Why do certain rifle characteristics make it non-sporting?

[Dreamcast270mhz]

It seems really stupid for the USA (an already messed up country) to put import bans on rifles based on features that make it non-sporting.

My gripes:

Pistol Grips- these have little to do with a rifle's purpose, because other than ergonomics, these have no effect on a rifle's abilities. On top of that, well intentioned but misguided Democrats made us believe they are only used by criminals, when a thumbhole/montecarlo stock nearly has the same ergonomics and they could careless.

Third Axis Pinhole: Now I know on rifles like the PSL and SVD there is an auto safety sear, designed to keep the gun from firing until the bolt is fully locked, but the ATF seems to think not only does this make a rifle nonsporting, but makes it a machine guns (both are total BS). This actually makes the gun safer to fire, and by removing the sear, makes it no less easier to convert, as you still need to get an auto sear that can fit (why a criminal would make an auto sniper.

Bayonet Lugs- okay, a bayonet obviously makes a rifle non-sporting, which is why the US Army is phasing out the bayonet usage in favor of hand to hand training with military knives!? As if a criminal, without police or military training, can get close enough to an armed person to stab them? Especially if they are using a superior weapon? (source, wikipedia bayonet article)

Threaded Barrel: Has it occurred to anyone a threaded barrel could be used to install a legal, lengthened barrel, not a suppressor? So, by this logic under some states laws (Thankfully VA doesn't have AWB crap left over..) I can't make a rifle with a smaller than 16" barrel non-NFA by adding a barrel extension?

Bottom line: You (the gov't) want to make us pay for a Neutered import rifle because you make money from companies like century who make neutered PSLs using overpriced, US-Made poor quality recievers? I expected better rights protection.

 

[ChronoCube]

Yeah it's pretty stupid. I've always thought that bayonet lugs on sporting rifles made a lot of sense in case you get charged by a wild boar or something.

Also it's not just the Democrats who are to blame. Don't forget that George Bush Sr signed into law the non-sporting weapon import ban.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Yeah, I think the non-sporting weapon ban is/was a feeble attempt to give american manufacturers a leg up by eliminating foreign comp in non-sporting markets, no offense to american guns or makers, but american guns when price-price to a non-american, you need to spend more money for american gun to get same quality vs foreign gun..

 

[Fast Frank]

I've never understood the whole "Evil Rifle" concept at all.

I have an AR15 with all those "Evil" features. I've fired it quite a bit and think I have a pretty good grasp on what it is and isn't, and what it can and can't do.

My opinion? It's a rifle. Pretty much the same as all the others.

I think it's easy for people who lack our experience and understanding of what's real and what's Hollywood to get off track and be confused by things like pistol grips and bayonet lugs.

It's probably always going to be that way as long as Hollywood continues to use the Evil Black Rifle as a scary prop in movies and on TV.

I mean, really... How could anybody watch all those sparks flying on those old A TEAM re runs and not be frightened?

 

[Silent Sam]

"Sporting vs non-sporting" is a fantasy based diversionary tactic meant only to restrict human rights.

 

[Shadow 7D]

cause some paid off politiciansaid so

and the rest of the insane asylum went with it
your congress critters at work

 

[Davek1977]

I can't make a rifle with a smaller than 16" barrel non-NFA by adding a barrel extension?

Sure you can...so long as its PERMENENTLY attached so as to not make it readily convertable BACK to a NFA item. Look at the AMD-65, or many Ar-15 builds....these guns have barrels shorter than the 16 in. minimum, but that length is made up for in a non-removeable, permentaly atttached flash hider, muzzle brake, etc.

 

[Geckgo]

I don't think heat seeking missiles are very sporting, well, except in the summertime

 

[madcratebuilder]

"Sporting vs non-sporting" is a fantasy based diversionary tactic meant only to restrict human rights.

Damn right!

 

[Sam1911]

Moderator Comment: Remember to leave politics at the door. Thanks.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Its another really messed up thing in the USA, like how they seem to think a hunter has no use for a silencer, when you have tons of legal uses.

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

Senator John F. Kennedy authored legislation to ban military surplus import and sales in order to protect his home state of Massachusetts (and to a lesser degree neighboring states of Connecticut and New York) near monopoly on the firearms market.

In 1968, much of the same language was carried forward in the NFA of 1968.

The point: motivations for these regulations have ranged from simple economic protectionism to two dead Kennedy's, and everywhere in between and beyond.

 

[Sam1911]

like how they seem to think a hunter has no use for a silencer, when you have tons of legal uses.

Well, that is certainly up to the states. Some states have no problem with hunting with a silenced weapon. Some do not allow them for game animals, but welcome them for use on varmints. Some do not allow them at all.

Like most other gun-related issues, we seem to be all moving in the right direction. Progress is slow, but we're in a far better place today, on almost every issue, than we have been at any other point in my lifetime. (The Hughes amendment being a notable exception.)

 

[goon]

I feel your pain!
To make it even dumber, my state doesn't allow you to hunt with semi-auto rifles. This is entirely freaking stupid for several reasons:
1. Two semi-auto rifles I've owned were among the most accurate. A VEPR K .223 I owned would shoot 10 shot groups from a hot barrel at 100 yards, prone supported position, that hovered around and were often under an inch all day long. I've also shot groups under an inch at 100 yards with a DSA STG-58 and South African surplus using iron sights! Either of these rifles, along with a great many Garands, M1A's, AR-15's, and many others would be entirely useable for hunting, but because you don't have to work the bolt yourself, they are deemed too dangerous.
2. Same story with a great many rimfire semi-auto rifles that would work great for small game. Lots of us like the 10/22 and there are many accurized ones out there - and they go to waste because of my state's archaic game laws.
3. I have seen other guys shoot at the range - a lot of them. Most hunters (note that I don't say shooters, I say "hunters") don't shoot their "deer rifles", which they only shoot twice a year on the day before deer season, as well as I do. I've been asked many times to check zero for them because they see my targets and conclude I can shoot better than they do - just because I practice regularly when I can. But I've seen what they often consider acceptable accuracy - and what I can do with a good semi-auto puts them to shame.

I've thought about mounting a campaign to get this stupid law changed - maybe by having marksmen send in some game animal targets shot with military style rifles that have nice little three shot groups centered in the vitals, along with accompany letters recommending the law be changed. Not only would this eliminate a pointless law, it would spur a rush in the sale of semi-auto rifles as many guys embrace the chance to hunt with a rifle they couldn't use before.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Back in the 1960s there were a lot of complaints by the American gun industry that all those military surplus Mausers and Enfields were hurting the domestic market for new sporting rifles ("sporterizing" war trophies was big in the post WWII era). So Congress protected the domestic industry by restricting imports to "sporting purposes" firearms*, primarily to cut off the inflow of cheap military surplus, for economic reasons not for crime control. Since then, the "sporting purpose" definition encoded in the 1968 Gun Control Act has taken on a life of its own, with all these idiotic definitions of military rifle features (bayonet lug, flash hider, pistol grip, shoulder thing that goes up, etc) that have nothing to do with lethality or criminal use.

This totally ignores the fact that collection of military curios and relics, both original and reproduction, is a lawful reason to own gun, and civilian marksmenship practice with domestic and foreign military firearms by those eligible for military service has been a lawful reason to own and use firearms since the founding.

The ATF Curio & Relic program and the Civilian Marksmanship Program contradict the "sporting purposes" limitation.

------------------------------
* In the 1960s, imported sporting guns were usually more expensive and less a threat to the domestic makers

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

The biggest issue is American manufacturers can't make their own rifles as good quality as the foreign ones given the same price. For example, I haven't seen a good m1903 on the market for under $400 in a while, whereas a Kar98 sells for about $300 and a Mosin for about $100

 

[Davek1977]

The reason you aren't finding 1903's in the same numbers and prices as Mosins is sheer production numbers, not lack of America's ability to make a good rifle, Comparing mosin to a 1903 borders on blasphemy actually

 

[Matt018]

Also how many criminals do yu se with a tactical carbine? Yes i know there may be some serious bank robbing group or malitia but thats not terribly common. The majority of crime is commited with a handgun. so the laws are just really stupid, and they suck.

 

[Sam1911]

For example, I haven't seen a good m1903 on the market for under $400 in a while, whereas a Kar98 sells for about $300 and a Mosin for about $100

You do realize that neither of those weapons has been in current production for some time, now? You haven't "seen" a good m1903 (or a bad one, for that matter) roll off a production line since about 1944.

You're confusing manufacturing costs of current-production items with the various economic and logistical issues which influence the surplus firearms market.

What a US company would pay to make a M1903 today -- or what it would have to charge for one -- has absolutely nothing to do with what it costs to buy one on the surplus market.

(To say nothing of considering the "quality" of (most) Mosin-Nagant rifles to be in any way similar to that of a M1903...)

 

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, but the answers to the opening post's questions are in the realm of politics and sociology. It's about perceptions, media noise, and political posturing...