• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

ponderingturtle said:
And if it has a short barrel it is a carbine. If it is intended for more sustained fire it is squad automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

Carbine is such a nebulous term as to be almost useless. M1 Carbine and M4 Carbine are very different. A SAW has changed in meaning over the years. Put a bipod, a larger box mag, and give it full auto, and the FN FAL was used as a SAW. Compare that to an M249.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Similarly, the advantage of having a Federation is to let different states try to different solutions to similar problems. But in the case of gun laws, this is impossible when the laws of most pro-gun state have to be upheld in all states.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. The gun laws of, for example, alabama and California are wildly different (carry permits, magazine capacity, banned models, etc)
 
lobosrul5 said:
Carbine is such a nebulous term as to be almost useless. M1 Carbine and M4 Carbine are very different. A SAW has changed in meaning over the years. Put a bipod, a larger box mag, and give it full auto, and the FN FAL was used as a SAW. Compare that to an M249.
Click to expand...

The important part of SAW is that it uses the same ammunition as the main issue weapon but is capable of much more sustained fire. So a larger magazine and a heavy barrel is enough to count.

The thing is that all gun terms are fairly nebulous and frequently change meanings as their roles and uses evolve.
 
Belz... said:
Not sure what you mean. If we're going to discuss assault weapons, it's important to define what it means.
Click to expand...


It would be much easier, surely, to discuss manual, semi-automatic and automatic weapons? and maybe on top of that, calibre and FPS?

Nice, easy, well identified boundaries. The whole 'assault rifle' thing just seems to be an utterly massive red herring and just an excuse for a massive, US wide media and political derail on "which of these two is an assault rifle and which is a hunting firle?".

I guarantee you that nobody, ever, looking down the wrong end of an automatic firearm ever gave a monkeys if it was designated an assault rifle or not.
 
3point14 said:
It would be much easier, surely, to discuss manual, semi-automatic and automatic weapons? and maybe on top of that, calibre and FPS?

Nice, easy, well identified boundaries. The whole 'assault rifle' thing just seems to be an utterly massive red herring and just an excuse for a massive, US wide media and political derail on "which of these two is an assault rifle and which is a hunting firle?".

I guarantee you that nobody, ever, looking down the wrong end of an automatic firearm ever gave a monkeys if it was designated an assault rifle or not.
Click to expand...

QFT, and much better put than I tried to :)
 
ponderingturtle said:
The important part of SAW is that it uses the same ammunition as the main issue weapon but is capable of much more sustained fire. So a larger magazine and a heavy barrel is enough to count.

The thing is that all gun terms are fairly nebulous and frequently change meanings as their roles and uses evolve.
Click to expand...

Of course, SAW's are just about totally banned for civilian ownership in the USA. Yeah I know if they were made before '84 (I think?), and you have big bucks, and get a stamp, its possible to get one.
 
3point14 said:
It would be much easier, surely, to discuss manual, semi-automatic and automatic weapons? and maybe on top of that, calibre and FPS?

Nice, easy, well identified boundaries. The whole 'assault rifle' thing just seems to be an utterly massive red herring and just an excuse for a massive, US wide media and political derail on "which of these two is an assault rifle and which is a hunting firle?".

I guarantee you that nobody, ever, looking down the wrong end of an automatic firearm ever gave a monkeys if it was designated an assault rifle or not.
Click to expand...

I kind of disagree on "assault rifle" being a useless term, "assault weapon" certainly is. Its an easy way to describe a rifle that is:

1) At least semi-auto
2) Has a detachable box magizine
3) Fires an intermediate rifle cartidge

Its a rifle that can be reloaded quickly, has light recoil, and is capable of deadly and reasonably accurate fire to about 400 meters (or further). There really aren't any "hunting rifles" that satisfy all those conditions. Then again they are legal in some states for hunting, at least for varmint.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Of course, SAW's are just about totally banned for civilian ownership in the USA. Yeah I know if they were made before '84 (I think?), and you have big bucks, and get a stamp, its possible to get one.
Click to expand...

Or get one like you can with WWI-WWII heavy machine guns and have it converted to semi auto. Try naming what those are.

Seriously what the hell do you call a semi auto conversion of a vickers?
 
lobosrul5 said:
A curio and relic heavy machine gun?
Click to expand...

But it is not full auto.

This is why so many of the "rules" for naming guns are so damn stupid.

Like how a 12 guage firearm that was never made with a full size barrel is not a short barreled shotgun because to be that it has to first be a full sized one and given a shorter barrel, simply being a 12ga with a 10" barrel is not enough.
 
The only rifles that civilians should be allowed to buy should be bolt action. All handguns sold should be revolvers only.

A person can still do some damage, but not nearly as much.
 
Belz... said:
Well, doesn't that mean we shouldn't use the term at all if it's misleading? Let's instead limit these characteristics in the law.

Of course, the reason why they use the term is that it evokes a feeling that is more likely to bias people against these weapons.
Click to expand...
Sure. I agree with you and Hellhound that terms should be properly defined, despite that I'm disinterested in the particulars (at least until there's actually proposed legislation). Unfortunately, the vague definition has been constantly foisted as a red herring in these debates, as if it's an insurmountable task to define the undesired characteristics.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I kind of disagree on "assault rifle" being a useless term, "assault weapon" certainly is. Its an easy way to describe a rifle that is:

1) At least semi-auto
2) Has a detachable box magizine
3) Fires an intermediate rifle cartidge

Its a rifle that can be reloaded quickly, has light recoil, and is capable of deadly and reasonably accurate fire to about 400 meters (or further). There really aren't any "hunting rifles" that satisfy all those conditions. Then again they are legal in some states for hunting, at least for varmint.
Click to expand...


I don't deny it's a term with a definition, albeit a lose and apparently moving definition, but that's part of the problem. Without a definite and easily identifiable line between the two categories of automatic rifle the discussion is self derailing, immediately becoming a discussion of labeling firearms.

I really don't know how much of a difference there is between a fully automatic long-barreled weapon not designated an assault rifle and one that is. I don't really think it matters. I am certain that it doesn't matter in the slightest to the person sporting natty new entrance and exit wounds.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
This is why so many of the "rules" for naming guns are so damn stupid.
Click to expand...

Like the example I posted in another thread:

Am i the only one here is is old enough to remember when "automatic" was used to refer to semi-automatic handguns? It was a thing in the old Mike Hammer era, when nior Detective movies and novels were all the rage. Like this one.

"Automatic" meant semiautomatic, a full automatic would have been referred to a "machine gun".

Terms change, language evolves.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, I mean if the problem is gun manufacturers get around the law, the solution is to update the law, not throw it out.
Click to expand...
Another strawman. The problem in the OP was a reporter that could not be bothered to report the actual facts and so made up some instead.

Skeptic Ginger said:
You argue gun semantics often in this forum. What is your solution to the problem you regularly complain about? Surely you have more to say here than just some reporter got something wrong.
Click to expand...
My solution would be to encourage CNN to vet their contributing writers more carefully. then they don't look so foolish.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The only rifles that civilians should be allowed to buy should be bolt action. All handguns sold should be revolvers only.

A person can still do some damage, but not nearly as much.
Click to expand...

What about break open single shot, trapdoor, pump action, lever action rifles/handguns and so on? All of these types are much less fast than a semi-auto or machine gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom