majority of them don't have the balls to shoot anything other than helpless animals.


However, I also see the utility in owning an AR-15. I personally believe that the people have a responsibility to protect themselves from tyranny.

And I don't mean tyranny like Bush. I mean if a real psychopath took power and he or she somehow managed to become a murderous dictator. Is that going to happen any time soon? No.

But I worry that by the time something like that were to happen, no one would be able to purchase a gun anyway.


I'm really weird like that. I think hunting for sport is absolutely wrong. I believe guns should be used only in situations of absolute survival. But that often includes self-defense situations.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Excuse me, Congress let it lapse.

Though the republicans had a slight majority at the time, in Congresss.

The President is not all-powerful.

[armyowalgreens]

105. I guess you're right. I just always associate the lapse with Bush

for some weird reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. He gave it some half-hearted lip service around 'hey we should renew this'

Congress ignored him, and that was that. It would take a powerful president to motivate congress on an issue like that, and it was a clear election loser in the 90's, so I'm not surprised they let it drop. Certainly no Republican would work to renew it, and no Democrat that was paying attention would either.

[Tim01]

104. The animals.

At this point we would be doing many animals a great injustice if we didn't hunt them.

If the yuppies are willing to go back to the cities and are willing to put up with some of their kids being killed and eaten now and then, then we can let the wolves come back to hamstring, disembowel and eat alive the deer. The cats are more efficient killers, except when they are playing with their food for fun. Which they do.

Bullets are pretty quick when placed properly.

If you got to know nature better, you might see things differently. Maybe not.


When you hear bird songs this time of year, there is a very good chance it is a bird failing at saving it's babies from blue jays or hawks.

[armyowalgreens]

106. Hey I fly fish...

I have backpacked 8 miles up the side of the Mogollon rim with 60 pounds of equipment on my back. I've hiked 2 miles into and out of a canyon in 90 degree weather wearing full waders and carrying 30 pounds of fly fishing equipment and a float tube.

I know nature. I just happen to believe that the act of hunting is unethical. I almost exclusively catch and release.

I've heard a lot of arguments that hunting helps thin out certain animal populations. But what would happen if we weren't around? I'm sure things would get along just fine without us capping deers and elk left and right. In fact, I've heard arguments that controlled hunting seasons have allowed for overpopulation of other species, in certain circumstances.

[X_Digger]

108. I saw the result.. not pretty..

Back in the '80s, George Washington National forest in Virginia was closed to hunting. The deer population exploded, and the average weight plummeted. When we went camping there after five or six years, we saw starving deer about as big as a large german shepherd. There was no ground cover, no new shoots of trees, many smaller trees killed by deer chewing the soft bark from around their bases. Fewer squirrels, no turkeys, pheasant, or quail to be found anywhere. There was an explosion of opossum and buzzards. Quite sad. :(

[Tim01]

109. I've tried fly fishing. You have my admiration.

If we left the animals alone their population would stabilize through whatever means.
Just looking at deer, we can see the effects in fenced government compounds with wooded areas that don't allow hunting.
What usually happens is the employees finally ask to be allowed to hunt the deer. After a while the deer over populate the food and they all become small and sickly and diseased. People hate to see the deer in such awful shape and decide the deer are better off if some of them are killed. This happens around airports too.
Wolves and coyotes and foxes and cats would do this job if we would let them. But humans are not going to allow dangerous animals to live near them.Because those animals will also kill and eat us.
So we can do the job the predators should do, or disease will do the job.
In reality, we can do the job with a lot less violence than big cats or dogs.
I have plenty of respect for your point of view. I wish more people were like you. I would just like you to add to you info the fact that real nature is very violent and covered in blood. If we were part of nature we would be very bloody, and many of our children would have been torn to pieces and eaten.
The fact that we enjoy our comfortable existence is because we have nothing to do with nature.

[paulsby]

116. "if you try to go against nature, it's part of nature too" - love and rockets channeling camus nt

[jeepnstein]

115. I respectfully disagree...

Ethical hunters use techniques and arms that quickly kill. With the exception of varmint shooters, I don't know anyone who doesn't eat what they kill. Many families use deer hunting as a way to stretch their food budgets. I don't hunt anymore because I don't have the time and really never found it all that challenging.

In a few years I'll start hunting again to teach my boys how to do it properly. Some of my fondest memories of my dad were hunting trips where we never bothered taking a shot. Sitting there under the trees watching the squirrels play with not a care in the world.

We are the top-level predators in many parts of the United States. Without hunters the population of deer, for example, would take off virtually unchecked. Well, unchecked until disease, cars, and over grazing started to starve off the herds. I'm not a proponent of whole scale slaughters like the old buffalo hunts but regulated hunting serves a good purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. I think a good part of THIS is

"From what I've seen, many very unsavoury individuals seem drawn like moths to those things."

The media glorifying these civilian, normal, semi-automatic rifles as SPRAY FIRE FROM THE HIP GOD-SLAYING PORTABLE NUCLEAR WEAPONSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Half the 'stories' in the news about various shootings often read like some sort of crazy sales brochure, more often than not, for a weapon that wasn't even involved in the situation.

[Tim01]

111. A good day for a bump on this one. nt