Curious about Assault Rifles.

[zedheadmc]

I don't remember where I seen this but "remember that in 1774 the flintlock was an assault rifle" I like flinchlocks, and I carried an M16 (or variants) for 11 years. I like the M16 because I know what it will do, fun to shoot, good rifle. I don't mind a Russian AK either.

 

[1911 guy]

Appreciate the capabilities, don't like the name.

I can appreciate having more than ten rounds of ammo on tap, chambered in something stronger than a pistol caliber with a longer sight radius than a SMG, but really don't care for the "assault rifle" term. An assault weapon is any weapon you use to assault someone/something. That may be a rock, .22 bolt action or an M-16. Let's stick to terms that mean something, rather than feeding the anti's.

 

[adaman04]

The whole term "Assault Weapon" is a joke made up by politicians and the media to scare soccer moms in to voting anti-gun.

Assault is defined as:
Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, assault is used to refer to the actual violence, while in other jurisdictions assault refers only to the threat of violence, while the actual violence is battery. Simple assaults do not involve deadly weapons; aggravated assaults often do.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. When assault is defined like this, exceptions are provided to cover such things as normal social behavior (for example, patting someone on the back).

Now because an AR has a a black stock and a pistol grip and holds 30 rounds in the magazine it is an "Assault Weapon" and is therefore a weapon designed to inflict bodily harm on someone? Don't try to hurt me or my family, and I promise it won't do you any bodily harm! That's why I savor my guns like a fine steak. There are rich people in office that spend their time and money to take our guns away. No thanks, I'm keeping mine.

 

[MechAg94]

I don't have to justify to why I like what I like especially to someone who can't get their facts straight anyway.

 

[Bigfoot]

Please, lets not turn THR into another arguement site. Thank you.

 

[Bullet]

peoria46 Quote – “My question is why the great interest in owning one of these assault weapons.”

The reason I have what you call assault weapons is because – At night when you’ve gone to bed and you haven’t fallen asleep yet and one of the other voices in your head is saying assault weapon, assault weapon, over and over until you finally fall asleep and you wake up the next day at 2:00 PM with a new rifle and your not sure where it came from. I just assume that the other guy bought it, don’t you?

Just kidding. The real answer to your question is - Why not?

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Hmmmm... Then that would make you a wire rat? Ummmm... Surveyor? Perhaps the BC's driver? FDC flunky?

I was a fan of the M16 while at IOBC.

Unless I'm completely off base, IOBC usually stands for Infantry Officer Basic Course. Call me crazy, but they don't usually make Infantry officers surveyors or drivers. Infantry joes maybe (I've laid carpet and painted too), but not officers.

(What units were you w/ peoria46?)



Having said that, now I'll say this...

A final note. Please take this diatribe in the "tongue-in-cheek" manner that was intended. The season of goodwill is at hand, after all. If you think that you seriously need an assault weapon (the emsculated semi-automatic that it is) to fend of your enemies (real or imagined) and take my view with great umbrage, then apologies in advance. I was a fan of the M16 while at IOBC. Then I discovered that the 1911 was easier to carry. After all, the best killer was my real weapon--a PRC-77 linked to an artillery battalion.

I don't take offense, but I will agree that perhaps "rabble rousing" isn't too far off base. A 1911 IS easier to carry, but an AR/M-16 beats it for range, power, and capacity any day. And 5.56 isn't exactly .300 Win Mag, but what would YOU suggest for a rifle you want to keep light, be easy and comfortable to shoot, and have a decent magazine capacity and yet still have acceptable power?

 

[lycanthrope]

My deer rifle is a 7mmSTW which runs 140gr bullets out at about 3450fps. That said, I have no qualms about my AR15's because I've seen what a good ballistic tip bullet does out of these guns. I'm in no way underpowered for defense and I can confirm the strikes in the optics I use.

I've had 2 that shoot under .5MOA and combining that with ammunition that is about as cheap as it gets and I end up shooting my AR's more than anything (well, except maybe my .40 STI). I put together my Clark Gator upper with a RRA lower and Jewell trigger for $1100 total. For the quality, that's hard to beat in any gun.

I liked my first AR so much I ended up with 3 more......

 

[MTMilitiaman]

People have already listed most of the reasons I love my AK clone. I like em if for no other reason than that my enemies don't. Which brings me to the topic at hand--to each his own. If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle such as mine, don't get one. It is as simple as that. It is a free country and as long as we can both agree that I deserve the choice as much as you do, it will remain so. But your personal preference ends where it infringes on my right to prefer. If you can agree to this, you are my friend. If, instead, you're one of those Elmer Fudds foolishly entertaining the notion that you can hide behind a "sporting purpose" clause with your trusty deer rifle and ignore the pleas of your fellow guns owners simply because you don't like their choice in armament, then you are a Benedict Arnold and the enemy of freedom and all who treasure it.

Simply put, you have your preferences and I have mine. Live and let live and we are cherry.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

on this and other similar topics...

Disclaimer:YMMV... A small percentage of us will find the kind of information in this post/posts of interest. Then again, some may even find it offensive. It is very clear to me that virtually nobody is going to be swayed from their misdirected opinions about (pick your) topic simply by reading these posts, as it often is. We tend to hold on to our opinions until some life changing situation forces us to change. So why even post?? YMMV, but that is the intended purpose of this community. To share knowledge, learn from each other's mistakes, get a chance to see the weakness in ourselves...afterall, we do make mistakes don't we, Y'all? what a better way to change and offer possible suggestions or even solutions to our neverending questions. why not utilize the vast knowledge of THR to better understand what is going on around us, at this time, in this great nation of ours. I mean, even when it may seem the end, and we may feel overwhelmed. Maybe going countercurrent to the "popular" train of tought regarding a particular post/topic...hey! looky here, in our sincere quest for change...then you know what! the seemingly minor but aggravating ruffled feathers/offenses we encounter along our path will be worth the challenges compared to the effort put forth...am i making sense, it's late. enjoy Christmas time, Y'all..Feliz Navidad y prospero ano nuevo...el rancherito.

 

[_N4Z_]

**

Unless I'm completely off base, IOBC usually stands for Infantry Officer Basic Course. Call me crazy, but they don't usually make Infantry officers surveyors or drivers. Infantry joes maybe (I've laid carpet and painted too), but not officers.

Ahhh, well having been gone from the military for a very long time now "IOBC" didn't ring a bell. Also, having been enlisted, and technically a redleg, "IOBC" again didn't ring a bell.

Thank you for explaining and defining. I stand corrected.

And the original posters thread about standing around watching makes much more sense now. Officers by and large never did "work" for a living in the military.

 

[mack7.62]

Have you ever humped 95 pound joes for a 155? Not fun. I watched, never did. I admire the gun bunnies who do it. But, THOSE are guns.

Excuse me, but those are howitzer's not guns, although since they started putting longer tubes on them with the M109A1's the line has blurred. The last gun (other than on tanks) was the the M107 175mm which is now out of service, superseced by the M110A3 8" howitzer. And they are called projos(short for projectile) not joes. You can read about it below. And yes I was a "FDC flunky" part of a team tasked with helping put "hot steel, on time, on target."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m107-175.htm

Mack

 

[Adirondack1]

I don't usually post on THR, I am usually content to lurk here and read other individuals opinions, however, here are my reasons for owning both military rifles, and civilian equivelents:

I choose to own all what I own just to piss off the liberal/socialist/eliteists that want to take away my right to do so. REASON1

I choose to own what I own to piss off those snobbish condecending shooters who think THEIR guns should be protected, but not MINE! REASON2

So you are:

A) A member of the first class...for REASON 1 who is trolling with your eloquent prose, condecending atitude and we can do without you.

Or

B) A member of the second class...For REASON 2 in this case, you are WORSE than the first class, and therefore should sell your precious Perazzi or Weatherby, and TAKE UP GOLF!

 

[wickedsprint]

peoria46- You obviuosly don't enjoy shooting guns. What are you doing here?

Don't be so quick to point this out, he mentions he went to IOBC, that's the Army's Infantry Officer Basic Course.

I also fully understand where he is coming from, if you read half of the assualt rifle posts you have people that are worried about getting the perfect close quarters combat rifle when most of them likely have no formal firearms training let alone any in special tactics.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I hope I didn't sound like that when I joined!

. Ain't first impressions(that alienate/denegrate the group you want to be accepted into) grand!

The same reason the military wants a reliable, upgradable, adaptable, and easy handling rifle, are the same reason I want one. It fills the niche I was intending to use it for, be it SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, or any other acronym you could come up with. Foresight is better than hindsight, as all things seen in hindsight are 20/20 .

 

[goon]

While not a true assault rifle, and really not even a true MBR anymore, I do love my FAL. I don't love it because it is black and scary and mean.
I love it because it is accurate, durable, made from steel, and it works.
I can't imagine doing close quarters fighting with it or any other rifle. Anyone who wants to fight up close is nuts IMO. If they are close to you, you are also close to them. It takes a half decent rifleman to kill you out there. Up close any moron can get lucky.
I don't own my FAL because I want to shoot at anyone with it. If I did have to ever use it for that though, I would be very fortunate to have it.

 

[Huntzman]

Choices

Back to my bemusement: why so many outside of those two groups like these things.

Fundamentally it comes down to choice. It’s the same principle that governs just about every aspect of our lives. If your question is academic, then the answer is simply human nature. It’s the same reason one person will choose to drive a Mustang, while another champions F150. Even my analogy will indicate that I prefer Ford’s over other manufacturers. Do we question the man who prefers blondes over brunettes? Ketchup or Mustard, Football or Soccer, White Castle or McDonalds (OK, for those of you who have eaten White Castle….. you have earned the right to look down upon other “burger” eaters !!!)

I have been shooting for over twenty-fie years. I started with a 1911 and an M-16 clone, although I was not in the service. My uncle was a weapons aficionado and inculcated me into the labyrinthine world of firearms. :banghead: I also carried for over twenty years. During that period of my life I was primarily interested in handguns, although I fired a wide variety of full-auto weapons. Only after retiring did I begin to resurrect my interest in long guns. I guess I could have opted for traditional rifles, maybe even long range weapons. But I have always been interested in military history, so I opted for that style of weapon. Because I now like shooting long arms, should my fraternity in the handgun community be revoked?

My point is we all choose what interests us. Shall we look down upon those who make a choice which does not concur with ours? Since semi-autos are the norm, shall we deem all wheel gun shooters as relics from a bygone era? Whom of us, armed with our trusty semi-auto, would have the stones to challenge Bill Jordan & his revolver to a draw?

Would I like to have full-auto versions, sure? Would I make a habit of firing them that way? No, I would rather challenge myself for distance / precision. But just because I rarely speed, doesn’t mean I want the government passing legislation that would restrict all vehicles to a speed of 65. I spent twenty-years watching politicians, who had no clue about crime and punishment, passing knee-jerk laws. They would pat themselves on the back for being pro-active on crime and pose for their photo ops with victims and walk away. The result, more laws that restricted law abiding citizens and ones criminals wouldn’t follow anymore than their predecessors.

If you don’t like hand guns, long guns, or machine guns that’s your choice, but don’t criticize me or anyone else for theirs. If you served, then you understand that you did so to protect our right to do that. SHTF, Doomsday, Apocalypse….. Who knows? I worked through the “good old days” in NYC. To most other civilized places, the S had HTF, doomsday was upon us and the apocalypse was only going to bring an improvement. I scoffed at everyone who bought “millenium masks”, the end of the world, but what if…. To each his own, I’ve got mag's to load !!!!!!

IMHO,
Andrew

 

[another okie]

Shooting is fun. I guess that about sums it up.

Three gun matches and marksmanship contests are both forms of competition in which ARs are highly useful.

As far as your historical analysis, it's generally correct,
but I would point out that:

1. Not all firearms were banned in the Soviet Union. Hunters could own and use rifles. Lee Harvey Oswald went hunting with his friends while he lived there.

2. In German nouns are capitalized, but the second noun in a compound noun is not, so SturmGewehr is wrong, Sturmgewehr is right.

3. "Wehrmacht" means the armed forces of Germany, not the army, which is the "Heer." Using "Wehrmacht" to mean "army" is the sign of someone who's watched the History Channel too much and read too little. There's no reason to use German words for these things in English anyway - just call it the German army. We don't use terms in foreign languages for the French or Russian armies. The use of "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" are survivals of wartime propaganda designed to make them sound evil, sort of like the made-up term "assault weapon."

4. In the early days in Vietnam it was more common to issue Vietnamese troops the M-1 Carbine than the M-16 rifle, though the motivation of saving weight is correctly described.

 

[Mannlicher]

Please, dont feed the darn trolls