Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

People who own "black rifles" love target shooting ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 09:41 AM
Original message
People who own "black rifles" love target shooting ...

Modern Sporting Rifle Owners Are Most Active Shooters, Says NSSF/Responsive Management Survey

The first comprehensive survey to look at ownership and use of modern sporting rifles reveals that 8.9 million Americans went target shooting with AR-style rifles in 2009 and that participants using this type of rifle were the most active among all types of sport shooters.

"These findings underscore that modern sporting rifles are becoming commonplace in America and are among the most desired firearms by sport shooters," said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, trade association of the firearms industry. "Those who want to ban these civilian sporting rifles simply because they look like military rifles must acknowledge after seeing this study that AR-style rifles are exceedingly popular with millions of Americans. These rifles are our industry's high-tech, cutting-edge product -- rugged, accurate, versatile, fun to shoot and easily accessorized -- and they're here to stay."

The study, "Shooting Sports Participation Survey in the United States in 2009," was conducted for NSSF by Responsive Management through a random digit dialing telephone survey of 8,204 U.S. residents ages 18 and older. (This is a separate survey from the NSSF/Harris Interactive online poll announced in a March 31 press release.) To avoid confusion, the term "modern sporting rifle" was further defined as an AR-style rifle.

***snip***

New High for Overall Participation -- 34.4 Million Shooters

The statistics related to modern sporting rifles were part of a wide-ranging survey that revealed a new high-water mark for annual participation in formal and informal sport and target shooting. The study showed that 15 percent of the U.S. population, representing 34.4 million people nationwide, went target shooting in 2009. This number surpasses all other previous survey estimates of annual sport shooting participation.

"Recreational shooting had a banner year in 2009," said Sanetti. "Firearms sales were way up, so it's really no surprise that more people are enjoying the shooting sports than ever before."

***snip***

"We hope this survey helps shed light on the often misunderstood modern sporting rifle and demonstrates the tremendous appeal they have with recreational shooters," said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF's director of industry research and analysis. "This survey provides a baseline to measure what will undoubtedly be an increase in participation with these rifles in the future. NSSF will continue to research this exciting segment of the firearms industry in an effort to develop a more in-depth understanding and identify trends for NSSF member companies to utilize."

***snip***

Modern sporting rifles, built on the AR-15 platform, are often confused with military rifles such as the M-16 and M-4. While modern sporting rifles and military rifles look similar to each other, the modern sporting rifle functions as a semi-automatic, firing one round with each pull of the trigger. Anti-gun organizations that support banning these civilian sporting rifles deliberately mislabel them as "assault rifles" even though an actual assault rifle is fully automatic -- a light machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934. The AR designation does not stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle," but rather for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle in the 1950s. emphasis added
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7239
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. There's too much emphasis on calling these guns "sporting rifles"
If I own an AR-type or AK-type rifle and only use it for a little healthy target practice at the range, it's still a military rifle, but one that isn't going to be used to terrorize peasants in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Yemen, Colombia, etc.

I see where these guys are going with their campaign, though, and it's not bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. With the exception of a .22, every rifle I own is a "military rifle".
A Yugo M24, M-N 91/30 & M44, 1917 Eddystone, Ishapore Enfield IIa. Every one of them is also a "sporting rifle", and used for such.

That's not to say they couldn't be used for their previous purpose again, but the intent of many/most of the people who insist on calling any modern, military derived semi-auto a "military" firearm is to demonize and create fear in the minds of the ignorant.

Just like using the terms "militia" and "domestic terrorist" to conflate seperate items in a negative conatation.

It's all coming down to a war of words. NewSpeak, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. The military has used suppressed .22 pistols extensively. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Heh, true.
Also .22 rifles for training. I really covet my grandmothers Mossberg M44....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
71. I agree.
I disagree with the entire premise of trying to disown the term "assault rifle".

A civilian variant of an AK-47 that is 99% identical to a fully-automatic AK-47 is still an assault weapon in my book. Same thing for an AR-15.

They are rugged weapons designed to meet military requirements. We should not be hiding this fact or running from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. I think you are missing the important distinction.
When the full-auto/burst feature is removed from an assault rifle to make it civilian available, the rifle has gone from "assault rifle" to normal "semi-auto carbine". There is nothing special about the AR-15 and semi-auto AK-47 rifles that requires a special "assault weapon" designation. They have no special features or special capabilities over any other semi-auto carbine, except that their ergonomic shape makes them look like the assault rifles currently in use by many militaries. But how they look is not relevant to anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. I don't think the rate of fire makes the distinction.
When the full-auto/burst feature is removed from an assault rifle to make it civilian available, the rifle has gone from "assault rifle" to normal "semi-auto carbine". There is nothing special about the AR-15 and semi-auto AK-47 rifles that requires a special "assault weapon" designation. They have no special features or special capabilities over any other semi-auto carbine, except that their ergonomic shape makes them look like the assault rifles currently in use by many militaries. But how they look is not relevant to anything.

I do not think the rate of fire is what constitutes an assault rifle.

I understand that the anti-gun crowd has purposefully and admittedly attempted to confuse the general public about "machine guns" by referring to semi-automatic versions of military rifles as "assault" weapons.

But the fact is they are functionally identical to their military counterparts in all ways except they don't allow for select or fully-automatic fire.

This does not change the fact that they are still ideally suited for military assault in all other ways.

I believe the attempt to try and downplay this capability is simply denying the true reason why the citizenry is supposed to be armed in the first place. We should not be running from that by denying that civilian assault rifles are not assault rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. So, what features or capabilities make them special?
What features or capabilities of the AR-15 and AK-47 clones make them special above and beyond the other rifles categorized as semi-auto carbines? Please be explicit.


> But the fact is they are functionally identical to their military counterparts
> in all ways except they don't allow for select or fully-automatic fire.

All that does is make them modern guns, if you can say that guns designed in the 40's and 50's are modern.


> This does not change the fact that they are still ideally suited for military assault in all other ways.

That just makes them guns. Unless you want to better describe what you are trying to say.

There is nothing to down play. There are no special features or capabilities of the AR15 and AK platforms that distinguish them from the other semi-auto carbines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Ruggedness.
So, what features or capabilities make them special?

What features or capabilities of the AR-15 and AK-47 clones make them special above and beyond the other rifles categorized as semi-auto carbines? Please be explicit.


The ability to accept high-capacity magazines in military caliber and ruggedness and high functional reliability in adverse conditions. Their design makes them suitable for military application.


All that does is make them modern guns, if you can say that guns designed in the 40's and 50's are modern.

Sure, but there are plenty of modern firearms that are unsuitable for military application, because they are not rugged enough for the task.

There is nothing to down play. There are no special features or capabilities of the AR15 and AK platforms that distinguish them from the other semi-auto carbines.

I can't believe a firearm enthusiast would make such a statement. Surely you understand the difference in durability and toughness that military grade hardware has over standard commercial grade hardware?

Firearm platforms designed for the military are specifically designed to function in battle conditions. It's not just about the ballistics and rate of fire, but the entire platform must meet military specifications in terms of function and durability under a wide variety of conditions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Are you really suggesting that durability is the deciding factor?
All modern guns are durable. All modern guns would meet any military durability test. Some folks would even claim that the M16/AR15 family fail the "battle field conditions" test.

All magazine-fed rifles will accept "high capacity" magazines. No gun using a detachable box magazine has any indication how many rounds the magazine holds. You can get 5-round mags used for hunting, 20- and 30-round mags for normal (plinking) use. Competitions may specify 10-round mags. Regardless, the rifle (any rifle) will accept any length mag YOU choose.

As a knowledgeable firearms enthusiast, I know that there is no difference in the durability and toughness requirements between the military and civilian firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Well we will have to agree to disagree.
All modern guns are durable. All modern guns would meet any military durability test. Some folks would even claim that the M16/AR15 family fail the "battle field conditions" test.

All magazine-fed rifles will accept "high capacity" magazines. No gun using a detachable box magazine has any indication how many rounds the magazine holds. You can get 5-round mags used for hunting, 20- and 30-round mags for normal (plinking) use. Competitions may specify 10-round mags. Regardless, the rifle (any rifle) will accept any length mag YOU choose.

As a knowledgeable firearms enthusiast, I know that there is no difference in the durability and toughness requirements between the military and civilian firearms.


There are no high-capacity magazines for my father's .44mag carbine. And I would never consider it a rugged weapon as the wood is far to nice to abuse as a military arm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #83
94. Civilian rifles need ruggedness too.
Functionally, no one wants a gun that is going to break down. Everyone (who wants a gun) would like a gun that will operate well after having shot hundreds, even thousands of rounds. And will do so after having shot a large number in rapid succession. People often pay a fair increase in price for added ruggedness. (Hence the availability, at cost, of models with stainless steel and synthetic stocks, as examples.)

No one wants a fragile gun, unless they are ONLY interested in displaying it in a case or on a wall.

Granted, some people buy highly decorative guns, with beautifully polished wood and fancy metal work. And you might call those un-rugged, as their owners may be reluctant to, say, drag them though brush while hunting. But it is still desirable that the functional workings of the inner hardware on even those guns to be as reliable as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. I'd say rate of fire is the crucial distinction
Assault rifles were developed following various studies--by the Germans, the Russians and the Americans--that the standard infantry rifle rounds of both World Wars (7.92x57mm Mauser, 7.62x54mmR, .30-06, .303 British, etc.) were overpowered for the job, requiring a rifle that was unnecessarily heavy, and weighing the individual rifleman down with an unnecessarily heavy ammunition load. The lighter rounds that were adopted were sufficiently powerful to wound (though not necessarily incapacitate) an enemy soldier at 100-200 meters, which would typically put him out of the fight before he could close to short range. But at the same time, experience indicated that in close combat (say, under 50 meters), a high volume of light rounds was more effective that a low volume of high-powered rounds, hence the popularity of SMGs in close-quarter combat. So to make the new, lighter-powered infantry rifles effective at close range, they had to have automatic capability.

It's worth bearing in mind in this context that the StG44 and the AK-47 were intended to replace the SMGs of their respective adopting armies as much as they were intended to replace the standard-issue bolt-action rifles. The Soviets in particular had equipped entire regiments with nothing but PPSh-41s, which at 900 rpm could lay down a withering volume of fire on an enemy position during an assault. Doctrinally, the AK-47 is more of an overgrown SMG than it is a shortened rifle. This is reflected in the fact that the AK's selector lever goes from "safe" to "auto" first, and only then to "semi-auto," and I actually have a Soviet Army field manual from 1974 (a gift from some guys I got drunk with in Siberia five years ago) in which the default mode of fire for the AK-47/AKM is to squeeze off short bursts on automatic. In a very real sense, a semi-auto-only AK variant defeats the whole point of the design; it's not called an avtomat for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. "assault"
The key word here is "assault".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

"a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces"

An assault rifle is a rifle that is suited to an assault, as defined above.

A rifle does not necessarily have to be fully-automatic to serve in the above role.

A semi-automatic rifle can serve the purpose also. For example, I would consider the M1 Garand as such a rifle.

I think people mostly shy away from the term "assault rifle" not so much out of an earnest desire for semantic clarity but rather because they are afraid of the military connotation it implies.

I think we should be embracing the military connotation and not running from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. You are reading WAY too much into the name.
The term "assault rifle" was chosen to suggest its usage and distinguish it from the "battle rifle" class, which is also auto/burst capable.

Full-auto or burst mode is a requirement for the "assault rifle" classification. This is different from the "assault weapons" classification, which has no real world definition outside foolish legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #85
88.  The M1 Garand is considered a "Battle Rifle"
Mainly due to the full power (30-06 cartridge) that it is chambered for. The same is true for the Brit Lee-Enfield and the German KaR 98. All use full power rounds.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #85
90. I agree that is the key term
Edited on Thu Apr-29-10 07:10 AM by Euromutt
It does deserve note that the term "assault rifle" is a translation of the original German term for the concept, Sturmgewehr, lit. "storm rifle" ("storm" in the sense of "storm the barricades," i.e. assault). But it's worth noting that the term Sturmgewehr was coined well after the concept of the firearm was created; the pilot models for what would eventually be adopted as the Sturmgewehr 44 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm the world's first assault rifle) were designated Maschinenkarabiner, lit. "machine carbine." That term denotes automatic fire capability.

Bear in mind that the first weapons we now call "assault rifles" that entered service--the Sturmgewehr 44 and the Avtomat Kalashnikova 47--were in part intended to replace sub-machine guns in infantry use. Automatic fire capability was a sine qua non from the start; the weapons needed to be at least as lethal as SMGs at close range (which meant automatic fire), while having the ability to engage targets out to the range at which rifles turned out to be, in practice, used by non-specialist riflemen.

Yes, in principle a semi-auto rifle chambered for a full-powered round, such as the M1 Garand, G43 or SVT-40, can be used in a close assault, but both the Germans and the Sovs greatly preferred to leave the mechanically more complex semi-auto rifles to specialists (snipers/designated marksmen), while relying on SMGs (which are mechanically the simplest of self-loading firearms) to provide the short-range firepower for close assaults on entrenched enemy positions and combat in dense terrain like forests and cities. Don't forget that the Western Allies, and subsequently NATO, were comparatively slow to embrace the "assault rifle" concept. The Americans initially cajoled most of NATO into accepting the 7.62x51mm (essentially a slightly modified .308 Winchester), which didn't represent anywhere near as much of a reduction in power compared to the .30-06 as the 7.92x33mm did compared to the 7.92x57m Mauser, or the 7.62x39mmR did compared to the 7.62x54mmR. Consequently, the FN FAL and the H&K G3 (and their variants) are generally not considered "battle rifles" rather than "assault rifles," in spite of their automatic fire capability. The less said about the M14 the better. Only with the gradual acceptance of weapons chambered for the 5.56x45mm round did NATO begin to really accept the "assault rifle" concept (only to sod it up again with 3-round burst models).

There seems to be this notion that suffuses the ordnance board of every country west of Germany that mere infantrymen below the rank of sergeant cannot be entrusted with the ability to expend more $10 worth of ammunition a minute ($1 in 1968 dollars). As a former infantryman myself, I really resent the notion that preventing me from expending "too much" ammunition is more important than preventing me from getting killed. By contrast, the Sovs had an attitude of "pour it on"; maybe because they used cheaper steel-cased ammo.

Even so, there isn't an armed force in the world that has adopted a rifle chambered for 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mmR or 5.45x39mmR that is capable only of semi-auto (aside from SKS variants, which were replaced with AK variants at the earliest opportunity).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. The opinion of a US Army Armourer.
So one of my friends was in the US Army as an Armorer.

It is also his opinion that civilian variants of military assault rifles are also assault rifles, in spite of the fact that they do not have select or fully automatic fire capability.

Personally, I don't care what they are called. But what irks me is that I know that the anti-firearm folks have been painting civilian military small arms as "assault weapons" in an attempt to paint them in a bad light, and it seems to me that people are trying to wiggle out from under that label when in fact we should just be embracing it.

There is nothing wrong with civilians owning military-grade small arms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Great post! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
95. The term "sporting" really, really needs to go away. It is SOOOO 1950's.
An AR-15 and a Winchester Model 70 deer rifle are both civilian rifles with military origins. But they are only "sporting" rifles if you compete in "sports" with them.

I personally despise the terms "sporting" and "sportsman". "Sport" is, by definition, frivolous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. These sound too easily used by angry and unbalanced snipers.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 10:05 AM by sharesunited
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sailor65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. They only sound that way
to the inexperienced and uninitiated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You mean they're not any good for climbing up on high places and picking off people from a distance?
With great accuracy and efficiency?

I think they surely must be good for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I can think of a few better choices for that.
Your basic groundhog rifle is far better at long distance precision shooting than most AR's.

None of that really matters, though, because we just don't have a rash of "sniper" shootings. It's very unusual for anyone to be killed by aimed rifle fire. The FBI crime statistics prove this. Of course you already know that but don't let a few facts get in the way of some manufactured outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Here is what John Muhammed used in the beltway sniper attacks.
The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a red-dot sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards.

How was Muhammed's weapon different and more lethal than the "harmless" weapon you are coddling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Got any more examples?
That's one case. If it's a big problem I'm sure you won't have any shortage of cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. This example makes the point clearly enough. Target fun is unworthy of constitutional protection.
Simply cannot be justified.

You can say I Love My Gun or I Love Target Shooting.

What you cannot say is that it rises to the level of a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Target shooting is a difficult sport that takes time to master ...
if you ever do.

It involves intense concentration and extreme hand eye co-ordination. It's fun but can be frustrating. The challenge is what makes it interesting.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The founders didn't mean that people could just own firearms and never practice with them.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, target shooting was a common sport in the colonies.

The term "Colonial America" usually refers to the period of American history when the New England colonies were created. Of course, these were known back then as the British colonies. The period is said to have begun with the formation of Jamestown and lasted until the Revolutionary War. The area was marked by small farms, harbors and forests, which made farming, fishing, lumberjacking, hunting and fur trading popular activities that kept families afloat. This was also the period of time in which the New England Confederation was formed in order to defend the citizens of Colonial America against "invaders," such as the Native Americans, Dutch colonists and French.

***snip***

Many of the more physical activities that Colonial Americans engaged in were considered a form of training for battle. They allowed citizens to practice their physical prowess, quick reflexes and ability to ward off the competition. Wrestling, target shooting and war games were common.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4572323_sports-played-colonial-america.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. One criminal's actions result in the loss...
of Constitutional Rights for the rest of us? That is the most patently absurd thing I've heard in a while.

John Allen Muhammad paid for his crimes. That's the way the system works.

Where are all the other sniper shootings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. What constitutional protections do you believe in?
I do understand that have strong feelings against the 2nd A. How do you feel about the rest of the bill of rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. None are spared from pruning to fit the society we live in and the common good.
Moreover, it is only the 2nd which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Obviously you disagree with the entire Constitution ...
and would throw away many of the rights and privileges that we enjoy today.

Would you also "prune" the First Amendment and limit free speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom and the right to assemble peacefully? Should we have a right to post here on DU if we disagree with the policies of the very intelligent people who run our country?

Maybe we should go back to a monarchy or live in a feudal society.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was and still is one of the most progressive and liberal documents ever put down on paper. It has enabled the citizens of this country to achieve amazing progress. It has been a document that changed the world in many ways.

The founders valued liberty and freedom. You obviously have little appreciation of either.

I prefer to be a free man.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’
— Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. <...> the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.
- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-Aristotle

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

******

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.
-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dictator of Japan, August 1588

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Name any one of the first ten amendments
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 04:42 PM by sharesunited
and I will point to an example of how its interpretation has been shaped to fit a changing society and to promote the general welfare.

The 2A has been treated with kid gloves, comparatively speaking. It is overdue for a major trim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. All ten have...
Including the second. But they were shaped, not pruned.

In fact if you look at the last century the second was hardly treated with kid gloves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. OK. How about the Third Amendment ....
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Second Amendment has been subjected to interpretation by the Supreme Court several times, the latest being District of Columbia v. Heller which upheld the individual right to posses a firearm in a federal enclave.

One of the most interesting cases was United States v. Miller in 1939 which led to registration requirements for certain types of firearms including fully automatic weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns.

It will be interesting to see the upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago. I refuse to make any predictions on the ruling. I suspect with the composition of the court that the ruling will limit Chicago's current draconian firearm laws but feel that it could easily allow states and cities to strictly regulate firearm ownership as long as they do not totally deny the right of a citizen to own one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #43
76. Shares, here's the deal.
Name any one of the first ten amendments and I will point to an example of how its interpretation has been shaped to fit a changing society and to promote the general welfare.

The 2A has been treated with kid gloves, comparatively speaking. It is overdue for a major trim.


Here's the deal, Shares. I know you don't agree with me on this, but there is not much trimming you can do to the second amendment. The second amendment is the ultimate reset switch for our government. It puts the power of armed revolt in the hands of the people. It is an EXTREMELY POWERFUL capability, and it has serious side-effects, as we all know.

There is only so much pruning you can do to such awesome power while still preserving such awesome power in the hands of the people.

Now I know you don't think that the people should have such awesome power in their hands, nor do you even believe that such power can be effectively wielded against a modern military force.

But the bottom line you are going to have a hard time trimming the second amendment against opposition from people who believe as I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. I would have to disagree.
By that is just my opinion. I don't think that the bill of rights is up for pruning. I do however feel that it is a living document that can evolve with society. I would rather see it continue to expand. As it did with the modern civil rights movement, and farther back to the abolition of slavery.

I think that the bill of rights is in place to limit the government, not the the people. Pruning it only serves to give power to the government over the people. To me that is far too dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. No no no, the right to keep and bear arms kills no one.
It is not a person, and thus cannot act.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. And fire doesn't burn. Kindling combusts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. My point was that people having the right to bear arms is different from killing people.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 06:24 PM by Callisto32
One obviously does NOT have the right to take the life of another.

Right to bear arms =/= right to aggress against another with those arms.

But you already knew that.

EDIT:

Also, a fire can begin without human intervention. Gunshots? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
65. NO
kindling doesn't combust, it has to have a source to start it, say like a spark or a match. Now compost or hay will combust without an outside source. Next time comment on something you know about, this is something I am an expert in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
54. Having a gun can also save your life.
My wife used her gun to save her from being murders a few years ago. Since she is a small senior citizen, her chances of fighting off the criminal would have been near zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #35
61. Are conservatives allowed to prune as well?
to fit their view of a conservative and christian society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Of course. And they do, according to their power from time to time to steer the judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
68. That's funny.
That's exactly how the ultra right feels about it too.
Sure, they may want to prune different rights than you do, but the attitude is the same.
You don't *really* need freedom of religion. You certainly shouldn't need to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Only criminals want that. The right to face your accusers in court isn't necessary unless you're a criminal either. etc etc. All of which could be argued would provide a measurable benefit to society, at least in the minds of the person proposing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
74. It's also only the 2nd that can protect all of your other rights.
Moreover, it is only the 2nd which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.


It is also only the 2nd which can preserve all your other rights.

By killing tyrants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. Ironically enough, suitability for MILITARY purposes IS worthy of Constitutional protection
and the Supreme Court has said as much more than once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #49
63. Careful with that one. POTUS is the constitutional CIC of the militia.
So if you are mustered in because you are "suitable," and the CIC says report here and tender your arms to an armory for safekeeping, what will your constitutional response be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #63
70. He could do that for the time...
the troops were mustered. When you leave to return home, your weapon would go with you. That's the "keeping" part. What possible scenario do you have in mind to trigger this call to arms? I seriously doubt one could do it simply as a ruse to confiscate firearms, which is your intent.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #63
75. Don't make me laugh.
If it EVER looks like such a thing would be at all plausible, I'll give it some thought. Till then, please put down the crack and step away from the pipe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appal_jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
64. Um, it's in the Bill of Rights.
My love of target shooting does not a right make.

Fortunately, the right of self-defense is a longstanding cultural tradition of many peoples, Americans in particular. The authors of our Constitution were wise enough to codify and enumerate that right in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.

That's what makes it a right.

Your wish that self-defense is not a right is just that: a wish. You are free to agitate and organize to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but you will fail.

I am glad of all the rights enumerated in the Constitution. I support the vigorous exercise of each and every liberty that a citizen might choose: free speech, security in one's person & property, avoiding self-incrimination, etc.

-app
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. They're all just as lethal, to an extent. Rifles are either capable or incapable.
How far do you want to shoot and how big is the target? 100yds is ridiculously short and humans are merely intermediate sized. Something with more velocity and a flatter trajectory would be more capable of reaching out further. For larger targets at 500+ yards you'll probably want a .308 or magnum type round.

Muhammed's rifle choice is very effective (on people) out to about 500yds. Accuracy would be suspect at that point as well as the power of the relatively weal 5.56mm (the 5.56mm is primarily designed to wound and fragment).For what he was doing (~100yd shooting), a rifle firing just about ANY centerfire round would have worked well. The firearm he chose (a bushmaster XM-15) did not contribute much to the outcome of those events more so than other options. There are probably a dozen traditional semiauto hunting rifles that are much cheaper and more accurate.

The only real advantage of the bushmaster (versus a hunting rifle) are the 30 round mags... which when "sniping" become irrelevant because controlled and aimed shooting through a telescopic sight is slow and deliberate. Mag changes can happen much quicker then the frequency of shots taken. It wouldn't have mattered is Muhammed was using 5, 10, 20, or 30 round magazines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. 50 to just over 100 yards is point-blank range for a rifle. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. 50 - 100 yards is not the kind of distance a true sniper would shoot
Good grief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
51. 50 to 100 yards is not sniper distance. That's just a little further out than shotgun distance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Well.... To be accurate (no pun intended)
Police snipers rarely take shots over 100 yards. The average distance is more like 75 yards.

Of course, they also prefer the term "precision marksman" to "sniper" so maybe you're still right. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. There is a reason why police sniper rarely take longer range shots.
They are usually aiming for a tiny part of the brain that will cause the subject to drop without any nervous twitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #55
77. You are correct.
The police have a different set of mission requirements than military snipers. I wasn't saying it was because of a lack of ability. I just said their shots are comparatively short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. I figured that you knew the difference.
I just wanted to be sure that any lurkers understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Good point, hadn't thought about that . . . nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
72. That's not sniping.
Red-dot sights typically do not offer any, or much magnification. They simply present a holographic dot to the eye that can be used similar to iron sights, but they allow faster target acquisition because they are more open and do not require the shooter to close one eye to use.

Snipers typically use telescopic sights.

While nearly any rifle, even AR-15s, can be fitted with a scope, most actual sniping is done with bolt-action rifles, as they tend to be more accurate than semi-automatic rifles.

And of course bolt-action rifle technology is over 100 years old. Most modern bolt-action rifles are still variants of the 1898 Mauser action.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
79. And if he'd used a better rifle, he would have killed a lot more people.
A bolt-action Remington 700 in .308 Winchester would probably have doubled the number of people he killed, at least. Instead, they were just wounded by the weaker cartridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Not as much as granddad's blued, walnut stocked gun
Which has more range, and usually a more powerful caliber.


(Winchester Model 70 or Remington Model 700)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sailor65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Not at all
I can pick you off much better with an old Winchester bolt action. There is a reason why military snipers do not carry the rifles discussed by the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. Watch this video of a WWII German 98K rifle at 900 yards ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
57. Very cool. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
67. Nice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
40. My first choice from my own collection would be a Swedish Mauser
I have one made in 1911 that seems to be particularly accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
60. Negative, 55 grains is to light. Pushed around by wind. 300 grains at 3000fps
is the gold standard and remains in supersonic flight beyond 1000m. Ideal for long distance shooting. Of course like what ever you do for a living (even if you clean shit from toilet bowls) there is skill and tradecraft to make this happen.

Playing video games does not actually help in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
73. Just about any rifle can do that.
You mean they're not any good for climbing up on high places and picking off people from a distance?

With great accuracy and efficiency?

I think they surely must be good for that.


I've got a little Beretta CX4 carbine in 9mm that has iron sights on it that I can easily hit targets at 100 yards with. At 50 yards I can tear a single, continuous hole in the paper on the bulls-eye.

Just about any rifle can be used for climbing up on high places and picking off people from a distance. Oswald did it with a bolt-action rifle, a Carcano, which was first introduced in 1891.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. All deer rifle fit that description. All serious caliber hunting rifles do too.
A good elk or antelope rifle would be .30-06, with less than one minute of angle accuracy, and a 4X-10X range adjustable scope. All a hunting rifle is, is a sniper rifle used for sniping game instead of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dr28704 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
92. DEER Rifles are not Sniper rifles
A deers vital area is approximately 16 inches. Most modern hunting rifles are capable of 2 to 3 MOA. Slapping a scope on a hunting rifle does not make you or your rifle a capable of sniping. Most people with training can learn to fire within 4 MOA without a scope and 2 MOA with a scope, unsupported prone and possibly 1 moa supported prone. So most people can hit and kill a deer with a scoped hunting rifle at up to 200 meters(220yards) That does not make them a sniper

A sniper rifle is an instrument capable of less than 1 MOA. It consists of; a well made stock such as the Mcmillan A5, a good action a 'blueprinted' Remington 700, a great barrel-Shilen or Kreiger, a great optic(scope) with Mil-Dot reticle and ranging like IOR Valdada 4-16x50, good rings like the Burris XTRs, and a solid base(pick one). This isn't including a gunsmith that can put it all together, face the bolt, true the receiver and barrel, lap the lugs, free float the barrel, and aluminum pillar bed the receiver. The hours spent at the range and the reloading bench working up a good round, like Lapua 308 palma cases weighed and sorted, CCI small rifle primers, Lapua Scenar or Berger VLD bullets, and Vihta Vhouri powder xx.x grains.(yes I love the Finnish bullet products) Or, you could go out and pay 4,500 dollars for a TacOps 51 XRay, put a solid scope on it for another 1500 dollars and be capable of .3 MOA with Federal Gold Medal Match, or possibly .125 MOA if you spent about 50 hours working up a handload. That is a rifle and round capable of sniping.

A sniper has to learn how to; squeeze his trigger, breathe properly, aim properly, range estimate, target speed estimate, wind judge, consult his D.O.P.E.(data on previous engagements) for; wind, temperature, humidity, the spin of the round, slope, and distance, if far enough a shot the rotation of the earth has to be included. Choose a position to snipe from, not the hollywood sniper position with the barrel sticking out the window.

Not that I personally have anything invested in this, I'm just sayin'. :evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. Unlike any scoped deer rifle.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
50. Actually, these rifles have fairly short barrels and small diameter bullets fired at high velocity.
Not that great as sniper weapons.

In fact, I heard the US soldiers are unhappy with the short-range of their M-4's in Afghanistan . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
66. Showing your ignorance.
Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
96. Less so than actual military sniper rifles like the Winchester Model 70 and Remington Model 700...
but thanks for playing.


A high-end variant of the Remington Model 700 deer rifle is issued to the U.S. military as the M24.



Winchester Model 70 deer rifle in Vietnam. A model 70 in .30-06 Springfield (the top deer caliber in America) was the weapon of choice of legendary USMC sniper Carlos Hathcock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. That's really all they're good for.
Think about it. The AR15 is a fighting gun, plain and simple. They're different in that respect from the '03 Springfield, the M1 Garand, or the '94 Winchester. Since there isn't any real fighting going on these rifles are nothing more than range queens. That's OK as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing wrong with a lawful citizen having a particular set of skills with a firearm. Other than some ongoing battles for drug turf the U.S. is really a pretty peaceful place to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. I'm not sure sure about it being purely a fighting rifle, anymore.
Things are also changing for the modern AR platform. Advent of more powerful calibers, like the 6.8 SPC and .50 Beowulf are slowly turning it into a more capable hunting arm when it comes to the larger animals.

The caliber has always been appropriate for varmint control, and expected/delivered accuracy and precision for this rifle platform is also getting much better. A heck of a lot of groundhogs/prairie dogs/coyotes are probably taken with them these days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. AR rifles are also used for hunting and are becoming quite popular...
for that sport.


Virtually every type of centerfire sporting rifle in existence started off as a military weapon. The classic lever-action deer gun, long the most popular type of hunting rifle in America, began as the Henry Rifle of the Civil War era, designed to bring rapid fire against the enemy. The lever-action was succeeded in universal popularity by the bolt-action--the standard hunting rifle of today--which we owe to Paul Mauser's classic battle-rifle design.



Now another rifle of military origin is moving rapidly into prominence in the hunting and sport shooting world: the AR15 .223 and AR10 .308. And, like its predecessors, the AR platform is meeting resistance, even outright opposition, from many hunters who are personally wedded to earlier gun designs. No surprise there; when the lever action was first used for hunting, traditionalists, whose idea of a "real" hunting gun was a single-shot muzzleloader, distained the need for a repeat-fire tool.

Technically speaking, it makes all the sense in the world that proven military rifle designs should be inherently appropriate for hunting use. All successful military rifles are specifically designed for rugged, reliable function and durability under extreme conditions, which translates automatically into use under even the most extreme field-hunting use. They're also designed for reasonable weight, portability and ease of fast handling by people who may be carrying other heavy gear and wearing bulky clothing. They have an inherent capability for follow-up shots, and they must be deadly accurate against targets of the same basic dimensions and at the same distances typically encountered by hunters.

The AR in particular is a superb hunting design, due primarily to its lightweight synthetic and corrosion-resistant alloy construction. And, it's surprisingly accurate, due primarily to the fact it's an "assembled" gun rather than a "fitted" gun. Its major components essentially snap together. Unlike a traditional bolt-action rifle, which generally requires close-tolerance, hand-work receiver/barrel mating and precise bedding into the stock for maximum accuracy and consistency, a hunting-grade (or even competition-grade) AR can readily be assembled from modular components literally on a kitchen table, by anybody with a modicum of ability to use relatively simple hand tools. Likewise, a service-grade "standard" AR15 can readily be brought up to minute-of-angle performance by selective replacement of key modular elements with match-grade parts. And, once tuned, an AR stays that way, due to the fact that its entirely nonorganic components (nonwood) are not susceptible to environmental distortion (warpage or swelling). All an AR really needs is a quality barrel to shoot as well as the best hunting rifle you can buy.

Hunting versions of the AR design, in a wide variety of chamberings, are currently offered by several manufacturers. One of the early leaders in AR hunting rifle and sport configurations has been ArmaLite, which offers both lightweight and heavy-barrel configurations in .223 (M-12A series) for long-range varmint and predator hunting, .308-chambered versions (AR-10 series) for deer hunting and competition and even a super-accurate .300 Remington Short-Action Ultra Mag (AR-10T Ultra), which is as good an elk, moose or general heavy game chambering as you can get.



http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/ar15zum_030207/



Model R-25™ Rifle

Overview:

Remington brought the hunting-rifle prowess, and a leading manufacturer of modular repeating rifles introduced us to the 308 Win platform. What emerged is a masterwork of game-dropping performance and hunt-specific features that will load any camp’s meat pole with unrivaled efficiency – the new Model R-25. An advanced, highly lethal blend of accuracy, fast followups and light recoil chambered for three of today’s most popular short-action hunting cartridges – 243 Win, 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win. This rifle is everything varmint and predator hunters love about our R-15 in a beefed-up design that easily handles cartridges suitable for big-game hunting.

For peak accuracy, its precision-crafted 20" ChroMoly barrel is freefloated within the machined aluminum fore-end tube. Six longitudinal flutes forward of the gas block keep weight to a minimum and facilitate rapid heat dissipation. The barrel also features a recessed hunting crown to protect the rifling and aid in more consistent bullet flight. When it’s time to make the shot, the R-25’s ergonomic pistol-grip gives you unmatched control and rock-steady aim. As a whole, this rifle has a balanced, stable design that makes it deadly from the offhand position. True to our hunting market, the traditional two-stage trigger found on AR-platform rifles has been exchanged for a crisp, single-stage version that comes from the factory set at 4 1/2 to 5 lbs.

Its carefully tuned upper and lower are machined from rugged aluminum forgings. The entire gun is dressed in Mossy Oak® Treestand™ camo that makes it virtually invisible in the field. We included a 4-round magazine, and the R-25 is compatible with DPMS 308 Win-type magazines and accessories. front and rear sling swivel studs are installed.


http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. The M1 Garand isn't a "fighting gun"?
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 11:45 AM by Euromutt
It may have been designed with a different infantry doctrine in mind, but the Garand was designed from the outset as an infantry rifle. Okay, as it turned out, it lends itself well for deer hunting, but then again, the AR platform (in its original 5.56mm chambering) makes a pretty good varminter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Words have meanings.
I should have typed "no different than". Thanks for the heads up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Not picking
But I think the term was

"the greatest fighting implement ever devised" G. Patton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
69. Well, there I have to agree with you
Speaking for myself, I have no intention of using my OlyArms "Alphabet Gun" (http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=39&category_id=23&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37) for any kind of hunting activity. It's definitely for home defense and range fun.

But of course, the fact that my AR isn't intended for hunting or competition shooting purposes doesn't mean all ARs are. Particularly since the AR's modular design makes it possible to create specific configurations better suited to those activities (like the Stag Model 6 http://www.stagarms.com/product_info.php?cPath=13_22&products_id=211 or the OlyArms MultiMatch models http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=26&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. They are popular partly because of their modularity,
There a number of manufactures that make a version of this style firearm. The real innovation, in my opinion, is the ability to change or modify the weapon with various individual components made by the original manufacturer and third parties as well.



If you live in the wilderness you really need some kind of firearm.

In the city I was always anti hand gun.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. In the city I always wished I could legally carry a hand gun
and pick off some of the pervs who harassed me as I went about my daily routine. For the past 35+ years in a rural area I've legally kept a loaded 38 in the nightstand drawer but don't ever expect the need to use it will arise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. I hate to say this ...
but my advise is NOT to ever get a concealed carry permit.

You have the wrong attitude to carry a concealed firearm.

This is not meant as an insult. Perhaps you are just attempting to insert some humor into the discussion.

If not, be aware that carrying a concealed weapon is a very serious responsibility. Those who have permits don't go around looking forward to shooting some "perv" just because of simple harassment. The weapon is only to be used in cases of a serious attack that might result in severe injury or death to you or another.

I've had a concealed weapons permit for many years and never had an occasion to draw the weapon for self defense. That's the last thing I would ever want to do. However, given absolutely NO other choice, I will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Get over yourself.
Who said anything about permits or 'conceal carry.' My point is I don't need a permit for a firearm, hidden or not, in rural, mostly crime free vermont.

In Boston where it would be next to impossible to legally carry a weapon, is where a (defenseless) 100 lb woman could use a defensive tool.

There is an irony here (and it's not especially humorless) but I think you don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. My daughter has a concealed carry permit ...
and carries on a regular basis in large urban areas of Florida.

She weighs a slight bit more than 100 pounds and since she is considered by many to be attractive has at times been harassed. She developed the ability to politely and firmly handle most inappropriate advances. But last year she had a restraining order placed on a particularity obnoxious stalker which did little to deter him until he spend several weekends in jail for his actions.

If he would have physically assaulted her she would have used her weapon which she is licensed to carry for self defense. His harassment never rose to that level, possibly because he was aware that she carried.

In fact at a court hearing, he requested that her permit be suspended. A clerk at the courthouse mistakenly forwarded the paper work to the state and she received a notice to turn her concealed weapons permit in. She immediately contacted the judge who straightened the matter out quickly.

She filed for the restraining order to avoid a situation in which using her weapon might prove necessary. She, like me, has no desire to shoot someone unless it is truly necessary and was willing to take legal actions in an attempt to avoid such a confrontation.

The stalker appears to have learned his lesson and no longer bothers my daughter. However, he has turned his attention to one of my daughters best friends who on the advice of my daughter is appearing before the judge today to get a permanent restraining order. She, unfortunately, does not own a firearm. She's terrified of the man, probably for good reason. I understand he has a criminal record of violence. We have advised the lady to obtain a handgun and carry it in her car until she can get a carry permit. Unfortunately, she is also terrified of guns.

Shooting a person even when it is justified is a life changing experience and can cause serious psychological problems to the shooter. It's not something that a sane and rational person would ever want to do. It is preferable to suffering serious injury or death, especially in a case like my daughter who has two teenaged sons to raise.

I feel sorry for the people you mention who live in gun unfriendly areas of our country such as Boston. You are fortunate to now live in Vermont.

The company that I worked for before I retired wanted me to work in Boston as a tech rep. I refused. I simply told my supervisor that I would never live in an area where I couldn't own and carry a firearm for self defense.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. I'm sorry about your daughter and her friend.
I hope this stalker does not harm either of them, or anyone else.

You are correct that killing or even injuring another human being would be a life-changing experience. I once sat on a jury at a murder trial, and although we found the defendant innocent under the self-defense statute, what he went through during the arrest and trial was surely not an ordeal anyone would want to experience.

Using a weapon in self-defense is indeed a choice of absolute last resort, but far better to have this last resort available than to be at the utter mercy of a random criminal.

I wasn't trying to be funny or flippant. Just that the utter "up is down" mentality as far as very liberal gun laws in a "safe" area, and near prohibitions on owning a firearm in a city where one is far more likely to need to resort to self defense continues to baffle me.

Boston is a great city. I was born there, and I love the place and its people, but the MA gun laws are just plain nuts and they have not reduced crime in that state. I think the stringent laws went into effect there in the early 1960s. I remember my grandfather having to dismantle and store his hunting rifles in locked containers to drive from CT across the border into MA to Logan airport to board a plane for Alaska (where he worked summers as a medic at the fishing canneries.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I believe we both agree on the issue.
Owning firearms is not for everybody. They can, however, be a useful tool for self defense.

Eventually, Boston and Massachusetts may change their laws and enable qualified citizens to own and use firearms without the current onerous restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. I guess I need to get over myself as well............
............since I view this as a decidedly unhealthy attitude:

In the city I always wished I could legally carry a hand gun and pick off some of the pervs who harassed me as I went about my daily routine.


Interesting that you see execution as an acceptable response to harassment.

Alright ----- now I'll proceed directly to "getting over myself". :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
12. I recently picked up this .308 "sporting rifle"
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 10:50 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
Thinking about tossing on a 14X or 16X scope. Should be able to reach out to 800yd+ with consistency.
20 rounds before I have to break to reload. Should be sweet with an AAC 762SD silencer on it.

The nice thing about .308 is that it turns alot of "cover" into "concealment".
Makes AK and AR15/M16 rounds look like munchkin bullets. :)



Left to right: My Rifle (LR308) - M16/AR15 - AK74 - AK47
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
38.  Of course you don't need a wiz bang black rifle
to put lead on target at 1000 yards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4WpYj3CATg


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. Wow!
Again... Wow! Truly talented. I am always amazed when I see someone who has such a talent. There are so many factors at work when making a long distance shot, and to pull it off with that rifle amazes me even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. These videos might interest you ...
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 05:52 PM by spin
WWII German 98K rifle at 900 yards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B4Me5HXNo&feature=related


1,000 yards M1 Garand (Springfield M1D sniper rifle)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34RqMoyMZmI


1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2M1hC4c0tc&feature=related
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. So cool.
I inherited my grandfather's M1. The rifle he brought home from France after WWII. I have made zero modifications to it. When he gave it to me, we went to the range and spent about half the day firing it. Not one jam or any other issue for that matter. The one thing I did notice was that if sighted properly for the yardage, you could not miss. I had zero experience shooting over 100 yards until that day, however we were shooting up to 600 yards and I was having no issue. My groups were not that tight, but I was not missing. GP said that it shoots like the day he got it.

I love the history behind it, and will never part with it... Until of course I have grandchildren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC