Guns in Idaho: Common misconceptions

https://magicvalley.com/news/local/...cle_cb59eb8d-3c6c-5d92-83a1-c5c30989440d.html

This to refresh all posters is a very good article about guns. When the the assault rifle designation start and by whom? What is the definition? Do civilians AR 15 owners own an assault rifle? The article is sufficient to explain much more.

Federal regulations cover the machine gun. And the AR 15 is not a machine gun.

 

And "AR" does not stand for "Assault Rifle" as many anti-gunners think. The "A" stands for Armalite, the company that developed the design created by Gene Stoner. The AR means "Armalite Rifle".

Nor is the AR a machine gun or fully automatic rifle, just as the poster here has stated. It is no more so than the the very popular Ruger 10-22 plinker or a host of other semi-auto loading rifles- and the caliber of the AR is also .22 (actually .223) and the bullets not much bigger. It is not a rimfire like the Ruger, it is a centerfire shell and the bullet speed is faster. Compared to true machine guns- it's a pea-shooter.

It is also probably the most versatile rifle design ever created, where parts are modular and interchangeable, with a huge number of options no other rifle has ever had. I have one made for a back-country pack rifle that quickly breaks down and will fit in a back-pack, and can be modified to 3 different type shells in the field- yet the basic gun weighs less than 5 lbs, and with parts to make it use the other calibers including magazines with ammunition- less than 10 lbs. I have another that uses a slightly different shell called a .224 Valkyrie, which is an outstanding long-range target rifle, easily suited to 1000 yard competition- but doesn't kick like a mule, which my .338 Lapua certainly does. That points out another reason for popularity among shooters. The Lapua cost $4 per shell- The Valkyrie cost $0.50. The basic .223 shell for the standard AR configuration cost as little as $.025. Super practical, versatile and economical as well as fun to shoot- and that is why they are popular.

 

Stoner created a military assault rifle.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And claiming that an AR-15 is no more than a ".22 plinker" is disingenuous at best. It uses a MUCH more powerful round.

 

Is the m1 garand an assault rifle? I’ve wanted to buy one of those ever since I saw band of brothers.

 

Not quite. Stoner did create a rifle for military; it had the option of firing a single shot, a three-shot burst or a continuous fire. It was called the M-16 or Stoner 63. The AR-15 was derived from and uses the modular versatility of Stoners design, but lacks the capacity to fire bursts of any kind. And I did not say it was no more than a plinker, I said it was no more automatic than a Ruger 10-22 (semi-auto .22LR rimfire) was.

The .223 (or 5.56mm) cartridge is more powerful, mainly because the bullet is faster- however, it is hardly comparable to previous military choices. The M-1 fired 30.06 cartridges, with bullets at similar speed to the 5.56, but weighing 4 times as much. I shot a lot of them- heavy gun, heavy ammo, hard kick. The military advantage for the Stoner design was that the ammunition was much lighter and smaller, allowing a soldier to carry a lot more ammunition. The early military complaints that arose included that the rifle was not deadly enough- as one officer referred to it, a "pea shooter". That does not mean it can't be deadly.

In fact, one DOJ study states that "In the United States, more people have probably been killed by the .22 rimfire than all other calibers combined."

Bottom line is that the nature of the weapon makes little difference- it is the nature of the person that determines if harm will be done, and there are always things within reach that can be deadly weapons. Do you have a pencil- a conventional, wooden pencil in your pocket or on your desk? That is one of the things that a person who knows how can kill you with- very quickly, very easily. Now that you know that, rush out and demand a ban on AP's (assault pencils) so you can protect America from doodlers and accountants gone wild.....

 

The term "assault rifle" is not one made up by our military. It's a form of a term that Hitler had for one of his rifles that could be translated that way. "Sturmgewehr" or storm rifle. The phrase was made popular in the US by an anti-gun crusader. It was never a designation of the Stoner rifles by either the maker or military.

The M-1 is heavy- around 10 lbs. Semi-automatic, gas operated, very durable, very reliable. Prime reason for military appeal was the super-fast reloading process. 8 shells fit into a small U-shaped spring clip, and were pushed down from the top of an open bolt, and when the last shell was fired, the clip was also automatically ejected with an audible ring, and the bold stayed open. The ring told you the bolt was open, no need to look. The soldier picked up another clip of shells or may have had one in the palm his hand- and could push it into place very quickly, which would automatically release the bolt and have the weapon ready to fire. Thus a skilled shooter doing it right could go from last shot to the next shot in less than one second and hardly take his eyes off the target. All you had to do was keep your thumb out of the way of the bolt....

The M-1 is not very suitable to conventional scope use. The bolt if flat and wide, and top opening. The ejection angle is high and the clip for sure would hammer the scope.

 

The left want to rid the nation of arms because they cannot truly rule us until they pull it off. They know exactly how guns save lives. The joke is on them and if the right were dangerous, we wouldn't have a lib problem in the US.

 

I had my thumb pinched more than once by that bolt as it slammed forward.

 

Yes and a much more powerful one than the AR 15.

 

The military weapon is not the civilian semi automatic weapon.

Had you read the article that I included, it defines the assault rifle as a term invented by a man that hates guns.
The M-1 Garand is not a military assault weapon. The M-14 definitely is when the device keeping it as semi automatic is replaced by the automatic piece.

People also ask
Is the m14 fully automatic?


Do soldiers use full auto?
The US Military's M14 rifle has a rate of fire of 700 to 950 rounds per minute, which is about 11.6 to 15.8 rounds per second. ... Such a high rate of fire is extremely difficult to control which is why the US Military does not teach soldiers to use full auto except in very special circumstances.Nov 28, 2017
How Practical is Full Auto Fire? Is Semi-Auto Fire Better? | Locked ...
https://lockedback.com/practical-full-auto-fire-semi-auto-fire-better/

 

I owned an M-1 and fired one in the Army. The term assault rifle is not a military definition but one by a gun hating civilian. It does not qualify as an assault rifle.

 

Ha, it never got to me. I fired the M-1 so much I have no idea of how many rounds I fired in that weapon. I also fired true machine guns, such as the .50 cal, the .30 cal and others.

 

I guess I was a slow learner.

 

Here in my home state, California, right wingers started the gun control campaign back in the late ‘60s. Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese were so shocked when members of the Black Panther Party in Oakland Ca. started patrolling the streets legally carrying fire arms in the wake of widespread reports of policemen routinely beating up black people on the streets for sport. These stalwart conservatives, Reagan, Meese and their strict constitutionalist, conservative cohorts in the State Assembly suddenly did not give a rat’s ass about the 2nd Ammendment and started legislating to enact the strict gun control laws which are in place today.

 

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". Just an overused word by anti-gunners.

 

The Stoner 63 was a separate rifle. It was a modular system designed to be able to be easily reconfigured. It was developed after the creator of the AR-10 and AR-15 left Armalite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_63

 

I won an expert badge with the M-1. In the military it is known as a rifle. When used during an assault, the term assault rifle is descriptive but, as you say, isn't what the military calls them. The M1 uses a larger caliber (30-06) but has a smaller magazine which loads from the top of the receiver. The M14 (I also won an expert badge with it) was (.308 caliber), loaded from the bottom of the receiver and was select fire. The AR-15, M4 at al are .223 caliber, load from the bottom and are also select fire. In my view, the M14 was the deadliest and best of the lot but had the shortest life span. It was just as heavy as the M1 and the ammo nearly as heavy.

 

Just a quibble/question: as I recall, the M1 had a 'clip', as opposed to a 'magazine', because the spring mechanism which pushed the rounds up into the receiver was built into the weapon itself.

 

If you're interested in the M1 Garand and other firearms of that era (i.e. the semi auto Russian SVT-40) you may want to invest $30- in a "C & R" FFL (C & R means Curio and Relic).

The C & R license is good for 5 years and allows you to buy older firearms through the mail & direct from a wholesaler.
I would guess that a decent WW 2 era M1 Garand will cost you well over $1,000-.

Good luck!

 

No comment.

 

The weapons instructors used to say there were only two kinds of people who fired the M-1. Those that have got their thumbs bit and those that will get their thumbs bit. As a seventeen year old member of the Missouri National guard, it is surprising that I survived those years in one piece. I started my training at age sixteen, but was not officially on their roster because I was under age. Fun days that were priceless in terms of a learning experience.

 

Touche.... me too. My drill instructor warned us, but it took a little practice. Once i learned how to do it right, I got pretty fast at dropping clips,.

 

I think you are right, I didn't update myself and mis-stated that.

 

The difference between an AR-15 and a military M-16/M-4 are negligible in terms of the damage they can do.

The only real difference is that the AR-15 is semi-auto only. One shot for each finger twitch (and that's about all it takes) as opposed to holding the trigger down for full auto or getting a three round burst from one trigger pull.

They use virtually the same ammo and because of the relatively large amount of powder (compared to a ".22 plinker") are equally as deadly.

Their gas operation and stock spring are identical so the recoil is negligible, meaning even the most novice shooter can be decently accurate and will not have recoil issues

Whether you call them "assault rifles" or not means little. It is a military weapon...designed to be that

 

Then why doesn't the military use them? They don't cost nearly as much.