Ok, now I know pretty much everyone here already knows this stuff. But please indulge the post, it is mostly just so I can put all my thoughts in one place to forward to some of the FUDDs I come in contact with from time to time.
The genesis of this post was sadly a "gun owner" who informed me that anyone who hunts with an "assault rifle" is a "nimrod on a Rambo fantasy" and that game animals like deer deserve the respect of being taken with a "proper hunting rifle" and that "assault weapons are only for killing humans."
I will first address the notion that Firearm A which fires a .223 or .308 round is more suitable for killing game than Firearm B which fires the same .223 or .308 round. The idea that a .308 fired from a Remington 700 vs. a FN FAL is somehow more or less lethal on the receiving end is just so absurd that I won't be devoting too much time to it. It doesn't matter if you are a human or a deer, the round hits you in exactly the same manner and does exactly the same kind of damage.
So obviously the round isn't the issue here so let's compare the guns.
But before we do we need to decide what "is" a military rifle vs. a hunting rifle. If you go back 200 years and suggest that anyone who "hunts" with the premier military rifles of the day, such as the Brown Bess or a Kentucky rifle, is a "nimrod on a Rambo fantasy" they will correctly look at you like you are a moron. So with respect to any "Constitutional defninition or implication" they are the same.
But as we all know, since we have been reminded so many times, the Founding Fathers couldn't envision M-16s, FALs, etc.
So let's talk modern times. Well first off, as much fun as it is to use words like "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" the correct definitions, as oppossed to those used by Congress and the media, imply a "select fire" option. But since that is NOT what we are talking about in 99% of the cases, we will not devote much time to the topic of "hunting with NFA weapons." And I will grant you that taking a deer with a select fire HK G3 probably isn't terribly "sporting." And thankfully the second amendment doesn't say one damn word about hunting so we don't need to justify a "sporting application" to own NFA weapons.
So really what we are talking about is semi auto "military style" rifles vs. "hunting rifles."
So let's take a look. Here are some "hunting rifles."
They are the HK SL6, SL7 and 770 chambered in .308, .223 and .22 respectively.
And here are some "military style" semi autos from the same manufacturer.
They are the HK 91, HK 93 and Hk 94 chambered in .308, .223 and 9mm respectively.
For the sake of a direct comparisson we are going to discount the .22 and 9mm firearms and focus on the SL6 and SL7 vs. the 91 and 93.
All of the firearms in question use an identical delayed roller lock system so they function in exactly the same manner.
All of the firearms in question us the exact same sight setup and both have mounting options for optics. As a result they are both used in exactly the same manner.
All of the firearms in question have polygon barrels of the same lengths so they perform in exactly the same manner.
So they mechanically operate, are sighted, fire and perform exactly like each other.
So what makes one a "military style" rifle and the other a "hunting" rifle?
Well somebody is sure to come along and say, well the 90 series are copied of "select fire" military assault rifles and THAT makes the difference. OK sounds good UNTIL we take a trip over to HKPro and find this...
Yep, it's a "select fire" HK SL6.
And guess what? You know all those Browning Safari rifles that are so popular for hunting? Well they are direct decendents of the famous military Browning Automatic Rifle so I guess they have no place in hunting, they must be only for killing people.
What far too many people don't seem to understand is that each and every semi automatic rifle ever made is closely related to select fire rifles in terms of operation. They are more correctly called "modern rifles" in much the same way that bolt actions are more modern than muzzle loaded rifles and they replaced their predecessors in exactly the same fashion for both military and civilian use. The fact that the bolt action is a modern advancement didn't render all bolt action rifles for "military use" and all muzzle loading rifles for "civilian use" any more than automatic car transmissions are more suited to military than civilian use than standard car transmissions. They are simply the current generation of technology which will always evolve.
So what is the difference if not being related to "select fire" weapons?
Well "hunting rifles" usually have rules about how many rounds they can hold. So it must be magazine capacity. Ah Ha, we have it. Those SL6s and 7s (even the select fire ones) have 5 round magazines while those "evil assault" 91s and 93s have high capacity magazines. So there.
So what if we insert a 5 round magazine into a 91 or 93?
Sure they make them, here goes a HK 91 "hunting rifle" with 5 round magazine and scope right now.
Well gee, Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein aren't gonna like that one. And what if we inserted a 20 or 30 round magazine into the SL6 or SL7? Does that make the "hunting firearm" suddenly a "military assault rifle? I'm sure that idea sounds good to Brady and Feinstein, but before you sign off on it and agree "nobody needs semi auto assault rifles" you better ask yourself a couple qeustions.
What if we put a 20 round magazine into a Remington Woodmaster or Browning Automatic? Do those magically become "military style" rifles in need of banning? What about those Saiga shotguns that are so popular?
But wait, didn't Congress once define the difference?
Ah yes, the whole bayo lug, flash hider, folding stock thing. just one problem, if you take a rifle that is "feature ban" compliant, such as the DSA FALs, Colt Sporter and Romanian SAR rifles people still have a problem with them and still consider them "military style" rifles.
So clearly the problem is something else. It isn't just flash hiders vs. muzzle brakes, it isn't just fixed stocks vs. folding stocks and apparantly bayo lugs don't seem to be the actual problem either. Nobody is fussing about the bayo lugs on my Springfield '03 which is actually a "military rifle" and not just a civilian copy of one.
So what can be the actual difference?
Can it really be something as simple as traditional "wood stocks" vs. modern polymer stocks and pistol grips?
Does the traditional wood stock on the above SL6 make it "more appropriate" for hunting deer than the nearly identical HK 93?
Sadly if you ask most "hunters" the answer is "yes."
And if you are at the skeet range with a Benelli Montefeltro expect to get compliments but if you have a Benelli M1S90 you can expect to get some "looks" and maybe some less than positive "comments." I mean who brings an "assault shotgun" to the skeet range anyway. Never mind that they are nearly identical in every respect except for outward appearance.
So does this mean if we get "wood furniture" for our ARs, FALs and HK rifles that they are suddenly "kosher" with the Brady's and Congress? I've seen an AR-15 with wood furniture and it actually looked pretty nice. And I've got an old wooden G3 stock set on one of my 91s. But somehow I don't think Congress would start importing FN FALs again if they all had G1 wooden stock sets.
So that's pretty much it, every actual difference between the two and I still don't have a definitive answer to what constitutes a "military style" rifle vs. a "hunting" rifle that applies to most firearms.
So the only answer I can come up with is some people are ****ing stupid.
The genesis of this post was sadly a "gun owner" who informed me that anyone who hunts with an "assault rifle" is a "nimrod on a Rambo fantasy" and that game animals like deer deserve the respect of being taken with a "proper hunting rifle" and that "assault weapons are only for killing humans."
I will first address the notion that Firearm A which fires a .223 or .308 round is more suitable for killing game than Firearm B which fires the same .223 or .308 round. The idea that a .308 fired from a Remington 700 vs. a FN FAL is somehow more or less lethal on the receiving end is just so absurd that I won't be devoting too much time to it. It doesn't matter if you are a human or a deer, the round hits you in exactly the same manner and does exactly the same kind of damage.
So obviously the round isn't the issue here so let's compare the guns.
But before we do we need to decide what "is" a military rifle vs. a hunting rifle. If you go back 200 years and suggest that anyone who "hunts" with the premier military rifles of the day, such as the Brown Bess or a Kentucky rifle, is a "nimrod on a Rambo fantasy" they will correctly look at you like you are a moron. So with respect to any "Constitutional defninition or implication" they are the same.
But as we all know, since we have been reminded so many times, the Founding Fathers couldn't envision M-16s, FALs, etc.
So let's talk modern times. Well first off, as much fun as it is to use words like "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" the correct definitions, as oppossed to those used by Congress and the media, imply a "select fire" option. But since that is NOT what we are talking about in 99% of the cases, we will not devote much time to the topic of "hunting with NFA weapons." And I will grant you that taking a deer with a select fire HK G3 probably isn't terribly "sporting." And thankfully the second amendment doesn't say one damn word about hunting so we don't need to justify a "sporting application" to own NFA weapons.
So really what we are talking about is semi auto "military style" rifles vs. "hunting rifles."
So let's take a look. Here are some "hunting rifles."
They are the HK SL6, SL7 and 770 chambered in .308, .223 and .22 respectively.
And here are some "military style" semi autos from the same manufacturer.
They are the HK 91, HK 93 and Hk 94 chambered in .308, .223 and 9mm respectively.
For the sake of a direct comparisson we are going to discount the .22 and 9mm firearms and focus on the SL6 and SL7 vs. the 91 and 93.
All of the firearms in question use an identical delayed roller lock system so they function in exactly the same manner.
All of the firearms in question us the exact same sight setup and both have mounting options for optics. As a result they are both used in exactly the same manner.
All of the firearms in question have polygon barrels of the same lengths so they perform in exactly the same manner.
So they mechanically operate, are sighted, fire and perform exactly like each other.
So what makes one a "military style" rifle and the other a "hunting" rifle?
Well somebody is sure to come along and say, well the 90 series are copied of "select fire" military assault rifles and THAT makes the difference. OK sounds good UNTIL we take a trip over to HKPro and find this...
Yep, it's a "select fire" HK SL6.
And guess what? You know all those Browning Safari rifles that are so popular for hunting? Well they are direct decendents of the famous military Browning Automatic Rifle so I guess they have no place in hunting, they must be only for killing people.
What far too many people don't seem to understand is that each and every semi automatic rifle ever made is closely related to select fire rifles in terms of operation. They are more correctly called "modern rifles" in much the same way that bolt actions are more modern than muzzle loaded rifles and they replaced their predecessors in exactly the same fashion for both military and civilian use. The fact that the bolt action is a modern advancement didn't render all bolt action rifles for "military use" and all muzzle loading rifles for "civilian use" any more than automatic car transmissions are more suited to military than civilian use than standard car transmissions. They are simply the current generation of technology which will always evolve.
So what is the difference if not being related to "select fire" weapons?
Well "hunting rifles" usually have rules about how many rounds they can hold. So it must be magazine capacity. Ah Ha, we have it. Those SL6s and 7s (even the select fire ones) have 5 round magazines while those "evil assault" 91s and 93s have high capacity magazines. So there.
So what if we insert a 5 round magazine into a 91 or 93?
Sure they make them, here goes a HK 91 "hunting rifle" with 5 round magazine and scope right now.
Well gee, Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein aren't gonna like that one. And what if we inserted a 20 or 30 round magazine into the SL6 or SL7? Does that make the "hunting firearm" suddenly a "military assault rifle? I'm sure that idea sounds good to Brady and Feinstein, but before you sign off on it and agree "nobody needs semi auto assault rifles" you better ask yourself a couple qeustions.
What if we put a 20 round magazine into a Remington Woodmaster or Browning Automatic? Do those magically become "military style" rifles in need of banning? What about those Saiga shotguns that are so popular?
But wait, didn't Congress once define the difference?
Ah yes, the whole bayo lug, flash hider, folding stock thing. just one problem, if you take a rifle that is "feature ban" compliant, such as the DSA FALs, Colt Sporter and Romanian SAR rifles people still have a problem with them and still consider them "military style" rifles.
So clearly the problem is something else. It isn't just flash hiders vs. muzzle brakes, it isn't just fixed stocks vs. folding stocks and apparantly bayo lugs don't seem to be the actual problem either. Nobody is fussing about the bayo lugs on my Springfield '03 which is actually a "military rifle" and not just a civilian copy of one.
So what can be the actual difference?
Can it really be something as simple as traditional "wood stocks" vs. modern polymer stocks and pistol grips?
Does the traditional wood stock on the above SL6 make it "more appropriate" for hunting deer than the nearly identical HK 93?
Sadly if you ask most "hunters" the answer is "yes."
And if you are at the skeet range with a Benelli Montefeltro expect to get compliments but if you have a Benelli M1S90 you can expect to get some "looks" and maybe some less than positive "comments." I mean who brings an "assault shotgun" to the skeet range anyway. Never mind that they are nearly identical in every respect except for outward appearance.
So does this mean if we get "wood furniture" for our ARs, FALs and HK rifles that they are suddenly "kosher" with the Brady's and Congress? I've seen an AR-15 with wood furniture and it actually looked pretty nice. And I've got an old wooden G3 stock set on one of my 91s. But somehow I don't think Congress would start importing FN FALs again if they all had G1 wooden stock sets.
So that's pretty much it, every actual difference between the two and I still don't have a definitive answer to what constitutes a "military style" rifle vs. a "hunting" rifle that applies to most firearms.
So the only answer I can come up with is some people are ****ing stupid.
)
