View Full Version : "Assault rifle" capacity vs. other rifles

July 25, 2012, 09:33 AM
There's a lot of talk once more about banning "assault rifles" and limiting the capacity of magazines for all semi-autos.

This has me wondering. Are "assault rifles" unique in being able to handle high-capacity magazines (such as drums)? Or is it possible to fit such a magazine to other kinds of semi-automatic rifle?

(I don't use rifles a lot myself, so excuse my ignorance.)

July 25, 2012, 10:02 AM
Threre have been 10 round magazines made for the Remington 742, 7400 series of rifles. But they are questionable as to reliability. Not only that but those rifles were simply not designed for 10 rapid shots. Even with a reliable 10,20 round magazine the guns themselves just wouldn't hold up.

"Assault weapon", is a loosely defined term anyway with lots of dfferent meanings depending on who you ask. "Assault rifle" is more clearly defined, and must have full auto capability to really be considered an assault rifle. Very few of those are available in the public and have been severely restricted for years anyway.

I really don't expect any action on gun control right now anyway. There may be lots of noise from a few vocal anti-gun folks, but there is simply no desire from either party or the vast majority of the public right now.

Anytime a mass shooting like this happens the public reacts exacty the opposite that gun control supporters would like. Instead of the general public wanting guns banned, these things reinforce the fact that the police cannot protect us. I saw just a few minutes ago that there has been a huge increase in gun sales since the theater shooting in Colorado.

July 25, 2012, 10:14 AM

How rapidly, in theory, could one fire a non-"assault rifle" semi-auto rifle? How rapidly could one swap out a magazine?

In respect to pistols, I've heard people make the argument that there's no sense in banning high-capacity mags because it isn't that hard, and doesn't take that long, to change a lower-capacity mag. I'm trying to work out whether the same arguments apply in respect to rifles.

July 25, 2012, 10:17 AM
Given the criteria for "assault" rifles, (viz. kalifornia's definition: pistol grip, flash suppressor (or threaded barrel), detachable magazine, etc), they're thinking of military and quasi military weapons.

I was living in kal when they outlawed the rifles. I didn't want an AR, but just for spite I went out and bought a Ruger mini 30. The Ruger doesn't qualify as their "assault" type rifle, but it sure enough will hold a high capacity magazine, as will the mini 14. Heck, even the 10/22 has a high cap mag available.

And these aren't even assault rifles.

The fact is that any weapon can be an "assault" weapon. Our deadliest war (for American troops) involved assault black powder single shot rifles.

Just saying.

July 25, 2012, 10:18 AM
Terminology misapplication. An AR is NOT an assualt rifle. It will never be an assault rifle.
Magazine capacity is only one of several features of an assault rifle and is nonspecific. There is no set capacity that could designate a firearm as an assuault weapon. The capability of quick reloading to maintain a desired rate of sustained fire is a feature of an assault weapon and the capacity of individual magazines would contribute to this specification.
This should be pointed out each and every time a discussion of assault rifle, magazine capacity, or any of the misinformational blather is heard. The absolute stupidity of making legislation to regulate an inanimate object is disgusting.
Murder is already very much illegal. Make the penalty quick and sure and be done with it.
For what it's worth,in the CO massacre, 5 gallon of gas poured in front of the exits and ignited would very likely have taken many more lives than the use of a firearm.

July 25, 2012, 10:23 AM
How rapidly, in theory, could one fire a non-"assault rifle" semi-auto rifle? How rapidly could one swap out a magazine?

In respect to pistols, I've heard people make the argument that there's no sense in banning high-capacity mags because it isn't that hard, and doesn't take that long, to change a lower-capacity mag. I'm trying to work out whether the same arguments apply in respect to rifles.

Question #1: If you're not too concerned about accuracy, you can (at least, I can) nearly make it sound like a full auto. But rapid fire doesn't equate with efficiency. The more rapid the fire, the less accurate the results. I read recently how many rounds are expended in modern combat vs a kill. The conclusion is that full-auto combat rounds are to suppress enemy movement while troops get into position.

Question #2: Just a matter of seconds.

Finally, re changing a standard cap mag to a high cap mag? I'm not sure what you're talking about. The magazine is a box with a spring inside. I'd imagine by simply adding a box "extension" you're going to wind up with all kinds of feeding problems. JMO

July 25, 2012, 11:11 AM
Thanks for your replies.

Just to be clear, I do understand how slippery the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are. I absolutely agree that people throw these around without understanding what they are saying, and that this just creates more confusion (and hysteria). (That's why I've been putting these terms in quotation marks.)

However, we all know what people are basically talking about when they speak of banning "assault rifles." They mean guns that have a military appearance. And there are certain guns (such as ARs and AKs) which obviously fit this description. And then there are other guns with nice wooden stocks and pretty engraving etc. that people don't find so threatening, simply because they assume that a military appearance equates to extra lethality and extra public danger.

So, what I'm trying to establish is whether there is, in fact, any significant difference between those guns that have a military appearance (especially those that are actually derived from military designs, like the AR-15) and other, more "civilian"-looking rifles.

I suppose there are two separate issues here:

1) You can easily buy (in most places) a high-cap mag for an AR-15. Do such mags even exist for non-military-style rifles?

2) Is there anything about, say, a deer rifle that would make a high-cap mag impractical?

Foghorn: I didn't mean changing a standard cap mag into a high cap mag. I just meant removing the mag and putting another one in.

July 25, 2012, 11:21 AM
I once saw a video where a guy took an "assault rifle" and, in just a few minutes, turned it into a civilian-looking rifle by taking bits off the receiver and putting other bits on. (Or maybe it was the other way around.) Anyway, I can't find it now. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, could they post the link? Thanks.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 25, 2012, 11:21 AM
The paradigmatic example is the AR vs the Mini-14. There was quite a stink about limiting the mags for the latter by Ruger.

The Mini looks nice - wood. Wood is nice.

One can buy 30 round mags for the Ruger 10/22 assault plinker.

July 25, 2012, 11:37 AM
FoghornLeghorn mentioned these too. I've just been looking at them. Yes, these illustrate the point very well.

July 25, 2012, 11:39 AM
"assault rifle" does not exist to civilians other than Pre-'86 transferable receivers for the ar-15.(these cost around $20,000)

anyone who says the AR-15 is an "assault rifle" is ignorant and uninformed.

AR stands for Armalite Rifle, and all AR-15's are semi automatic, this they are not "assault rifles"

July 25, 2012, 11:52 AM
Even a Ruger 10/22 (.22 caliber plinker) can be outfitted with synthetic stock and rail system and an extended banana-mag and made to look quite scary, tactical, whatever you want to call it. Sitting on the table or in the hands of a responsible person, it is entirely safe. In the hands of somebody who is clueless, insane, doesn't know how to properly operate it, or does know how to properly operate it and has ill-intent, it is quite deadly.

Consider the relative power of cartridges and rifles, though. Line up a 5.56 NATO (fired from the AR-15), a 7.62x39 (from the AK-47) and a .30-30 from the 100+ year old 1895 model lever-action rifle.

I guarantee you that .30-30 is a heck of a lot more deadly and can be fired almost as rapidly (for the 8+1 round capacity) as can 10 rounds of 5.56 NATO. It's also a lot less expensive to get your hands on a lever-action rifle, and typically they aren't regulated like AR lower receivers.

The laws are screwy. You can't legislate against stupid, insane, crazy, or ill.


Kinda hard to imagine, but these are effectively the same rifle:



July 25, 2012, 12:01 PM
Yes, many self loading & even bolt & lever guns can take magazines of this type.

There are several bolt action rifles in existance that take either M1a/M14 magazines or FN-FAL magazines & they both come in extended capacity types.

There is even a 7.62X39 conversion for the old Lee-Enfield that takes SKS or AK mags so that would take a drum.

Not a real practical addition IMHO, but yes it can be done.

July 25, 2012, 12:05 PM
first of all. assault rifles are fully automatic or selective fire weapons used solely by military and select law enforcement agencies. what many ignorant anti gun thumpers are refering to as "assault rifles" are actually semi automatic military pattern rifles. the AK47 and AK74 are fully automatic. the M16 and M4 are full auto or select fire. the steyr AUG and other such designs are full auto. not one of these weapons is available for purchase by civilians. we use semi automatic sport rifles that resemble existing assault rifles. the less you refer to your AR15 as an assault rifle the easier it is to assert that it is not in fact, a combat rifle being hoarded by domestic terrorists.

with that said. there is always talk of an assault weapons ban while democrats are in office and even more-so now that the UN is pushing an international arms treaty that would strip away our 2nd amendment rights and disarm the civilian populous. election years where there is a high likelihood of democratic officials getting elected usually mean higher gun and ammo prices with a significant increase in the semi auto military pattern rifles area because people buy into hysteria and race to get that gun that looks like an AK or AR before they are made illegal. it's just a fact of life and one that is relived every 4 years.

July 25, 2012, 12:27 PM
I hadn't thought about bolt-actions until you guys mentioned it. So I googled it, and found an article about a Norwegian shooting comp, where

"civilian shooters with mag-fed Sauer 200 STR bolt-action target rifles outpace[d] Norwegian army personnel using HK select-fire rifles in semi-auto mode."

Here's the link: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/12/bolt-guns-beat-military-semi-autos-in-norwegian-rapid-fire-match/ (AccurateShooter.com Daily Bulletin)

I couldn't get the video to work :(

July 25, 2012, 12:39 PM
I suppose there are two separate issues here:

1) You can easily buy (in most places) a high-cap mag for an AR-15. Do such mags even exist for non-military-style rifles?

2) Is there anything about, say, a deer rifle that would make a high-cap mag impractical?

Foghorn: I didn't mean changing a standard cap mag into a high cap mag. I just meant removing the mag and putting another one in.

#1: Yes, hi cap mags exist for these "friendly" looking rifles. I had 20 round mags for my mini 14s even though the guns shipped with 5 round mags. I had 10 round mags (california compliant) for my mini 30, even though it also shipped with only a 5 round mag. All of these aftermarket mags were made by someone other than Ruger.

#2: Here in Oklahoma, a truly hi cap mag is illegal for hunting. Our state representatives have decided that when in the field, we're only competent with mags of seven rounds or less. By their standards, 8 rounds could be dangerous. Seven rounds are safe. /sarcasm

#3: Gotcha. In that case, changing the mag is as easy and quick as pushing a button.

July 25, 2012, 01:09 PM
Hmmm... because of the nature of (my definition of ) marksmanship, I rarely load more than 5 or 10 rounds into any of my handguns or long guns.

I cannot imagine the benefit of hanging ten pounds of ammo off of any of my firearms, into a magazine with questionable feeding reliability.

Do as you wish, while you still can :confused:

July 25, 2012, 02:41 PM
Firearms types put aside for the moment:

The term "Assault Rifle" was coined by politicians and anti-gun groups to make "rifles" such as the AR/AK/SKS etc sound "evil" so they could be "banned" or "regulated" or whatever term you want to use.

Personally I dislike the term because of this. It is an Armalite rifle, carbine, tactical rifle, modern sporting rifle etc as far as i'm concerned.

July 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
With regard to wether or not something that externally looks like an "assault weapon" or not is called something else here's my take, which seems to differ from some of the forum admins who've corrected me a few times in the past.
IMHO you can call water grass & call blue green but you still can't walk on "water" no matter what you call it, or how you fudge the descriptive terms for it.:rolleyes:

"Assault weapon" is, or was a term coined by a manufacturer to get past a stupid dictator. The company was Walther, the firearm was the MP42 & the dictator was Der Furher, Afolf Hitler. The "sub macnine gun, model 1942" was magically transformed with an eraser & a pencil into the "assault rifle, model of 1944" as der Furher liked assault rifles but hated sub machine guns the "gangster weapon" he wouldnt use was to be placed into immediate volume production.:eek:

Since then the accepted technical definition for one is "a man portable, selective fire, light, compact rifle, firing an intermediate power cartridge capable of short bursts of controlled aimed fire from a higher than standard capacity interchangable magazine".

By definition it must be a "machine gun" otherwise there is no way to meet "the short bursts of aimed, controled fire" part of the definition.

I don't own any assault rifles, I own one or two Main Battle Rifles, a different kettle of fish entirely. Some are self loading & some have extended capacity magazine & some can have bolth but thety are still MBR's not StGs!

Now some media call anything that even looks like it might possibly be military type in appearance an assault rifle, but thats because they don't speak (or write) English well.:D

Either way it is irrelevant to this thread as I don't know of an extended capacity "assault banana clip magazine" that fits just an assault weapon.The M-16 & AR-15 take the same magazine, the M-14 & The M1a take the same magazine & the AK (fill in blank for version preferred) & the WASR take the same magazine as do the selective fire & self loading versions of both the Metric FAL & the Inch pattern SLR/L1A1 so it doesn't really matter for this discussion does it?

July 25, 2012, 04:55 PM
It's just another useless grasp at thin air by Liberals whom still don't realize that terrorists don't need assault weapons to kill thousands of people. (just box cutters):mad:


July 25, 2012, 05:49 PM
Well I think enough has been said on the difference between actual assault rifles and civilian legal semi-auto rifles.

Back to the OP's original question, in theory, if a firearm features a detachable magazine someone could design and manufacture high capacity magazines for it. If someone wanted to they could probably design and build a high capacity drum magazine for Ruger's new bolt action scout rifle.

July 25, 2012, 07:35 PM
It's just another useless grasp at thin air by Liberals whom still don't realize that terrorists don't need assault weapons to kill thousands of people. (just box cutters)
I think its more like ignorant liberals that somehow think that criminals are going to obey the law.

July 25, 2012, 07:44 PM
It is certainly interesting to speculate about people's motives, and there are things of genuine sociological interest to consider in trying to understand the nature of the gun debate. (Actually, one can hardly call it a "debate" when both sides see no point in talking to the other side.) But I'd ask you all to keep that out of this thread (we'd probably all just be repeating ourselves anyway) unless it really has something to do with understanding the practical differences (and similarities) between weapons.


July 25, 2012, 10:09 PM

a 30rnd magazine of 5.56 weighs 1lb.

July 25, 2012, 10:31 PM
Some say the move to an intermediate round (as opposed to the WW2 guns) was about reducing recoil. I can see the sense in that, but I always figured it had more to do with weight. I mean, if it's as heavy as that (I hadn't realized it was a whole pound for 30 of 5.56!) then you sure don't want your troops having to hump more than that around.

July 25, 2012, 10:50 PM
...I always figured it had more to do with weight.I doubt recoil was that much of an issue. The biggest selling point was that one could reduce weight (both in the rifle and in the ammunition) with the result that the soldier could carry more ammunition and still have a lighter load.

The kicker was that it could be done without any measureable negative impact on the effectiveness of the soldier given the studies done at the time. The studies indicated soldiers on the modern battlefield rarely saw/engaged enemies past about 300-400 yards with rifles anyway and when they did they couldn't generally engage them effectively even if the cartridge/rifle combination they were carrying was theoretically capable of it.

July 25, 2012, 10:51 PM
But see, here's where it gets weird, too. I try to tell the antis that a deer rifle is more "high-powered" than a so-called assault rifle. Truthfully though, a lower-powered rifle is probably of more advantage to a psycho, for lower recoil and lower weight. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to give the antis ammo (pun intended) for their fight against gun rights. But I also don't have time for bs on our side, either. I want to know where there might be potential weaknesses in our arguments, and I want to use that to make our arguments better.

So tell me what you think. Again - There's no point in just bashing them. That doesn't go anywhere. I want to hear from you how we can anticipate such objections and how legitimate arguments can be made that defend the right for people to keep and bear the kinds of guns that are being demonized. I want comparisons that make them stop and think for a change.

I suspect the best thing that gun owners have going for them right now is the staggering ignorance of the antis. But I also think a lot of politicians know how silly their arguments are, and it's part of the reason that most Democrats won't go near 2A (despite the theories that they are just biding their time). (Remember, too, that 30% of Democrats - despite popular mythology - are OPPOSED to tighter gun control). Anyway, the best thing we can do is always to have the best possible argument at hand. You can never simply assume that the other guys are ignorant. A lot of lefties own guns and are (believe it or not) NOT the enemies of gun rights. It IS worth talking to these people, because they are the ones who decide whether their politicians listen or not. We should always be thinking and being smart. Always.

Besides, it would be wrong (morally, ethically) to wish that they should remain ignorant. They SHOULD learn about firearms, those who aren't in that 30%. They might surprise themselves.

July 25, 2012, 10:53 PM
Thanks for clarifying, John.

July 25, 2012, 11:06 PM
I try to tell the antis that a deer rifle is more "high-powered" than a so-called assault rifle.That's generally correct, if one is talking the commonly used bolt-action rifle calibers, but not always.

For example, the .30-.30 is very similar, ballistically speaking to the 7.62x39mm AK-47 chambering.

It is generally true that assault rifle chamberings are not really "high-powered" if you look at the world of rifle cartridges. They are made to be compact/lightweight and to provide a power level capable of effective antipersonnel operations at 300-400 yards and closer.I suspect the best thing that gun owners have going for them right now is the staggering ignorance of the antis.The actual antis, themselves are not ignorant, they recruit the ignorant. The antis are generally fairly canny in coming up with emotionally appealing "arguments" that bring the uninformed over to their side or reinforce the feelings of those uninformed persons already on their side.

The distinction I'm drawing is that I don't consider someone who doesn't have any of the facts but claims to be anti-gun to truly be anti-gun. They are merely an uninformed person with an opinion based on what sounds good to them and what feels right to them. With the proper facts they can be swayed if they are capable of understanding the issues and assimilating information.

A true anti is a person whose goal is to restrict eliminate firearms ownership regardless of any benefits they may provide and who is actively trying to recruit others to aid him in that goal. This person is probably well-informed but has an agenda. He will not be swayed by the facts because his agenda stems from a basic philosophy of life and he interprets facts only in that context. The facts WILL support his position, philosophy and goals because they must given that his position, philosophy and goals are the basis from which he starts. If you provide information that doesn't fit, it's clearly not factual, it's been spun or falsified.

July 25, 2012, 11:12 PM
These are good points, and important distinctions.

I do feel though the majority of the anti movement (measured in voters) belongs to this category of uninformed people. And they are very, very committed.

They want very much to believe that simple solutions are available. This is why they adhere to the idea of the evil gun. They see themselves as reasonable people who do NOT want to take away your deer rifle. The way they see it, it's about drawing reasonable lines, and they sincerely believe that AR-15s are on the wrong side of that line.

Anyway, gotta go now, but great discussion. We'll carry on later.

July 25, 2012, 11:22 PM
What about when one adds a Bump Fire or Slide Fire stock to a Semiauto like an AK-47 or AR-15? Will that be outlawed, then?

July 25, 2012, 11:44 PM
It's impossible to say. There's nothing that I'm aware of that would prevent a law from being passed that outlawed such items.

July 26, 2012, 02:43 AM

a 30rnd magazine of 5.56 weighs 1lb

That is within reason... in terms of capacity and weight, if you ask me.

I was thinking about those monster double drum affairs. I'm sure they weigh a bit less than 10 pounds but hey -- I have to exaggerate to make a better story :D

July 26, 2012, 03:52 AM
How rapidly, in theory, could one fire a non-"assault rifle" semi-auto rifle? How rapidly could one swap out a magazine?

In respect to pistols, I've heard people make the argument that there's no sense in banning high-capacity mags because it isn't that hard, and doesn't take that long, to change a lower-capacity mag. I'm trying to work out whether the same arguments apply in respect to rifles.

If you want an idea of how fast one can reload a pistol, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgdq1FBYTUE) of the U.S. Army's shooting team member Travis Tomasie. Rifle magazine swaps tend to take a little longer but can generally be done in 1-2 seconds.

As others have indicated, you can fire a semi-auto rifle as fast as you can manipulate the trigger. Some tricks and devices can make a semi-auto rifle sound like it's a full auto gun. Just remember, however, this does not equate to accuracy or a high hit rate.

If you want to argue against someone's position on "assault rifles" here is a small tidbit that I've used to make them question their position. First, get them to agree that most "AW's" come equipped with a 20 or 30 round magazine. This is typically standard around the world. Next, make them form their index finger into a trigger and "pull" a phantom trigger 20 or 30 times while you time them. It'll take them about 3-4 seconds usually.

Now, point out that a 12-gauge shotgun with a mere 4-shot magazine can hold 5 shells (4+1 chambered). Each shell, using #00 buckshot contains 9 pellets (12 if you're talking a 3" chamber). Now, tell them that shotgun can be fired at a "slow" rate of just under one-round-per-second. Now do the math. 5 shells x 9 pellets = 45 projectiles versus 20 or 30 bullets from an AR/AK rifle. 5 x 12 pellet 3" shells gives 60 projectiles vs a 30-round magazine. That's a 100% increase in the rate of fire! And since most of these mass shootings occur against people who are relatively close to the shooter and/or in groups or crowds, the shotgun is by far more effective. So why would you want to ban the AR type rifles and force people to use something more effective?

While they mull that, tell them it's the same issue with banning handguns. It forces criminals to use sawed off rifles and shotguns which are much more lethal because the ammunition is more powerful. Then tell them this is why most gun control fails -- because if you ban one type, it will push criminals to more powerful weapons and if you ban them all, people will be helpless in the face of two or more criminals acting in concert and crime will rise dramatically (as in the UK).

July 26, 2012, 04:47 AM
Military style rifles are decidedly not unique in being able to handle high capacity magazines. Large capacity magazines are widely available for all kinds of semiautomatics.

However, they do have have some advantages. For many military style rifles, military surplus magazines are available. These tend to be reliable and sturdily manufactured, and in some cases, highly affordable.

Such magazines also tend to be double stack double feed, which are more compact for the capacity than single stack magazines, and are significantly easier and faster to load than double stack single feed magazines.

July 26, 2012, 06:09 AM
I want comparisons that make them stop and think for a change.

The high-volume shouters are not interested in thinking. They're content to dance in the blood. What they really want is control. However, the smart folks across the aisle realize that this issue is a non-starter.For example, James Carville (the Vile) is telling all these guys that it's not happening. They've lost the debate and at this point, they simply sound strident and unhinged.

Has anyone noticed the stats that gun sales in Colorado jumped in the past week? We've won this debate, folks.

July 26, 2012, 07:13 AM
You can make a drum magazine to fit just about any semi-automatic or bolt action rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine.

Regarding antis calling semi-autos with detachable magazines "high-powered". Don't think that you are going to teach an anti who calls an AR-15 a "high-powered" rifle anything. This is a calculated marketing scheme of theirs. The antis are not stupid - they want to intentionally deceive the gun-ignorant buy using the term "high-powered" in stead of "high capacity". High capacity is old and didn't resonate with the public. So, the antis re-invented the term "high-powered". If that doesn't work, they will start calling semi-auto rifles machine guns.

July 26, 2012, 08:06 AM
Kleinzeit, I think you make some great points. At the risk of being ousted, ideologically I consider myself slightly left of center. But on the other hand, I am generally an anti-Federalist. It really depends on the issue, some I fall right, some I fall left, some I don't agree with either sides of the argument and have my own thoughts.

That said, I am an ardent 2A supporter, with all the associated burden that comes with safety and responsibility. To make that support more than spoken, I am an NRA member, I donate to organizations in my state that lobby for "Shall Issue," I purchase and train with a variety of firearms, and support local, independent gun shops when possible, even if it is at greater expense than a big-box store.

I believe the sanctity of the voting both is one of the pillars of this great experiment, however, I imagine my voting habits are different than those of most on this forum. Am I somebody a conservative right-wing republican would want to exclude from activities to support 2A? My money is just as green as the next guy's. Yet quite often, if in discussion with somebody who is more republican across the board, they dismiss me.. before they know I am a firearms owner. Then they have to re-calculate (a lib with guns?? what does that mean!?).

It's tough, because I do not agree across the board with any candidates that come to the platform. Ever. So I wind up racking and stacking which issues are most important, which in itself becomes nearly impossible. 2A enables the maintenance of all other rights, from the "long view," it ensures the Constitution is preserved, that civil freedoms persist. Does that trump my feelings about taxes, a woman's right to choose, foreign policy, healthcare, welfare, investments into education/infrastructure/jobs creation/and other essential areas that we need to focus on here and now? Frankly, I don't know.

I do not in any way, shape, or form consider myself a liberal. Most true liberals would call me a conservative (wrongly). For more than the last decade I have been registered Democrat. But believe you me, NOBODY is taking my AR-15 or my 30-round magazines.

July 26, 2012, 10:33 AM
But believe you me, NOBODY is taking my AR-15 or my 30-round magazines.

Booker, taking your AR-15 away or your magazines most likely will not be what the antis attempt first. They will try to limit your right to buy an AR, parts, or easily sell your AR to someone if you so choose. In other words, they will be pushing for registration, so that you will have to go through BATFE to transfer it. That's what Clinton and the BATFE did in the early '90's to the USAS-12. It was nothing more than a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun. However, they forced owners who bought them to register them on a form 1, thus making it expensive and difficult to transfer them. Those who didn't register their USAS-12 - well, let's say that's why you can find "parts sets" for them every now and then.

Master Blaster 2
July 26, 2012, 05:14 PM

Mossin Nagant BOLT ACTION rifle that has been made Tacticool

July 27, 2012, 06:49 AM
The antis are generally fairly canny in coming up with emotionally appealing "arguments" that bring the uninformed over to their side or reinforce the feelings of those uninformed persons already on their side.

Absolutely. A handgun gets labelled a Saturday night special, a pocket rocket or a plastic gun. Your bolt action deer rifle with a scope is a sniper rifle. A carbine gets called an assault weapon. Your trap shotgun is a street sweeper. It doesn't matter what the firearm is, it will be tagged with an emotionally charged label.

July 27, 2012, 10:22 AM
None of your arguments will go anywhere until you can convince people that mass murderers could just as easily use revolvers hi-capacity lever action rifles as assault rifles and Glocks. But do your homework well. They might ask you why they never do.

July 27, 2012, 02:33 PM

Even bolt guns can sustain high rates of accurate fire, in the right hands.
Gun control in general seems to be about whose hands are "right." For the hard core antis, it's only cops and infantry. I tend to say everyone but the insane and criminally violent.

July 27, 2012, 02:58 PM
Yeah but who gets to say who's insane?

There were high-capacity magazines for the Model 98 Mauser in WWI used by the Germans. Don't know the capacity, however, but of course the British were already using ten round magazines and carrying more ammunition than their opponents. They had learned the value of both fast reloads, good accuracy and fast shootng just a few years earlier.

July 27, 2012, 04:21 PM
There was a 20-round "trench magazine" for the Lee-Enfield as well. Unfortunately it wasn't supposed to have worked well so it didn't last.

If all else fails we have the "Bannana clip magazine" for the Ruger 10-22:D

July 28, 2012, 04:46 PM
I know the OP started with a ? on assault rifles. We have frifted a bit to the politics of it all. For the record I am a former Marine('62 - '65), and an educated liberal( talk about the lone voice here). I am pro 2nd Amend. but i also see a need for an organiztion like the UN. Now we could waste time quoting our various sources in support of this or that but in the end, we probably will not change each others minds. So I still show up here every once in a while for gun talk, I own a 'supposed' assault rifle(AK47WASR10 63, a Mosin Nagant 91 30, a couple of other long guns and some semi-auto pistols including one painted to look like a MArc Chagall painting.

I do not fear some hoard of liberals entering my home to take my weapons. Nor, I hope, should I fear a hoard of conservatives rushing me to dis arm the liberal b*****d!

So enjoy shooting and continue to share information related to shooting.


July 28, 2012, 06:09 PM
BlueTrain wrote: None of your arguments will go anywhere until you can convince people that mass murderers could just as easily use revolvers hi-capacity lever action rifles as assault rifles and Glocks. But do your homework well. They might ask you why they never do.

Yes, they might, and it would be a fair question. Guns like AR-15s etc. do seem to be popular with lunatics, though we've not actually had that many events like Aurora, so one would have to be careful about establishing correlations. (Obviously, we've had way more mass killings than everyone would like - zero being the preferred number - but from the standpoint of statistical analysis, the number is still small.)

I suspect that there may be an element of theatricality in this. It's not hard to see why someone who would paint their hair red before attacking people might also want a scary-looking gun. Some paintballers like the milsim look and dress their guns up like ARs even though this generally adds absolutely no functionality to the gun. (In fact, it often makes the guns clumsier to use.) I'm sure, too, that many people who buy ARs and AKs get a kick out of their scary appearance. Why not? It's fun. And I'll bet that a lot of those people building arsenals in anticipation of some revolutionary or end-of-the-world scenario choose such weapons in part because their aesthetics symbolize a militaristic intent.

What this means is that the current state of confusion around such weapons cannot be attributed solely to "calculated marketing schemes" on the part of antis. If you choose a gun, even in part, because of its resemblance to scary automatic weapons, you shouldn't be completely surprised when people mistake it for a scary automatic weapon. And when the crazies keep choosing these guns, we shouldn't be completely surprised when the antis assume there's a correlation.

That's no reason to actually ban such guns, of course, but neither is it reasonable to pretend that appearances don't mean anything at all. You can't wave a replica gun around on a plane even though it is incapable of hurting anyone. If you turn up at a political rally with a weapon that you have chosen precisely because you know it looks threatening, it's a bit dishonest to complain when people actually do feel threatened.

Of course, it may be that loonies choose these guns because they do offer them some kind of advantage...

dbluefish, I'd like to see that Chagall...

July 28, 2012, 07:14 PM
Before there was an assault rifle ban in the mid 1990's - I already owned a Mini-14 with multiple 30 round magazines. It was interesting to see the politicians not classify the Mini-14 as an assault rifle because it had a wooden stock. Functionally, it did exactly the same thing as a friend's Colt AR-15.

His rifle was an evil black "assault rifle," while mine was a family-friendly "sporting rifle." I'm nearly convinced that the IQ of politicians is the reason they put "This is Not a Toy" on dry cleaning bags....

Will Beararms
July 28, 2012, 08:54 PM
This is a main battle rifle. The capacity, weight and length define it.


Master Blaster 2
July 28, 2012, 09:00 PM
I seem to recall Bill Ruger supported the AWB in 1994

July 28, 2012, 09:51 PM
"Assault rifles" are defined in wikepedia as having all of the below characteristics


The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The opponents of RKBA usually employ the following tactic

a) name the guns used in criminal shootings as 'military weapons'
(by selectively forgetting the definitions/capabilities/etc.) That is tag them as ' the tools of war'.

b) suggest that civilians are not solders at war, therefore the general public sentiment must be against the civilians owning the 'tools of war'

c) as a solution -- recommend to legislation that will make it financially impractical to own the tools of war (essentially one would have to be a FFL holder with fees/paperwork/legal advise). This is what they have done with true automatic firearms (the true assault rifles) years ago

d) they will never emphasize the need of ccw by law-abiding, trained citizens. They will never agree that armed guards and metal detectors must be present in 'gun-free' zones to protect the law-abiding public.

Master Blaster 2
July 29, 2012, 04:59 AM
Wikepedia is not 100% credible.
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons (SAW) Would it not be best to use ATF's definition?


July 29, 2012, 05:38 AM
So now there's a main battle rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge (meaning an assault rifle catridge, I guess). However, it doesn't look that tactical. It (the SKS) also doesn't have a detachable magazine, although I understand one can be fitted with some modification.

No army that I'm aware of calls anything an assault rifle or a main battle rifle. There is a new term currently promulgated by manufacturers, "personal defense weapon," that is mildly irritating to me. That's a little like saying, "soil displacement tool, instead of shovel. But then you might also be referring to a spade.

That's a built in problem of not only English but of all language. If don't mean one thing when you say something, then it doesn't mean that. There's still a communication problem perhaps but it's not just one person's problem.