There is no reason to have an Assault Rifle--Really?

azrocks · Jul 14, 2016

yugorpk said:
I used the "silencer/suppressor to show what happens when some marketing guy in the 70's tried to reinvent the silencer to make it more palatable to gov't purchasing agents. Now internet experts all over refuse to call them silencers.

They're more often referred to as suppressors now because that's what they actually do: suppress (not silence) the report. It's a technically accurate term.

For this same reason, I personally chafe at the use of the term 'assault rifle' to describe a semi-auto MForgery used for plinking, target practice, or home defense. It's not a technically accurate term.

yugorpk · Jul 14, 2016

azrocks said:
They're more often referred to as suppressors now because that's what they actually do: suppress (not silence) the report. It's a technically accurate term.

Its a marketing term. The designer of the devices named them "silencers" and the current US code refers to them as such. What they do is immaterial. I could takke my Silencerco 762 SpecWar silencer and fill it with concrete and it would still be a silencer to the ATF. Suppressor is a term coined by a hack 1970's Soldier of Fortune writer who hoped to win over government purchasing agents into buying silencers for official use. No purchasing manager would purchase a "silencer" because those were evil. "Suppressor" was a more palatable term.

I have Silencer mounts on all my assault rifles.

Warp · Jul 14, 2016

azrocks said:
They're more often referred to as suppressors now because that's what they actually do: suppress (not silence) the report. It's a technically accurate term.

For this same reason, I personally chafe at the use of the term 'assault rifle' to describe a semi-auto MForgery used for plinking, target practice, or home defense. It's not a technically accurate term.

Suppressor and silencer are equally correct terms to use.

And some of them do silence. Put a good silencer on a bolt action .22lr rifle firing standard velocity (sub sonic) ammo and tell me that isn't a silencer.

azrocks · Jul 14, 2016

Warp said:
Suppressor and silencer are equally correct terms to use.

And some of them do silence. Put a good silencer on a bolt action .22lr rifle firing standard velocity (sub sonic) ammo and tell me that isn't a silencer.

It isn't. The decibel level of the trigger breaking or bolt cycling may be greater than that of the barrel report, but it's still making noise. And in most cases with just about every other caliber (or supersonic 22), you'll still have a noticeable report. You ever hear a 'silenced' 5.56 SBR shooting hypersonic rounds? The silence is so loud it can damage your hearing in a confined space.

Once again - suppressor is the correct technical term to describe what the suppressor is actually doing: suppressing sound. Not eliminating it.

The fact it was 'used as a marketing term', IF that's actually the truth & the whole truth, is as irrelevant as the ATF's use of the word. Suppressor is the proper term. Personally I don't buy the marketing term story, but as I have no personal experience to the contrary, I won't argue the matter (though I would appreciate a citation or two).

Sure - everyone knows what you mean when you use the word 'silencer'. But it's kind of like the word 'clip'... people are going to assume (perhaps undeservedly) you're not really up to speed on firearm tech.

X-Rap · Jul 14, 2016

Muffler is probably the most accurate description but not nearly as sexy as either suppressor or silencer.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Warp · Jul 14, 2016

azrocks said:
It isn't. The decibel level of the trigger breaking or bolt cycling may be greater than that of the barrel report, but it's still making noise.

Uh, no. For one thing the bolt on a bolt-action doesn't cycle when you fire a round, so there's nothing there to begin with. Additionally, silencers/suppressors are not designed to and never claimed to silence/suppress the sound of the hammer falling. They [silencers/suppressors] work with the report generated by gasses exiting the muzzle. That is the "it" being referred to...the report of the shot caused by the gasses exiting the muzzle. And [it] can be silenced with the right setup.

azrocks · Jul 14, 2016

Warp said:
Uh, no. For one thing the bolt on a bolt-action doesn't cycle when you fire a round, so there's nothing there to begin with.

Really? Gee... I never would have figured that out on my own. By the way, when exactly did we limit this discussion to bolt actions? Irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what is louder than a suppressed report (be it the bolt cycling OR, as I mentioned, a trigger breaking). What matters is whether the gun's report is actually 100% silenced (which it isn't, even with a .22 subsonic that you don't hear simply because it's not as loud as the hammer falling, bolt cycling, etc).

Warp said:
Additionally, silencers/suppressors are not designed to and never claimed to silence/suppress the sound of the hammer falling. They [silencers/suppressors] work with the report generated by gasses exiting the muzzle. That is the "it" being referred to...the report of the shot caused by the gasses exiting the muzzle. And [it] can be silenced with the right setup.

Again... thanks for observing the obvious. I don't think you really understand the point I was getting at. Might I suggest you actually read what I wrote instead of focusing solely on winning an argument and assuming I'm a moron who doesn't know how a suppressor functions.

I never said a suppressor deadens the sound of a hammer falling (or a bolt cycling, or any other noise). Of course it doesn't. The point is that on the .22 rifle shooting subsonics through a quality suppressor, those mechanically-generated sounds often are much louder than the (still present!) muzzle report. So yes, it may sound whisper-quiet to you, and for all effective purposes - with that particular combination of rifle/ammo/suppressor - it may be whisper quiet. But just like a whisper... it's still creating a measurable level of acoustic energy. Which means it is NOT SILENCED... a fact that becomes painfully obvious once you move up from the corner-case you're presenting to virtually any other combination of firearm/ammo/suppressor.

But really - if you wish to use the word 'silencer' - be my guest. You can call your magazines clips if you like as well. It's nothing more than semantics. I just happen to be the kind of person that likes to label things for what they actually are. Which brings us back full-circle to one important aspect of this thread: proper terminology as applied to firearms.

Coop45 · Jul 14, 2016

If a black rifle is accused of assaulting something without having done so, isn't that racist? And it should be able to shoot on the rimfire range if it self identifies as rimfire. And if it decides to marry a flintlock (why it would be attracted to something that old is beyond me) someone should be forced to reload for them.

I need a beer.

ColoradoShooter77 · Jul 14, 2016

Its a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

danez71 · Jul 14, 2016

Another great story for us to use to support our cause!

8-Year-Old Girl Fights Off Would-Be Kidnapper With Kung Fu Move

http://ktla.com/2016/07/11/8-year-old-girl-fights-off-would-be-kidnapper-with-kung-fu-moves/

A man had removed a ground-floor screen window and entered the girl's family's condominium unit, going into a second-floor bedroom shared by the 8-year-old girl and her 6-year-old brother, who were both asleep, police said.

"After the victim was awakened by the suspect, she struck him, causing him to flee the home," the release stated.

The girl's mother told KTLA sister station KSWB in San Diego that her child was picked up by the man and -- as he carried her down the stairs -- she struck him in the neck area.

The little girl told KSWB she woke up as the man got to the "fourth stair."

"She applied pressure to his throat using a technique she had learned in kung fu," said her mother. "She said he put her down and he ran one way, down the stairs, and she ran up the stairs."

The funny part

The mother said her daughter described him as smelling like garbage. <snip>

Warp · Jul 14, 2016

azrocks said:
Really? Gee... I never would have figured that out on my own. By the way, when exactly did we limit this discussion to bolt actions?

In the post you responded to

Warp said:
Suppressor and silencer are equally correct terms to use.

And some of them do silence. Put a good silencer on a bolt action .22lr rifle firing standard velocity (sub sonic) ammo and tell me that isn't a silencer.

azrocks said:
even with a .22 subsonic that you don't hear

If you don't hear it, it has been effectively silenced.

azrocks said:
But really - if you wish to use the word 'silencer' - be my guest.

Sell, since it IS a CORRECT term, I do not restrict myself from using it.

azrocks said:
You can call your magazines clips if you like as well.

The point you are missing is that silencers are correctly called silencers.

azrocks said:
It's nothing more than semantics. I just happen to be the kind of person that likes to label things for what they actually are. Which brings us back full-circle to one important aspect of this thread: proper terminology as applied to firearms.

Sooo why not label silencers as silencers?

Hummer70 · Jul 17, 2016

The anti gun politicians will never apply the right terminology as they want to demonize guns and everything about them and unfortunately a number of anti gun politicians we have let get elected hasn't helped us and is our own fault for not vetting them properly.

justice06rr · Jul 17, 2016

danez71 said:
But this story doesn't do anything to help us. Its illustrating that a simple shouting of 'Get out of here now' potentially works to thwart off a home invasion.

You must be delusional.

Having any firearm to protect yourself gives you an advantage. Having a firearm with 30round capacity gives you an even better edge.

I would sure as heck not recommend just telling my female loved one (younger sister, mother, or gf) just to yell "Get out of here now" when a group of bad guys are breaking in her house...

danez71 · Jul 17, 2016

justice06rr said:
You must be delusional.

Having any firearm to protect yourself gives you an advantage. Having a firearm with 30round capacity gives you an even better edge.

I would sure as heck not recommend just telling my female loved one (younger sister, mother, or gf) just to yell "Get out of here now" when a group of bad guys are breaking in her house...

I agree with everything you said except that I'm not delusional and calling/accusing me of that is just a bunch of horse poop.

If the home invasion was thwarted by the resident with a gun... it would be a great example.

However, in this example, aA person thwarted a home invasion with out a gun and with out even mentioning a gun.

This example is perfect for the anti's to say "Told you so, you don't need a gun... let alone an assault rifle!!!".

Rather than sling horse poop around, explain how it justifies to the Anti's that an 'assault rifle' is good.

CapnMac · Jul 17, 2016

Yet you understand what someone is talking about

Only in the sense of a person pointing at a freeway and saying "Look at all the cars."
Yeah, ok, but some of those are trucks, some are coupes, some are SUV, some are mommyvans. All we actually know about the statement is that all wheeled vehicles being operated on a public ROW are being grouped by the speaker under the collective term "cars." Which, rather gives the validity of that statement all te veritas of using the animated movie "Cars" as a definition.

It's rather also like pointing at a NASCAR rae and saying "Look at all the sedans."
Which in accurate at almost every level. Sprint Cup cars use a pipe frame and a sheet metal shell vaguely resembling one of three manufacturer's coupes (Fusion, Camrry, and the SS). All to tote a single driver around behind a 750hp powerplant. Not street legal in any sense, either.

We shooters are perceived (or marginalized) as a minority. It behooves "us" to speak with precision on these matters. We have to set the example. And to set it reflexively, repetitively, relentlessly.

We need to make distinctions between Kyle Busch's #18 camry from Ms Eunice the librarian's Camry, Our side, their side, andy side, these distinctions are important, and we need to make them, lest they become moot.

If the proverbial balloon goes up before the end of October, I am expected to get myself over to JRB, where I'd do my best to go draw an M4. Untii I got there, and drew issue, my 6920 is staying by my side. My 6920 is not an "assault weapon" it's not an "assault rifle," it is an LE6920.

"Assauly weapon" has had no federal meaning for more than a decade, we need to relegate that term to the same status as musketoon, matchlock and the like.

Hummer70 · Jul 18, 2016

Well stated except the press will hang on to "Assault Rifle" till the end of time. Case in point, just read a few minutes ago the shooter in Baton Rouge was called in to police and identified as "a guy with an assault rifle" and the police came running".

It will be interesting to hear the final details like:

What was the guy doing with the assault rifle?

Was he just standing there or waving it around and pointing it at passersby?

It will be very interesting to see if he had broken any laws up until the first round was fired.

If he had not violated any laws why the massive response? It would appear the term "assault rifle" was the triggering element.

Had a buddy who was State Trooper and he was working a 18 wheeler roll over and driver told him he wanted to get his handgun out of the rig before the wreckers removed it and my buddy told him "fine". Driver was just standing there and this little old lady came up and tugged on buddy's arm and told him the other guy had a gun. My buddy said, "yes ma'am, I know" "Aren't you going to arrest him?" "Ma'am I wouldn't ride up and down this road without mine and I don't expect him to do the same without his." Old lady got miffed.

There is this mind set among lots of folks that mere possession of a weapon is unlawful.

Just remembered I walked into a hotel in Virginia with a Match M14.

I had already told the clerk (at check in) I would be bringing in a uncased rifle I just had issued to me and I wasn't about to lose a issued gov't weapon by leaving it in vehicle.

I was down in lobby a little while later and clerk said he already had two reports of "man with a rifle" in the hotel. I had already showed him my badge and he knew everything was fine but I realized then how easy it would have been had there been cell phones in those days to call me in and I wind up gunned down by cops because of some anti gun do gooder.

Think about it, kids are being told in school for several years to report people with guns.

What is to be expected? The kids, now teens/adults have been programmed that guns are bad and only bad guys have guns.

I now run with a volunteer fire department and the amount of calls that come in by passersby drivers with cell phones of seeing flames/smoke is amazing. I had a neighbor call in because a stump was burning in the middle of a hundred acres of burned over land as she was afraid of fire that had 600 yards of burned ground between her and the stump.

We got a call one night to return to a structure fire that was on the ground when we arrived earlier the previous day. We had wet it down and there was no smoke and left.

14 hours later at 4:00 in the morning a passerby called in a fire. I radioed in to stand down the response to that address till I got there and saw what we had. Two of us rolled in POVs and there was a 2X4 about six inches long burning that was 150 yards off the road. Flames must have been four inches high and of course in the middle of the house that was on the ground.

Anybody want to guess how we put it out?

bassdogs · Jul 18, 2016

I know this post will trigger a rapid fire series of response but have to make the point that is so often forgotten in self defense threads. Specifically the most important gun is the one that is at hand rather than the one that might have the best ballistics or firepower. Often too much is focused on these two factors without mentioning that unless you carry a long gun or have one by your side pretty much 24/7, there is a high likely hood that it will not be a factor in protecting you in a spontaneous threat situation. In the story presented in this thread, the woman could have gone to a closet or gun rack and grabbed a tactical rifle and been better equipped to fight off a multi guy invasion. No argument! But expecting my wife or daughter or teen age son for that matter to fight off a platoon is probably not realistic for 90% of the homes in our country. Rather the most potent weapon in the house is the phone and then firearm that they are trained to shoot with confidence.

I am not anti "tactical style" rifles per say, but a very high percentage of the people I know personally and come into contact with almost daily would be more of a threat to their family or friends if they walked around with an AR or kept on next to the couch/bed for quick access. My wife has a Judge public defender loaded with #4 buck and 45Lc hollowpoints and she is confident and capable shooting it. She has been educated to grab the cell first and the gun a close 2nd and then to retreat to a defensible location to wait for responders. We have discussed the value of a shot thru the door or down a hall if intruders try to make entry into the home.

Warp · Jul 18, 2016

bassdogs said:
I know this post will trigger a rapid fire series of response but have to make the point that is so often forgotten in self defense threads. Specifically the most important gun is the one that is at hand rather than the one that might have the best ballistics or firepower. Often too much is focused on these two factors without mentioning that unless you carry a long gun or have one by your side pretty much 24/7, there is a high likely hood that it will not be a factor in protecting you in a spontaneous threat situation. In the story presented in this thread, the woman could have gone to a closet or gun rack and grabbed a tactical rifle and been better equipped to fight off a multi guy invasion. No argument! But expecting my wife or daughter or teen age son for that matter to fight off a platoon is probably not realistic for 90% of the homes in our country. Rather the most potent weapon in the house is the phone and then firearm that they are trained to shoot with confidence.

I am not anti "tactical style" rifles per say, but a very high percentage of the people I know personally and come into contact with almost daily would be more of a threat to their family or friends if they walked around with an AR or kept on next to the couch/bed for quick access. My wife has a Judge public defender loaded with #4 buck and 45Lc hollowpoints and she is confident and capable shooting it. She has been educated to grab the cell first and the gun a close 2nd and then to retreat to a defensible location to wait for responders. We have discussed the value of a shot thru the door or down a hall if intruders try to make entry into the home.

This is why you have things such as locked doors and windows, dog(s), alarm, awareness, etc...so that you have time to retrieve your firearm of choice while making a 911 call.

But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying a semi auto rifle would make them better armed/equipped, but then you say a 5 shot revolver? The rifle is probably easier to shot and far more potent, whether it be one attacker or three

bassdogs · Jul 18, 2016

Warp said:
This is why you have things such as locked doors and windows, dog(s), alarm, awareness, etc...so that you have time to retrieve your firearm of choice while making a 911 call.

But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying a semi auto rifle would make them better armed/equipped, but then you say a 5 shot revolver? The rifle is probably easier to shot and far more potent, whether it be one attacker or three

My wife is not a member of any militia and relies on locked doors, 2 large dogs, her cell phone and finally that 5 shot revolver. A tactical rifle in an untrained hand is hardly a best choice in a home invasion. Nor is my glock 40 w/15 round mag. This household has not prepped for an assault. A deranged looser is a much higher probability and I am quite confident she can protect herself against such a threat.

Repeating my point, a tactical rifle is not always the best choice. Specifically for every hundred Zombie killers with an AR there are maybe 2 or 3 wifes or girl friends that could use one effectively in an emergency. As to the OP's question, does anyone need a tactical rifle, unfortunately that ship has sailed with millions of them floating around out there. The story that was linked to this thread, real or not, pretty closely follows the way I have trained my wife to react with a couple exceptions. 1st call is to 911 not me and she would take a defensive position immediately and put herself behind no fewer than 4 locked doors that would funnel bad guys into a narrow kill zone should they reach the last 2 locked doors.

Warp · Jul 18, 2016

bassdogs said:
My wife is not a member of any militia and relies on locked doors, 2 large dogs, her cell phone and finally that 5 shot revolver. A tactical rifle in an untrained hand is hardly a best choice in a home invasion.

Any firearm in an untrained hands is hardly the best choice in a home invasion.

I strongly suggest your wife get some training.

As far the rest...I'm admiring your home that is literally impossible to break into seemingly from more than one specific location.

bassdogs · Jul 18, 2016

Warp said:
Any firearm in an untrained hands is hardly the best choice in a home invasion.

I strongly suggest your wife get some training.

As far the rest...I'm admiring your home that is literally impossible to break into seemingly from more than one specific location.

She is trained on her Judge, that is why it is her go to weapon. My house? You would be surprised what you can do if you design the layout yourself. In any regard, the point of entry [and there are more than one] and access to the safe room are all funneled down the same narrow path. But my point is not how my house is designed or my wife's choice of the Judge. We do not own and are not trained [its been almost 50 years since my m16 training in the USA] with any tactical rifles. There for it would not be practical or possible for her to use one. You do not need a tactical rifle to effectively defend yourself in a home invasion. Like they say in the Army, smoke um if you've got um.

stonecutter2 · Jul 18, 2016

5 intruders is a lot for anyone to defend themselves against, regardless of what firearm they have at hand. Not following the specific need for an AR though, my Glock 19 holds 15 rounds, that's 3 rounds each.

I'm glad it turned out okay for the woman in the story and the perps got captured.

Warp · Jul 18, 2016

I missed the connection to the train that solely discussed a different poster's personal situation and dislike of rifles apaprently

bassdogs · Jul 19, 2016

Warp said:
I missed the connection to the train that solely discussed a different poster's personal situation and dislike of rifles apaprently

Sorry you missed that connection. Read the first few posts to the thread to pick that up. The comment about a person who doesn't like rifles [I own 5] also ignores my comment "Smoke um if you've got em" that was a well known army phrase that means ok to light up if that's what you like. The relevance here is clear, if you like tactical rifles for self defense then have at it. The flip side is if you have a different opinion, I guess that's why we love America.

There is no reason to have an Assault Rifle--Really?

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads