How easy is it to build an "assault rifle"...

That's HOW they kill, and hunter's and the military would disagree.

 

The hunter uses the gun to kill. The military uses the gun to discourage killing.

 

By killing.

 

It's not. And I have demonstrated many times that I don't.

But you DO admit your plan relies on violating their 4th Amendment rights.

So that ends that discussion. Thanks for playing...

 

It is what it is.

 

By the threat. Not necessarily by the actual killing.

Alternative 1. An army of 1000 Red soldiers engages an army of 1000 Blue soldiers. The Red army kills or injures 500 Bue soldiers and the Red Army has 200 Red soldiers injured or killed and the Blue army surrenders.

Alternative 2. An Army of 5000 Red soldiers encounters an army of 1000 Blue Soldiers. The Blue Army elects to surrender with no casualties.

Now even though the Alternative 2 Red Army has even more guns, the result is fewer deaths.

Now I realize the scenarios are made up, but they are realistic and demonstrate that the guns are not made for killing. They are used for whatever purpose the user choses to use them.

 

And you think "denial" is a winning move! Damn, you smart guy! Might want to do some research on the denial tactic however.
You the only one fooled by it.

 

I have no idea what (it) is but I can tell you that buckshot doesn't even come close to that picture. I have killed deer at 50 yards with buckshot and according to that picture, If that is supposed to be 10-12 inches after leaving the barrel, I wouldn't hit a house at 20 yards.
And I have consistently qualified on 300 meter half silhouette targets with 556 rounds.

And since the velocity of a 556 round at the muzzle is 3130 ft/s (not 2565 as depicted in your picture) and buckshot is 1145 ft/s, (not 1350 as depicted in your picture) your diagram was drawn by someone who has no clue. In other words, its a fake.

 

Yes, but not used in the M-16

 

Nope, guns are made to cause injury or death, that they can be used for other things does not negate this fact.

 

Use some common sense before deflecting as fake news. The victims bleed out FAST from the trauma.
Anyway, I am done dealing with B/S posts on this topic.

 

If I recall correctly, the tumble issue was relative to the twist rate. When AR's were first introduced the bullet was light, and the twist low- 1-14 I think. Unstable bullets in the air loose a lot of accuracy. Most barrels now that I have seen are running 1-8 of 1-9 twists, much faster. Don't know if the issue still occurs in target, however. Did you have any twist info on the test above?

I know some people shooting the 5.56 at long ranges, even 1,000, which of course requires a lot of elevation correction and gets sloppy. I have a .224 Valkyrie in an AR build that does very well at 1,000, usually a little heavier and longer bullet, but with a fast twist- 6.5. Small differences change a lot.

 

Well I cannot claim to be a mass shooter.... But by the time I was in high school I was taking metalworking shop.

Using a welder and a drill you can fashion a simple enough gun.... If you have access to a milling machine and a lathe you can make any gun.

People in third world countries in little clandestine shops make them all the time.

Tell us again about the tolerances on the screws and the function of a primer.

 

So you post a picture of a round tumbling through the air 30 cm after leaving the barrel, then post a video of the same round flying without tumbling into a gel block thus proving my point of bullet turn once entering its target?
Did you know you were disproving your 30 cm picture when you posted that?

 

You just broke site rules by editing and truncating my post; that in itself speaks volumes.

 

Oh please. You didn't even post a single word. All I did was take your first ballistic gel video (out of all of your ballistic gel videos that show the same thing) to show you how your own post were contradictory to each other.
lol
You going to run behind my car yelling Citizens Arrest now? lol

 

The "intended use" is irrelevant. The use of the gun is determined by the user, not by the design. I cannot be prosecuted because my gun is intended for killing. I can only be prosecuted if I try to use it to kill. For me, the ideal use is for the gun to never be used.

 

Its very relevant, you wouldn't be using a gun if it wasn't effective at causing injury or death.

 

Except that I never use it for that purpose. It is there as a deterrent. The bad guy is the person who is deterred, not me. If I have to kill the bad guy, the gun failed its intended purpose.

 

"How easy is it to build an "assault rifle"..."

 

No, not quite. They are interchangeable IF your rifle is chambered for 5.56, but not the other way around. But, .223 is a bit more accurate.

 

But the only reason its a deterrent is because its known to cause injury and death.

 

The velocity and behavior of the round is the reason victims are difficult to identify and bleed out in record time from the trauma.

 

Misleading, my big American butt. The term is known to all as simply representative of these military grade weapons. If you don't understand that, if that's really misleading in your view, what would you call them? What one word or phrase would you use as a blanket term for these rapid-fire, high capacity weapons that tear multiple bodies to shreds in mere seconds?

Most Americans don't distinguish. Most Americans refer to them as assault rifles simply to establish a category that they fall into. Most Americans live in cities.

Sorry, but you're talking around the issue with this type of nitpickish correcting of those of us who have neither the need or the desire to distinguish the minutiae of deadly weapons.

 

Goody for you.