View Full Version : "(Blank) you and your assault rifle!"
Don Roley
12-16-2008, 02:10
The following article IMO should be read by anyone who owns an assault rifle.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749
The whole thing is very informative on many levels. But the reaction of the DA just because it was a certain type of weapon used should be a warning. Be prepared to deal with the legal aftermath. Trying to find a good lawyer after you have been placed behind bars is not easy. If you don't put one on retainer, you should at least shop around and talk to a few so you know who is best to call if you run into this type of trouble.
This is part (a small part) of the reason I plan on buying a lever action rifle instead of an assault rifle when I move back to America, painting it pink and putting "Hello Kitty" stickers all over it.
Good points Don, and funny too. I think the fact that the AR platform is now the most popular rifle in America and has a huge following in the hunting and target community will eventually help this problem. If the defense can show that millions of people use that weapon for sporting purposes, it may be easier to defend. However, there will always be a segment of the population that agrees with those sentiments and there wont be anything anyone can do about it.
AllanJGAnderson
12-16-2008, 06:07
This is part (a small part) of the reason I plan on buying a lever action rifle instead of an assault rifle when I move back to America, painting it pink and putting "Hello Kitty" stickers all over it.
I'm just going to order a Hello Kitty Assault rifle
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/KittyRifle.jpg
I have a 94 model Winchester. It is a nice brush rifle. Bolt actions rifles are my favorite. Why does any civilian need an assault rifle anyway? I don't need a 20 round magazine. I only need one shot and I suck at shooting these days. My eyes are getting old you know.
People don't need cars that can go 180 mph either but no one is stopping people from buying them. It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what I or anyone else needs or wants.
elder999
12-16-2008, 09:10
People don't need cars that can go 180 mph either .
Speak fer yerself.......:laugh:
People don't need cocaine or heroin either. Everyday the community decides what people need or what they should want. That is one of the things what government does. Government is oppressive in its very nature. That is because the bureaucracy must justifies its existance. This drives governments impetus to grow.
An illegal sawed-off shotgun has a lot more utilitarian value than a rifle that launches 20+ rounds with a 1 mile plus range in my opinion. Besides, the AR is a piece of ****.
Well I guess it is nice toy for cityfolk who want to be able to feel like Rambo. :laugh:
John Bennett
12-16-2008, 11:00
Why does any civilian need an assault rifle anyway?
You don't.
If Illinois outlaws the multi-shot semi-automatic model 94 assault rifle you own (and they will), I know you will turn it in politely.
You are a good boy.
John Bennett
12-16-2008, 11:07
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749
Interesting article. Thanks Don.
The message I got from it was:
Don't do business with anyone who lives in Fairfax country Virginia.
The people who live there elect insane and corrupt District Attorneys.
Webmaster
12-16-2008, 11:16
"(Blank) you and your assault rifle!" :laugh:
That should go down in the list of "famous last words".
Oh and the attachment is for you Don.
Dad and Grandpa used to buy dynamite at the hardware store.
As Americans become less and less responsible the community is going to become more restrictive regarding the things we allowed to have.
I have had high powered rifle rounds wizz over my head in my backyard because stupid city people come out to the country to shoot rifles and do not understand that you need a proper backstop to be firing those things.
The urbanization has created a large population of people that are simply ignorant regarding the proper use of firearms.
It is all good fun until someone shoots my wife or daughter while they are in the backyard feeding the dog.
I'm just going to order a Hello Kitty Assault rifle
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/KittyRifle.jpg
Dude, that's so tactical. :laugh:
It is all good fun until someone shoots my wife or daughter while they are in the backyard feeding the dog.
My neighbor might go out and be convicted of reckless driving tomorrow and cause an accident while doing it. Hell, he might even hurt or kill someone in the process. Why don't we take your car away just to make sure you don't do the same.
Because society’s utilitarian need for automobiles is different than society’s utilitarian need for hi-powered rifles.
I am a responsible gun owner. I am pretty damn good with long arms. I used to shoot trap and I was on a precission rifle team.
I am just posting what is going to happen and why.
tgace334
12-16-2008, 13:06
Because society’s utilitarian need for automobiles is different than society’s utilitarian need for hi-powered rifles.
And so the liberal rights shredding machine travels on....nice to have people so concerned for MY welfare LOL!
That is democracy. 51% determine how the the other 49% should live their lives.
AndrewSimonsen
12-16-2008, 15:22
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. There is a utilitarian value to even the most powerful/scary weapons, and it is exactly the value that the founding fathers intended for them to have. The problem is that people aren't comfortable with this usage because it is "scary". My favorite is when the argument come along that the founding fathers never could have conceived the kind of advancements that would occur in firearms, when really the biggest advancements being that firearms are no longer single shot and reloading them doesn't take nearly as long. At the same time you would never hear the argument that the freedom of speech should be restricted because the founding fathers could never have imagined how much technology would have changed. If you compare the two ideas from an 18th century perspective the Internet would have seemed far more unbelievable than a pistol that can fire multiple shots before reloading. Especially since there were already repeating pistols at the time and even the first machine gun had long been developed. They simply weren't reliable/efficient enough for common usage.
Side tangent regarding ancient technologies: the Romans had a form of telecommunications for warning from one city to the next.
They put electric eels in a pool connected to an aquaduct and would agitate them so they would shock.
Then, a slave in the next town, whose job it was to keep his feet in the pool, would feel a jolt and ring a bell to warn the town.
Internet is just a hop, skip, and a jump from that. :)
Now back to our programming....
I thought arms proliferation was a big problem. A landmine in every pot! :laugh:
In 1782 the technological spread between hunting gear and standard military issue were miniscule. Now the technological spread between what you can buy at Wal-Mart and what a GI takes into battle is huge. The 2nd amendment is becoming merely symbolic in nature.
The real problem is Americans have become the lesser sons of greater fathers. Western Civilization has lost it's stoicism, it's strength, and it's discipline. In 1940 you could go to the hardware store and buy dynamite. You needed it to work on the farm, to blow stumps etc.... Do you really want your neighbors to be able to go into Ace Hardware and buy dynamite.
US started to go to **** about the same time this country ceased having a War Department and a Bureau of Prisons replaced them with Corrections Departments and a Department of Defense.
Mommy and Daddy do not stay married anymore and no one is spanking their babies and making them mind. We are becoming animals. As the family goes so does this nation. The oligrachy has destroyed the economical ability for Moms to stay at home and raise their babies so we know trust our future to crap institutional childcare. That is OK their is enough ADD drugs to go around.
As the family goes shall so this nation.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 16:32
One of these days pro-gun folks will realize that calling a semi-automatic magazine-fed long arm an "assault rifle" isn't doing their cause much good.
Interesting article though, like most of Ayoob's stuff.
AndrewSimonsen
12-16-2008, 16:55
One of these days pro-gun folks will realize that calling a semi-automatic magazine-fed long arm an "assault rifle" isn't doing their cause much good.
Interesting article though, like most of Ayoob's stuff.
We already have, but when we call it a semi-automatic magazine-fed long arm all we get is blank stares.
Ed, wouldn't you get the same problem of high powered rifles being shot into your property if said high powered rifles were Springfield 1903s? Stupid is stupid, what weapon (or car they drive) won't change that.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 17:17
So, you call it a 'rifle'. Seems to have worked for the USMC for over a coupla centuries, as there's no such thing as an 'assault rifle'. Worked for me before you were born too, twenty years ago I had never even heard of the term. Whether it looks scary and is made of plastic is largely irrelevant except to gun-grabbers.
Before US Army FSTC-CW-07-03-70 (which defines an "assault rifle" as a "short, compact, selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges" - whatever the hell mystical cartridge that is), the term was nearly unknown until the liberal media got a hold of it.
Labelling a gun 'assault' is simply playing right into the hysteria that the anti-gunners wish to propagate.
Isn't the "correct" definition of an assault rifle one that combines the submachinegun (liken an MP-40) and the longer-distance rifle (like a Lee-Enfield) into a weapon that can do both roles?
Think back to the WWII platoon with both riflemen and submachingunners.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 17:47
I would term such a thing a 'carbine', as in CAR-15 or the M-4; or even short lever-action .30-30's or the bolt-action 'Desert Rhino'. And the Mini-14 mentioned in the article. As technology advanced, standard-issue rifles got shorter...I don't for the life of me understand the 'assault' moniker.
To classify a battle rifle based on length would suggest that there is a longer variant in use by regular troops, which is not the case. An M-16A2 is the standard issue rifle, so it's a rifle. An AR-15 is a semi-auto version of same so it's even more just a 'rifle'. It has nothing more 'assault' about it than the Springfield 1873 when Geronimo toted one in 1886. You can 'assault' with a derringer, or 'defend' with an AK-47, the term is meaningless and only causes Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe to say 'oh my God, he used an assault rifle!'.
At the very least, this silly name should be restricted to select-fire or full-auto weapons.
I basically agree with David here. It seems the media and political interests came up with the definition of 'assault rifle' after the term was invented. I also think the field manual was trying to define a mission role within the technology of that time, not define something that already existed.
Ed, you asked what a civilian needs with an assault rifle. That presupposes that the Government, or even society, can make that call. They absolutely must not. They may then ask about anything from cigarettes to cheeseburgers. Oh, dang they already do. We can't seem to distinguish between regular people and weirdos until they have done something terrible. We have confused 'normal' with 'acceptable' and accepted such a broad range of behaviours that we can no longer bring ourselves to act until the easily foreseeable happens.
And David, at least I'm named Stephan. Then I would really need to harden the **** up!
We already have, but when we call it a semi-automatic magazine-fed long arm all we get is blank stares.
Ed, wouldn't you get the same problem of high powered rifles being shot into your property if said high powered rifles were Springfield 1903s? Stupid is stupid, what weapon (or car they drive) won't change that.
Yes that is right. That was one of my points. Urbanized America is either becoming too stupid or is already too stupid in regards to firearms. I grew up using firearms. Gun saftey in our house was practiced religously.
Someone growing up in Chicago does not use guns unless they are a cop, a soldier or a criminal. Of course city folks don't know what they are doing with guns. They have no real experience.
Before I could drive a car I used to take a shotgun to school every Wednesday and leave it in the princpal's office. My uncle would pick me up and we would go to the gun club so I could shoot blue rock. That was normal. Now it is a felony. The American I grew up in is for the most part gone.
We didn't have have school shootings 30-40 years ago. I feel sorry for young guys who never got to see the America I grew up in.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 18:09
And David, at least I'm named Stephan. Then I would really need to harden the **** up!
I thought you were named Richard. Though "Harden the **** up, Dick!" has nearly endless comedic promise...:laugh:
I basically agree with David here. It seems the media and political interests came up with the definition of 'assault rifle' after the term was invented. I also think the field manual was trying to define a mission role within the technology of that time, not define something that already existed.
Ed, you asked what a civilian needs with an assault rifle. That presupposes that the Government, or even society, can make that call. They absolutely must not. They may then ask about anything from cigarettes to cheeseburgers. Oh, dang they already do. We can't seem to distinguish between regular people and weirdos until they have done something terrible. We have confused 'normal' with 'acceptable' and accepted such a broad range of behaviours that we can no longer bring ourselves to act until the easily foreseeable happens.
And David, at least I'm named Stephan. Then I would really need to harden the **** up!
If economic conditions and society's predispostion were such that strong women stayed home and raised their babies while real men went out and provided for their familes and childern were taught to behave the way men and women should behave government would not be babysitting us. Government would not have to baby sit you and I because it would be 1950 again.
Today the populace lives in an environment that encourage the sheep to become more sheeplike and the predators to become more wolflike. Ceterus Parabus the government is going to take away our guns.
It takes an strong society to live under a democracy. The the failure of modern US foreign policy is the idea that we can bring democracy to the world. We try to bring democracy to people who do not have what it takes to live under a democratic government. That is the why the policy in Iraq will fail. Those people can't handle democracy. They don't have the strength to bring themselves under democratic rule. Too many large groups of people hate each other too much. They can't handle it. The only man that can hold that place together was a mean ******* name Saddam Hussein.
Our Republic will fade away because we will not be able to handle it anymore. Our rights will be taken away from us and the public will welcome it. People will beg for Octavian to take the throne.
Do I like it. Hell no but that is the way it is. The only good part is that my childern are straight A honor roll students and are considered the cream of the crop in the endeavors they pursue. They aren't gifted. They were just taught to behave and how to listen. It is easy to excell when the competition are bozos.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 18:26
I agree wholeheartedly.
Dang. After the last diatribe I left out 'not' in front of 'Stephan'. I better harden up my dang editing skeels. Now the Internet has named me 'Stephan'.
Ed, you are right. It is amazing how people have become so enamoured with themselves that they can't simply play on a team.
David Craik
12-16-2008, 19:30
I had a good example of what I think Ed is talking about tonight. I go to a presentation at my 13 yr. old daughter's middle school and there are armed police officers at the doors to the gymnasium. And I live in a tiny town. We didn't even have 'resource officers' at my high school, and this was in a fairly large city. Our FFA advisor let us bring guns to school during hunter safety courses and for extra-curricular skeet shooting - they were kept locked up in his office until it was time. Then again we also had a smoking area, unthinkable today from what I gather.
It's great that they are proactive trying to keep people safe, but it's also really sad. I wonder sometimes what the hell happened to us.
...I wonder sometimes what the hell happened to us.
People abuse the system, then you get more intervention. I work for a small company, we have no official policy on limits for meal expenditures when traveling. However, we don't abuse the privilege. So once in a while we have a really nice meal, other times we go average, if people abuse this though, the owner will start to make policies and limits. Same with a comp time policy, we have no official policy, you work some extra time, you take extra time off. If you abuse the privilege, then the flexibility will go away.
I remember pheasant hunting after school. I remember one of the most popular projects in shop class was to make a new stock for your rifle/shotgun. It was no big deal, until kids started assaulting other kids.
Not much different than the economic mess. Credit Default Swaps can be a beneficial fiduciary tool. That part of the market was pretty wide open. It was abused for simple greed, and now the govt has to make a ton of new regulations.
AndrewSimonsen
12-16-2008, 21:37
A generation is only as bad as the one before it raised it to be.
Jonathan Randall
12-16-2008, 21:45
I thought arms proliferation was a big problem. A landmine in every pot! :laugh:
In 1782 the technological spread between hunting gear and standard military issue were miniscule. Now the technological spread between what you can buy at Wal-Mart and what a GI takes into battle is huge. The 2nd amendment is becoming merely symbolic in nature.
The real problem is Americans have become the lesser sons of greater fathers. Western Civilization has lost it's stoicism, it's strength, and it's discipline. In 1940 you could go to the hardware store and buy dynamite. You needed it to work on the farm, to blow stumps etc.... Do you really want your neighbors to be able to go into Ace Hardware and buy dynamite.
US started to go to **** about the same time this country ceased having a War Department and a Bureau of Prisons replaced them with Corrections Departments and a Department of Defense.
Great points, Ed, and I remember hearing more than once from 60+ year olds that half a century ago everyone had guns - and no one used them. At least not to the degree many now do to settle quarrels/grudges, etc.
OTOH, while most of us are not the equal in fortitude to our Colonial and pre-1900's ancestors, in other areas we truly are their betters. We no longer believe that enslaving our fellow man, not allowing women any real opportunities, committing genocide against our neighbors (Native Americans), etc. Still, you could generally count on your early-American neighbor coming to your aid (even risking life and limb to do so), count on the strong possibility that a deadbeat dad would get the tar beaten out of him (or worse), leave your doors unlocked, and count upon most folks who owned firearms knew how to safely and responsibly use them.
John Bennett
12-17-2008, 03:38
Today the populace lives in an environment that encourage the sheep to become more sheeplike and the predators to become more wolflike.
You don't understand that the Nanny-state laws like the ones you propose for firearms caused and promote this situation.
As has been mentioned AR15's aren't assault rifles, nor are they high powered another term the media loves to throw around. The definition of an assault rifle I was taught is that it uses an intermediate cartridge and has select fire (full automatic) capability.
Why do you need them? Well for a start they a particularly well suited to several shooting competitions. IPSC and Service rifle competitions are dominated by them. IPSC divides scores by the time it takes you to shoot the course of fire. An intermediate round means less muzzle flip, which means it is quicker to reaquire the target which means your time will be quicker. The lack of power from the intermediate cartridge is not so much of an issue as primarily you are making holes in paper targets, though you do score more points if you use a full powered cartridge. AR15's are accurate for what they are, but they can never compare to a dedicated bolt action target rifle. As I said before scoring has a timed component, magazine changes cut into time so high capacity magazines are useful. From an IPSC stand point they are a good combination of accuracy, intermediate cartridge, and high capacity magazines. I know 99.99% of AR15 owners in the U.S. are not competiton shooters, but you asked for a reason to have them.
On a side note, Swiss males are required to take fully automatic rifles home with them. Switzerland's firearms murder rate is much lower than that of the U.S., so I might suggest that is is not the type of firearms is the main concern, rather people's attitude toward them.
On a side side note, for a country that loves guns and trade the U.S. Department of State is insanely restrictive in what it will allow to be exported.
What is interesting to me is that the article which the OP posted took place 20 years ago, in a small town area, before many of these laws were in effect. The threat was there then, will always be there and wherever/whenever else you might be. I think the criminals have it figured out, just buy your guns illegally and keep them hidden away until hell breaks loose. It seems that purchasing and owning guns legally is more of a headache! I am not condoning illegal activity, just making a point.
On another (slightly off topic) note:
My kids and I were shopping in the mall this weekend. We sat down to eat lunch and I recognized a Judoka from a neighboring dojo that we compete against. As he walked by I noticed he was carrying his Glock on his hip. I understand that carrying permits allow you to go certain places with your firearm but isn't there some kind of law that would prevent you from walking in a crowded public mall. Can you carry into a bank? Grocery Store? I know that the front entrance has signs that say "No Firearms Allowed". Even the "Rent A Cops" in the mall don't have guns, can someone clarify this for me?
Don Roley
12-17-2008, 08:25
On another (slightly off topic) note:
My kids and I were shopping in the mall this weekend. We sat down to eat lunch and I recognized a Judoka from a neighboring dojo that we compete against. As he walked by I noticed he was carrying his Glock on his hip. I understand that carrying permits allow you to go certain places with your firearm but isn't there some kind of law that would prevent you from walking in a crowded public mall. Can you carry into a bank? Grocery Store? I know that the front entrance has signs that say "No Firearms Allowed". Even the "Rent A Cops" in the mall don't have guns, can someone clarify this for me?
So what you are saying is there were signs on the entrance that forbid people from bringing in firearms. Yet the guy had one anyways.
It is my opinion that gun free zones are asking for trouble from people that want to mow down a whole lot of people before the SWAT team takes them out of their misery. But the owners of the mall do have the right to make the rules of their property. If I went to your house and you did not want me to wear a t-shirt with something offensive printed on it, you do have the right to tell me to either take it off or stay out. My rights to free speech do not trump your property rights. The same principle seems to apply here.
Is there a law where you are that says CCW permit carriers are exempt from this type of rule set by the property owner? Not only do I find that offensive if so, who would the mall owners be trying to target with the rule? If someone is carrying a firearm against the law anyway, would a sign telling them to not carry it in the mall be worth the time it takes to put it up?
You don't understand that the Nanny-state laws like the ones you propose for firearms caused and promote this situation.
I didn't propose ****. I was an NRA member for 25 years for Christ's sake. I am just stating what is going to happen and why.
As far as cause, I don't know. Maybe it is a chicken or the egg type of arguement. I tend to think that the Nanny-state laws are a result of there being a shortage of real parents in this country. That plus the way school discipline is handled in this country today is unforgiveable. We are now raising future generations of pussies.
As has been mentioned AR15's aren't assault rifles, nor are they high powered another term the media loves to throw around. The definition of an assault rifle I was taught is that it uses an intermediate cartridge and has select fire (full automatic) capability.
Why do you need them? Well for a start they a particularly well suited to several shooting competitions. IPSC and Service rifle competitions are dominated by them. IPSC divides scores by the time it takes you to shoot the course of fire. An intermediate round means less muzzle flip, which means it is quicker to reaquire the target which means your time will be quicker. The lack of power from the intermediate cartridge is not so much of an issue as primarily you are making holes in paper targets, though you do score more points if you use a full powered cartridge. AR15's are accurate for what they are, but they can never compare to a dedicated bolt action target rifle. As I said before scoring has a timed component, magazine changes cut into time so high capacity magazines are useful. From an IPSC stand point they are a good combination of accuracy, intermediate cartridge, and high capacity magazines. I know 99.99% of AR15 owners in the U.S. are not competiton shooters, but you asked for a reason to have them.
On a side note, Swiss males are required to take fully automatic rifles home with them. Switzerland's firearms murder rate is much lower than that of the U.S., so I might suggest that is is not the type of firearms is the main concern, rather people's attitude toward them.
On a side side note, for a country that loves guns and trade the U.S. Department of State is insanely restrictive in what it will allow to be exported.
The AR-15 is crap. I don't know what soldiers qualify on now but the M-16 qualifying range was a distance of 50-300 yards. You qualified on the M-1 at a range of 500 yards. These ranges are shot with iron sights.
There is no way the M-16 is a superior rifle to the M-14. Heck I like the AK-47 better than the M-16. Stripping the M-16 is ********. There is pin you need to remove on the bolt of the M-16 You need to do it inside a pillow case because if your thumb slips off this half moon shaped cover there is a little spring that will go flying who knows where. If you lose it you are screwed. At Campbell I learned how to field strip an AK-47. Field strips in 4 pieces that is all. It is a simple effect design.
The strength of the M-16 was that due to the urbanization of America there was a shortage of markmanship talent. The M-14 was a rifleman's rifle. The M-16 let you carry more ammo and with the buffer spring design the recoil is so low you put the butt on your chin and pull the trigger and it not hurt. If you can't shoot you better be able to carry a lot of ammo.
Maybe designs have improved but I thought the original M-16 was crap. But at least it is better than the AR-180. My brother had one of those. It was really a piece of crap. It doesn't event make an effect club due to the folding stock design.
And another thing ..... I don't like the M-203 either. I don't want my grenidiers start thinking they are riflemen. I want my grenidiers launching grenades. I preferred the M-79 overthe M-203 any day.
I agree, the M-14 is a far superior weapon to the M-16 A1, A2, A4 and AR-15. The difference is that you have to know what "MOA" means. If you don't, go buy a AR. Don't get me wrong, I shot on a precision rifle team for a living and I sported the AR15 in 90% of the matches. With a heavy barrel, good bolt carrier group, proper sights and match ammo. It can be fired effectively up to 1900 meters with iron sights by a trained marksman. We tried 2100 meters once and the rounds were basically lobbing through the targets sideways with the force of a eight year old throwing the round at the target. The M14 is the weapon that is issued to the platoon snipers in today's Marine infantry, outfitted with a scope and tripod. I believe the new designation for them is M-21? As for the M-209, it was always a headache when these grenadiers would come to qualify yearly with the basic M-16. It was a hard time for them to adjust to not having that big chunk of metal to hold on to under the M-16, allot of the guys were even used to shooting their 5.56 rounds with their grenade sights or no sights at all. Most of these guys had a very hard time qualifying with the M-16. I always said they should replace the the M-16 portion of the M-209 with a 30 round shot gun and keep those guys in the closet when rifle qualification came around every year. The most important thing for a Marine or Solider to know when going into battle with a M-16 is "Remedial Action" for a malfunction of the weapon.
Mr. Roley,
Yes, there is a sign that says no firearms are allowed on the premises. I am not sure what the exact laws are here, I was hoping that someone else would fill that in.
AndrewSimonsen
12-17-2008, 12:21
M-16 (any of the variations) is better suited for our current war. We aren't dealing with having to take shots at the incredible ranges you describe, lower caliber allows for quicker target acquisition, and it allows for more ammo to be carried (which allows for suppressing fire). With it's shorter length it is easier to handle inside vehicles/buildings, and seeing as how we are fighting in urban environments over penetration is an issue.
Andrew,
All those are great points but when you have seen and experienced as many M-16 malfunctions as I have, you have to consider it going into a situation where that weapon will leave you like a sitting duck. At the firing range, you can take your time and clear a jam. If you have bullets whizzing by your head and RPG's going off in a firefight, the last thing you want to happen is a weapons malfunction, which is a big issue with the service M-16. I agree with the compactness issue to a point but the fire through issue is false, within 100 meters a 5.56 will blow a hole out of your back like any other high power rifle. The M-16 will be replaced within the next decade with something that actually does suit an urban environment.
Webmaster
12-17-2008, 14:14
Like Nick, I was also on a rifle team while in the Marine Corps and I have shot THOUSANDS of rounds through the M-16. I have NEVER experienced a malfunction of any type.
Most of the bad press the M-16 got was from the first generation M-16 during Vietnam. It used shitty dirty ammo, which caused a boatload of problems. With the modern ammo and a little bit of basic maintenance, the M-16 will not let you down.
On the other hand, when shooting matches and I had a choice, my M1A1 (aka M-14) was my first choice.
Oh and Ed, Marines qualify at 200, 300 and 500 yards. At 500 yards and good dope on the weapon, you can easily manage groups that you can cover with one hand. NRA Service Rifle Matches are shot at 100, 200, 300 and then 600 yards. Same same, you can easily keep'em in the x-ring if you can shoot worth your salt.
So Ed, if you have problems with the M-16, maybe it's not the dope on the rifle, but the dope behind it. ;)
I have had little of any issues with the M16 or any of its variants both while I served in the Army or as a dirty nasty civilian. Most of the issues I did see were from weapons which had long past their prime in terms of barrel or bolt life, or weapons that were not properly taken care of. The new variants which are piston driven eliminate some of that concern as well. The only malfunctions I ever had, (and there were not many) seemed to be more related to old worn out magazines that were supposed to be disposable in the first place, than they were the rifle itself. Give the M16 solid, well designed mags, someone who knows how to take care of it with regard to cleaning, and replace the parts that break down when they are supposed to be replaced, and the system will not let you down. I used various weapons systems during my time working for Uncle Sam and the M16 was probably the most reliable of all of them.
As for lethality, with modern ammo and a heavier round (75 vs. 55 gr.) I don't think this is as much of a problem as it used to be. Even that is taken care of by some of the newer ammo variants. The military will not be replacing the M16 family of weapons anytime soon with the exception of special units that get to choose their own systems. As for the regular army soldier or line serving marine, the m16 is here to stay. Until there is a revolutionary jump in small arms capabilities, it will not be replaced.
AndrewSimonsen
12-17-2008, 14:42
I wasn't saying it was the perfect rifle, just better than the M-14 for what we are doing. As far as as over penetration, I wasn't referring to it going through people I meant that it won't be shooting through quite as many walls as the M-14 and thus might have lower collateral damage.
We just need to start transitioning to some of the more reliable uppers like the 416 from HK.
I never had problems with the A1. I just don't like it. It is ugly, it is made out of plastic , it field strips into too many pieces, it has no mojo, and the bullets aren't big enough. ..... and I don't like the M203 either.
I did like the M60 ..... well until I had to carry one for 3 days up and down a bunch of huge ass hills.
I did like the M60 ..... well until I had to carry one for 3 days up and down a bunch of huge ass hills.
No kidding, and talk about breaking down into too many pieces...
When working as range personnel, we would have as many as 400-700 shooters per week, firing as many as 67,000 rounds per day. When you compare the number of malfunctions to the number of shooters and rounds spent, it is a very very small percentage. Yes, half of them could be contributed to operator error and worn out magazines. I personally never experienced a malfunction but I also know how to check my equipment and ammo. The point I was trying to make is that, you can drop weapons like the M1A's and AK47 into a sand or dirt pile and still count on them to get you through the day. If you don't keep your M16 nice and clean inside and out. It will fail on you, but that is operator error.
John Bennett
12-17-2008, 16:24
I didn't propose ****.
You stated that there need to be more restrictoins citizens' rights. You stated that you want more government control of citizens.
> "I tend to think that the Nanny-state laws are a result of there being a shortage of real parents in this country.
They are not a result. They are the cause. Nanny-state laws are what CAUSED a reduction in good parenting. They promoted the socialist idea private citizens are not responsible for their children. They institutionalize the idea that government is responsible for feeding them, educating them, housing them, providing them health care, and keeping them safe.
Your promotion of this is causing the the wussification of America.
The military will not be replacing the M16 family of weapons anytime soon with the exception of special units that get to choose their own systems. As for the regular army soldier or line serving marine, the m16 is here to stay. Until there is a revolutionary jump in small arms capabilities, it will not be replaced.
Before I left active duty almost six years ago, there was already talk about replacing the M16 with a Bull Pup style weapon. I know there was field testing going on also, it is a long process but yes it's days are numbered.
You stated that there need to be more restrictoins citizens' rights. You stated that you want more government control of citizens.
> "I tend to think that the Nanny-state laws are a result of there being a shortage of real parents in this country.
They are not a result. They are the cause. Nanny-state laws are what CAUSED a reduction in good parenting. They promoted the socialist idea private citizens are not responsible for their children. They institutionalize the idea that government is responsible for feeding them, educating them, housing them, providing them health care, and keeping them safe.
Your promotion of this is causing the the wussification of America.
I don't see how. I am doing my best to raise my children the way I was raised. The government doesn't have jack to do with how I raise my kids. I don't see how the government can be be the cause of the collapse of the family because based on my personal experience the government has not had any impact on the expectations my wife and I place on our children and the discipline methods we employ.
But yes I do believe my neighbors should not be allowed to buy dynamite at the hardware store. For one thing dynamite can become unstable when it gets really old.
Before I left active duty almost six years ago, there was already talk about replacing the M16 with a Bull Pup style weapon. I know there was field testing going on also, it is a long process but yes it's days are numbered.
I understand where you are coming from but I'll believe it when I see it. There have been several weapons system come through which are proposed to replace the M16 and it is still there to date. When I was in, there were talks about replacing the system with something new as part of the future warrior program. Then, there was the XM8, and yes the bull pup design. Recently, the army made an order for a huge amount of m4 and several years worth of replacement parts. In all likelihood, the m16 design will be around for years. They may modify it with a drop in piston system to deal with the sand and cleaning issue but that is as far as it is going in the near future.
I'll believe it when I see it. There have been several weapons system come through which are proposed to replace the M16 and it is still there to date. When I was in, there were talks about replacing the system with something new as part of the future warrior program. Then, there was the XM8, and yes the bull pup design. Recently, the army made an order for a huge amount of m4 and several years worth of replacement parts. In all likelihood, the m16 design will be around for years. They may modify it with a drop in piston system to deal with the sand and cleaning issue but that is as far as it is going in the near future.
Depends on what contractor has the most bribe money. There have been some nice system go along the wayside in exchange for things that do not work as good.
I guess the A-10 Warthog is history. The Air Force wouldn't go to bat for it because they preferred their high price fancy planes and the Army wouldn't support it because they wanted their gunships to fill the ground support role. But the A-10 was a mean mother ^%$#@!.
David Craik
12-17-2008, 16:51
Why the Marine Corps never bought A-10's is beyond me. Excellent ground support aircraft.
Like I said the AR15/M16 is accurate for what it is. IPSC targets are 58cm X 46cm, roughly torso sized, shooting 1MOA with an AR is adequate. You should also remember that while the M16 has been in service for 40+ years and has had very few meaningful changes, the AR15 in the face consumer preasure has turned into one of the most modifiable tricked out rifles available. The M14's recoil is just to harsh to be competative in comparison to something like a JP CTR02 AR15 with light weigth bolt assembly, variable gas settings allowing for tailored loads, and compensator etc.
That being said when shooting Service matches where the rifles are more or less unmodified I shoot a L1A1 (FN FAL) on long range courses. For shorter ones up to 600m I'll use a Sig 550 (the most accurate 5.56 out of the box black rifle I've yet found) in standard division (no optics) or AR15A4 with optics (I like the variety, otherwise it would be another 550).
I used to be a trooper in a reconnaissance squadron. If you'd asked me at the time if I thought civilians should have access to rifles such as AR15's, the answer would have been a resounding no. Before I took up competition shooting I just didn't see the need. Now it just irritates me when people say guns are bad, why do you need so many? why do you need that type? It is purely selfish and more than a little hypocritical from my part of course, but when un/ill-informed people adopt attitudes that threaten my chosen sport I take it personally. These rifles do have a place in competitive shooting.
Owner of:
Swiss Arms Sig 550 (5.56)- Service Rifle Standard Class
L1A1 (7.62 NATO)- Service Rifle Standard Class
Sabre Defence 20" AR15A4(5.56)- Service Rifle Optics
JP CTR-02 18" AR15 (5.56) - IPSC Open Class
Saber Defence 16" M5 AR15 (5.56)- IPSC Standard Class
Type 56/semi auto AK47 (7.62X39)- Plinker, saves wear on competiton guns.
LWRC 16" AR chasis (6.8X43)- *cough* a Tacticool Rifle
2 FN49's (30-06)- Sitting at the back of my safe collecting dust
People call for all out bans, but if you insist a change is needed there are other options, restriction to range shooting, vetting of shooters etc. I know there is the Second Amendment with all its cultural and historical significance to consider, but that didn't seem to stop the first ASB.
One thing I would wish for is that people would spend even 10% of the time and energy they spend debating the Second Amendment at the range, learning safety disciplines and how to shoot rather than shooting at gas bottles in their back yard. There seems to be a disturbing (at least to me) mentality of buying a firearm, maybe put a hundred rounds through it then it gets relegated to the bed side table. When I've been in the U.S. in the past people have taken me out for a "blast" and their safety levels scared me.
..... When I've been in the U.S. in the past people have taken me out for a "blast" and their safety levels scared me.
That is no joke. In the US we used to learn gun saftey in school and those classes never taught anything that we hadn't already learned at home. Those days are gone.
Webmaster
12-17-2008, 18:48
Before I left active duty almost six years ago, there was already talk about replacing the M16 with a Bull Pup style weapon. I know there was field testing going on also, it is a long process but yes it's days are numbered.
Actually I remember when the Corps was was testing the bull pup designs and one of the problems they had with it was when going down into the prone position the magazine would bang into the ground, and when already in the prone position, the magazine would rest on the ground. This caused the magazine to sit in the magazine well wrong and caused more malfunctions. From what I understand about the Brits SA-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80) is they were able to overcome some of this problem by seating the magazine deeper into the weapon and reducing the amount of "wiggle" the magazine would experience when pressure was applied to it.
The Air Force wouldn't go to bat for it because they preferred their high price fancy planes and the Army wouldn't support it because they wanted their gunships to fill the ground support role. But the A-10 was a mean mother ^%$#@!.
The Army is prohibited by law in operating fixed-wing combat aircraft. It's part of the "deal" which allowed the Army Air Force to become it's own separate branch, the US Air Force.
Oh and for the Air Force, and A-10's just aren't sexy like a multi-million dollar multi-purpose fighter.
Why the Marine Corps never bought A-10's is beyond me. Excellent ground support aircraft.
Agreed, but the reason is that the A-10 is not an "expeditionary" aircraft that can be operated from a carrier like the rest of the Marine Corps combat aircraft. Heck, I wish the Marine Corps would break down and get some AC-130's of their own. Talk about nasty! But the same reason applies, can't launch it from a carrier.
David Craik
12-17-2008, 19:39
Agreed, but the reason is that the A-10 is not an "expeditionary" aircraft that can be operated from a carrier like the rest of the Marine Corps combat aircraft. Heck, I wish the Marine Corps would break down and get some AC-130's of their own. Talk about nasty! But the same reason applies, can't launch it from a carrier.
True, though you can't realistically operate F/A-18Ds in combat from a carrier either because they don't have the 'bringback' range and decreased divert distance..the dude in back is taking up space where fuel should be.:wink2: Not to mention that many have been configured so they can no longer even carry a centerline tank, opting instead for a big funky pod.
Robert, the Army has the little King Aire variants, I used to shuttle in those from Panama to Guantanamo. They are also looking hard at the JCA/C-27. There is also a Marine variant multi role gunship SOCOM may get. (That's political hot potato). There have been C-17s on the wishlist, too, but I expect Global Warming to reverse all the way into Beelzebub's realm well before that happens.
A-10s are getting new wings and innnards like electronics, etc. Hornets are stretched about as far as they can go, so USN/USMC/HMS will have to wait until JSF/F-35 gets on line.
The future is going to be UAVs, anyway.
Webmaster
12-17-2008, 20:33
Robert, the Army has the little King Aire variants, I used to shuttle in those from Panama to Guantanamo. They are also looking hard at the JCA/C-27. There is also a Marine variant multi role gunship SOCOM may get. (That's political hot potato). There have been C-17s on the wishlist, too, but I expect Global Warming to reverse all the way into Beelzebub's realm well before that happens.
A-10s are getting new wings and innnards like electronics, etc. Hornets are stretched about as far as they can go, so USN/USMC/HMS will have to wait until JSF/F-35 gets on line.
The future is going to be UAVs, anyway.
I didn't say that the Army didn't have any fixed-wing aircraft, I said they didn't have any combat fixed-wing aircraft. VC-6A are transport aircraft for moving people and supplies, not armed combat aircraft for air-to-air or air-to-ground combat roles. The Army has also operated various observation aircraft such as the OV-1 and OV-10, but again, no combat aircraft.
.....
The Army is prohibited by law in operating fixed-wing combat aircraft. It's part of the "deal" which allowed the Army Air Force to become it's own separate branch, the US Air Force.
Oh and for the Air Force, and A-10's just aren't sexy like a multi-million dollar multi-purpose fighter.
.....
What I meant by the Army not going to bat for the A-10 is the they should have petitioned that the Air Force keep them in service or develop another flying tank close ground support platform. That was a wonderful machine but my knowledge is dated by about 25-30 years.
....A-10s are getting new wings and innnards like electronics, etc. Hornets are stretched about as far as they can go, so USN/USMC/HMS will have to wait until JSF/F-35 gets on line.
.....
Cool I thought they were taken out of service with the exception of maybe some reserve units.
I didn't say that the Army didn't have any fixed-wing aircraft, I said they didn't have any combat fixed-wing aircraft. VC-6A are transport aircraft for moving people and supplies, not armed combat aircraft for air-to-air or air-to-ground combat roles. The Army has also operated various observation aircraft such as the OV-1 and OV-10, but again, no combat aircraft.Gotcha. Of course some of the 'observers' would wonder if they were 'combat' or not. :eek: I expect the C-27 will get it's share of aftermarket ventilation, too. Maybe that's the problem with the 'Stinger': AFSOC wants it but the other services do, too. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/AC27-072508.xml)
AndrewSimonsen
12-18-2008, 01:52
Did I miss something about the A-10, I thought they were supposed to stay in service until 2028?
You're right, Andrew. It may go longer.
I love the sound the A-10's make, there is no other like it.
AC-130 at night is cool sound/sight. Depending on where you are.
Wanna make new friends fast? Call in an AC-130 strike and you are the only one with Glint Tape on your hat.
I use to work on the AC/C-130 brakes, wheels and tires. I guarantee they will make a man out of you, the brake assembly alone is nearly 200lbs, thick rubber tires that are much heavier than any tractor tire and split rims that are very massive even when in two pieces. I am glad that I shouldn't ever have to do that again. Working on heavy construction machinery is much easier.
Back to our regularly scheduled thread:
I disagree with one particular aspect of the article: the idea that flight triggered the pursuit. The bad guys came looking for him based on the close call with the motorcycle. Also, fleeing buys time and possible distance. It can also be used to put you in better position. The guy tried to get to better position and almost made it, he also used his time to get his weapons ready.
David Craik
12-18-2008, 18:13
I agree with Stephan..err, Richard; a demonstrated attempt to flee the threat before resorting to deadly force is great in court as well.
As an Air Defense Artilleryman, I want to point out one pet peeve of mine: it is an A-10 THUNDERBOLT, not a WARTHOG. WARTHOG is a nickname, not the proper name of the aircraft.
The M16A2 is a good weapon. The M203 is a good weapon. I would not want to be a grenadiere who is not be able to engage the enemy at less than grenade range. The 16 above that 203 tends to keep the grenadiere alive longer, and adds another rifle to the fight if putting 203 rounds downrange is not feasible for the situation.
Jeff Cook
Don Roley
12-19-2008, 02:13
Back to our regularly scheduled thread:
Darn you. I was just about to tease everyone about being easily distracted by shiny objects when you posted that.:laugh:
AllanJGAnderson
12-19-2008, 06:25
I would not want to be a grenadiere who is not be able to engage the enemy at less than grenade range.
I wouldn't want to be a grenadier in any situation, have you seen the MOLLE configuration they're expected to load? Aside from the fact that 18, 40mm rounds are heavy as hell, there's no room for regular mags.
http://loadbearingequipment.info/MOLLE2/Grenadier.jpg
Oh yeah, and not to mention your wearing a bomb vest. :laugh:
hollon1usmc
12-21-2008, 21:11
Back to the topic at hand..... How can any one say that the chase was initiated by them supposedly running their "brother" off of the road when the undercover cop said that the group liked to look for trouble? I would see that as a set up. Besides in the article the bike cut the truck off(typical in VA by the way). And who rides a Motorcycle in the 30's? I am glad he got off makes me want to ride around with my AR under the back seat of my truck!
I wouldn't want to be a grenadier in any situation, have you seen the MOLLE configuration they're expected to load? Aside from the fact that 18, 40mm rounds are heavy as hell, there's no room for regular mags.
http://loadbearingequipment.info/MOLLE2/Grenadier.jpg
Oh yeah, and not to mention your wearing a bomb vest. :laugh:
When I carried the m203, that rig was placed over top of the regular LBV so you still had room for your basic load of ammo no problem. I didn't think the grenade rounds were all that heavy to hump, just bulky and a pain to deal with. Hard to do a mag change as well with an additional vest in the way.
I have had a 203 as my assigned weapon for most of my military career. Keep in mind that Soldiers ALWAYS modify "standard configurations" into a more logical, economical configuration than what the book says. If your team member recognizes the utility of your 203, chances are he may actually offer to carry some of your load. Also, I hardly ever carried my M16 mags where they were "supposed" to be carried. On top of that, I rarely clipped the vest, giving me better access to what was underneath the vest.
Not saying it is easy, but then again, what IS easy for a Soldier? :laugh: I loved my 203, and was willing to put up with the inconvenience.
Jeff Cook
Agreed Jeff. I happened to like the 203 as well and would not want to see the Army go back to the solo launcher anytime soon. I was pretty accurate with just the flip up leaf sight and definitely want to have the capability of the rifle as well. Now that I think about it, I don't know anyone who actually clipped the 203 vest down the way that they were supposed to. I always had mine loose so so that I could get under it. On long humps, I typically attached one or two spots with a MacGyvered quick release so that I could get it undone in a hurry, and it would still stay in place while walking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.