Assault Weapons

[SUBMAN1]

Watching the news last night (a rarity for me), and some Sheriff guy is up there saying that we need to ban Assault Weapons again. Can someone tell me why? It is not like they are used in crime or anything, so I don't get it. I guess that's it, I just don't get it.

My reasoning as to why - What they describe as Assault Weapons (really just sporting rifles since the military have an almost near monopoly on real assault weapons) accounts for a massively huge 0.2% use in all violent gun crimes. Yes that's right, 1/5th of 1% of gun crimes are committed with Assault style weapons.

Hmm. Seems to me that if you banned Assault Style Military rifles, you would not have 1/5th of 1% of gun crime. What a dramatic decrease that is?! Wow! So that means we will only have 99.8% of all gun crimes left after you remove these ugly things from our houses. Hmm. That is making headway now isn't it?!! So instead of having 100 crimes, we would have uhh... 100 crimes! Since the 0.2% is of course rounded up. Big progress! Why is it only 0.2% - simple - it is not practical for a crime! No criminal wants to lug a rifle around so that it waves a big "hear! Look at me!" type sign.

So, I researched further, I figured out that of every gun crime committed, rifles accounted for a whopping total of 4% of those! Wow! If we ban all rifles, including deer hunting rifles, and .22's, we would lower the gun crime rate to what? 96% of it's current level? So instead of 100 crimes, we would have uhh... 96 crimes! Big progress! Not!

Hmm... Could it be that the assault rifle or deer hunting rifle that is sitting in the closet is inspiring criminals to for out and shoot people with handguns? hahahahaha! Hmm... Must be according to some people's logic since they really aren't being used for any real crimes.

This brings me to my point. Why are police chiefs and gun ban whacko's so bent on going after 1 particular style of rifle? Especially one that is designed to wound and not kill? You can't even use 5.56 mm deer hunting - it is illegal simply because there is a high likelyhood it won't kill the deer! It is nothing more than an icon for a bigger problem. A lot of hot air so that they can show people they are doing something when they really are not. Nothing more. Politics, either for a complete firearm ban, or to get re-elected by whacko's. I can't figure any other answer to the question.

I do have a suggestion however (how could you ever guess?)! So if one wants to do something to lower gun crime, I have one MAJOR recommendation:

Simply create a National Database on the Internet for Stolen guns!

How simple is that? By the way, one doesn't exist at this point, and I can't fathom why with all the other databases that are available to you!!! Why doesn't this exist? Do you realize how many stolen guns would be taken off the street from criminals with this simple database? That would instantly stop sale of how many weapons by people who want nothing to do with stolen merchandise? Tons! Criminals would have their stolen gun sales cut off at the knees in so many circumstances, I bet you would even see a major drop in gun crime as a result - not 4% mind you, but maybe even 50% or better!

Again - just my 2 cents on a controversial issue. People should stop it with the icons, and instead take real action on a real issue. I am almost convinced that politicians think they are staying in office simply because a problem exists and have no intention of fixing anything anymore.

Anyway, now you have my thoughts.... And to finish, even if you did an outright ban on this one style of rifle, you only need look across the water to figure out that the criminals would still have them. In London England, a fully automatic (real) AK-47 assault rifle - not our sporting variety, can be had for as little as 800 pounds on the street - in a country where firearms are pretty much outright banned.

Enough said.

-S

[antikristuseke]

To be honest, this assault weapon ban has allways puzzled me and come off as nonsensical and hypocritical. While I understand a lot tighter regulations being imposed on fully automatic firearms, why should semi automatic rifles which use military calibres be subject to tighter regulations if other high powered rifles arent. Anyway as SUBMAN1 pointed out these types of rifles are rarely used in violent crime, im guessing mostly because they are difficult to conceal and impractical.

BTW Subman the 5.56 being designed to wound seems to be a myth, the currently in use 5.56 fmj rounds are designed to tuble after 4 inches of soft tissue and to fragment to contaminate the wound if the shot isnt leathal. Though .223 are indeed banned for deer hunting because deforming soft points simply dont have ennough energy to achive suficent penetration to reliably reach vital organs.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

...BTW Subman the 5.56 being designed to wound seems to be a myth, the currently in use 5.56 fmj rounds are designed to tuble after 4 inches of soft tissue and to fragment to contaminate the wound if the shot isnt leathal. Though .223 are indeed banned for deer hunting because deforming soft points simply dont have ennough energy to achive suficent penetration to reliably reach vital organs.

It is actually not designed that way, and that only happens at short range. The military didn't fully understand it till 1986 either, since it is not by design. Longer ranges, and it will only wound. Up close it kills, partially due to cavity and fragmentation. This fragmentation actually makes it safer to use indoors since the fragmenting round has little wall penetration. Where a .45 might go through a couple of your neighbors houses, a fragmenting 5.56, both 55 gr and 62 gr, seems to stop short quickly! So there is much less chance of hurting someone else not involved while in defense of ones self.

Of course if you are the news media, they will overexagerate the fact that it is a high power rifle so it must go through tanks or something (sarcasm).

-S

[The WosMan]

I think most people who own assault weapons are crazy.......only because it is so darn expensive. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have fun with one of those damn things???!!!!!

I have gone on a few machine gun shoots before (luckily many of the the guys who were there are doctors and lawyers so they don't mind sharing) and that was some of the most fun I had in my life. Nothing quite like shooting refridgerators filled with TNT or other various surprises or catching a car on fire in incindiary ammo. Only in America can a civilian enjoy that type of fun.

Of course if you are the news media, they will overexagerate the fact that it is a high power rifle so it must go through tanks or something (sarcasm).

Yeah I remember when that Zarala or whatever his name is on CNN doing a special on assault weapons and they edited the footage to make the gun look more deadly. The semi-automatic AK 47 didn't scratch some cinder blocks but the fully automatic one destroyed them, as if the fully automatic one fires a larger more deadlier bullet or something. It was quite ridiculous.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It is actually not designed that way, and that only happens at short range. The military didn't fully understand it till 1986 either, since it is not by design. Longer ranges, and it will only wound. Up close it kills, partially due to cavity and fragmentation. This fragmentation actually makes it safer to use indoors since the fragmenting round has little wall penetration. Where a .45 might go through a couple of your neighbors houses, a fragmenting 5.56, both 55 gr and 62 gr, seems to stop short quickly! So there is much less chance of hurting someone else not involved while in defense of ones self.

Of course if you are the news media, they will overexagerate the fact that it is a high power rifle so it must go through tanks or something (sarcasm).

-S

Thats true for the old 5.56 round and the old barrel rifling twist. The current rounds are heavyer and the rifling twist is different. And .45 is a really poor penetrator tbh. Anyway the 5.56 will go through several sheets of drywall while tumbling without disintegrating, but yes, it is generaly safer for indeoor use, though for indoor use special frangible amunition is advised.
Though im not 100% sure of the 5.56 design, havent done all that much research on it, just some casual browsing over the years.

The WosMan, yeah the media tends to exagerate things a lot, but this thread isnt really about fully automatic rifles, just rifles which look like their military use counterparts.

[The WosMan]

Yeah, I know. To me a gun is a gun. I own them, I collect them, and I enjoy using them against paper targets and the occasional fowl, groundhog, rabbit, deer, squirrel, etc. Speaking of .45, I recently purchased a nice Springfield 1911-A1 at Camp Perry back in September.

I've been looking at a Kimber 1911 for years but can't seem to pull the trigger on the purchase.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Thats true for the old 5.56 round and the old barrel rifling twist. The current rounds are heavyer and the rifling twist is different.

Rifling twist on the 62 gr is 1:7. On the old 55 gr, 1:12. This is what made most manufacturers produce with a 1:9 twist to be able to fire both well. It has absolutely no effect on the fragmentation os the rough, since after it strikes an object, the same yawing will occur - the bullet is back end heavy and twist towards it's center of gravity - the back end. Apporximately at 90 degrees, it will fragment.

And .45 is a really poor penetrator tbh.

this is an old myth. I't heavy weight (230 gr) actually makes it one of the best penetrators out there, and it loves to go through objects without slowing down at all. Another myth is that the .357 is an excellent penetrator. As was proven time and time again, it is OK, not great.

Flesh is an excellent back stop for penetration analysis, and to give you an idea, both 5.56 mm rounds (62 and 55 gr) penetrate about equal through flesh - about 13 inches approx. For comparrison purposes and to keep apples to apples, a non expanding 230 FMJ .45 round will penetrate nearly 27 inches through flesh. Even an expanding round like .45 hydrashocks will still reliably hit 18 inches consistently. To compare to a .357 125 gr (JSP even), you get a penetration depth of only 14 inches, much much less than a .45.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Rifling twist on the 62 gr is 1:7. On the old 55 gr, 1:12. This is what made most manufacturers produce with a 1:9 twist to be able to fire both well. It has absolutely no effect on the fragmentation os the rough, since after it strikes an object, the same yawing will occur - the bullet is back end heavy and twist towards it's center of gravity - the back end. Apporximately at 90 degrees, it will fragment.

The speed at which a projectile spins does affect the projectiles likelyhood to tumble on contact and due to that allso the likelyhood of the bullet to fragment since the round fragments when going through mater sideways where the force is too great for it to retain structural integrity.

this is an old myth. I't heavy weight (230 gr) actually makes it one of the best penetrators out there, and it loves to go through objects without slowing down at all. Another myth is that the .357 is an excellent penetrator. As was proven time and time again, it is OK, not great.

Flesh is an excellent back stop for penetration analysis, and to give you an idea, both 5.56 mm rounds (62 and 55 gr) penetrate about equal through flesh - about 13 inches approx. For comparrison purposes and to keep apples to apples, a non expanding 230 FMJ .45 round will penetrate nearly 27 inches through flesh. Even an expanding round like .45 hydrashocks will still reliably hit 18 inches consistently. To compare to a .357 125 gr (JSP even), you get a penetration depth of only 14 inches, much much less than a .45.

-S

From my own experience i have found 115grain 9mm rounds to penetrate a bit better than 230grain .45 fmj. Cant really say anything on the .357 since i havent got any experience with it and it being 4am dont really feel like going through hours worth of material to come to any conlusion.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Watching the news last night (a rarity for me), and some Sheriff guy is up there saying that we need to ban Assault Weapons again. Can someone tell me why? It is not like they are used in crime or anything, so I don't get it. I guess that's it, I just don't get it.

My reasoning as to why - What they describe as Assault Weapons (really just sporting rifles since the military have an almost near monopoly on real assault weapons) accounts for a massively huge 0.2% use in all violent gun crimes. Yes that's right, 1/5th of 1% of gun crimes are committed with Assault style weapons.

Hmm. Seems to me that if you banned Assault Style Military rifles, you would not have 1/5th of 1% of gun crime. What a dramatic decrease that is?! Wow! So that means we will only have 99.8% of all gun crimes left after you remove these ugly things from our houses. Hmm. That is making headway now isn't it?!! So instead of having 100 crimes, we would have uhh... 100 crimes! Since the 0.2% is of course rounded up. Big progress! Why is it only 0.2% - simple - it is not practical for a crime! No criminal wants to lug a rifle around so that it waves a big "hear! Look at me!" type sign.

My only question is, what is the prevailence of assault weapons? How many Americans own assault weapons? What is this expressed as a percentage of all gun-owning Americans?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

My only question is, what is the prevailence of assault weapons? How many Americans own assault weapons? What is this expressed as a percentage of all gun-owning Americans?

For real Assault Weapons (Fully Automatic), only the rich own them. Unlike what you would think, as a civilian, you can have a fully auto weapon if you meet 3 criteria -

1. The Assault rifle were made prior to 1986's machine gun ban.
2. You register it with the ATF.
3. You don't live in one of two states (Kalifornia, and some other, forgot which)

They probably number in the 10's of thousands and you need to meet a 3rd requirement - You have to have the cash since an M-16A2 will run you $12K easy since it's a registerable receiver.

As far as military look-a-like sporting rifles like an AR-15, those are fairly common. If you walk into any gun shop, there are probably 10 to 20 of them in various forms hanging on the wall. You can buy a good AR-15, like a Bushmaster for about $1100 or so. These are kind of expensive for a plinker, so they would not be as common as say an AK-47 sporting rifle or an SKS sporting rifle. As far as going anywhere to plink, I have 'never' seen anyone head up to the mountains to shoot and not have at least 1 sporting rifle like this. THey are so cheap and cheap to buy ammo for. You can probably get an SKS for $200, to maybe $300. An OK AK-47 from maybe Romania or so will run you $300 to $400. Expensive AK's will run you maybe $500 to $550, but are largely a waste of money since all you may get is a forged instead of stamped reciever.

Basically, all plninkers have at least an SKS in their inventory, so I'd say extremely common if that answers your question.

-S

PS. By the way, a registered fully automatic Assault Rifle has never once been used in a crime by an owner - ever. Only one was used once to commit suicide.