U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
34,774 posts, read 21,141,402 times
Reputation: 21177

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
A better question:

Why is this




More dangerous than this







The first one is an assault weapon under the 1994 Federal ban. The second one is not. Let's hear it experts- why is the first one more dangerous?
That evil bayonet lug is what makes the difference. Though maybe they'll realize that was a mistake. According to BO we don't use bayonets any more...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:32 AM
 
16,434 posts, read 20,312,849 times
Reputation: 9567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post


Remove the flash suppressor and voila a perfectly legal "assault rifle"
Yes, but then the SWAT team could easily tell where your fire was coming from.

Last edited by Bideshi; 12-06-2012 at 07:48 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
34,774 posts, read 21,141,402 times
Reputation: 21177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
How about the collapsible stock, higher fire rate, the shorter barrel length, pistol group, and the high capacity [30 round magazine]. Should I continue or do you get the point? They are both dangerous and the caliper is the same but the purpose is different.
Both have the same rate of fire, barrel length, grips and can accept the same magazines. Do you have a point? How does and adjustable stock make one more "danger dangerous"? The only real difference between the two weapons is the bayo lug on the pre-ban. How many drive by bayonettings have you heard about?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:35 AM
 
16,434 posts, read 20,312,849 times
Reputation: 9567
In the end, this administration wants to ban all semi-automatic firearms. They will start with what they can claim are assault weapons, but that is just step one. Don't be fooled.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
34,774 posts, read 21,141,402 times
Reputation: 21177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
I disagree. My Mini 14 digests either without complaint. The military ammo is loaded a tad hotter. Still no problem.
5.56 ammo has a thicker case neck. When fired in rifles with a .223 chamber (which isn't relieved to allow for the thicker neck) it can result in dangerous pressure spikes. I think (maybe an expert will chime in) that there is no problem shooting .223 in a 5.56, but not the other way around.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Florida
73,522 posts, read 39,699,925 times
Reputation: 13595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
5.56 ammo has a thicker case neck. When fired in rifles with a .223 chamber (which isn't relieved to allow for the thicker neck) it can result in dangerous pressure spikes. I think (maybe an expert will chime in) that there is no problem shooting .223 in a 5.56, but not the other way around.
I think the differnece it in the length of the neck, not the thickness. The Military version can shoot both, but the NATO round is not recommended for the civilian .223 version, as it would be unsafe. Some ARs are designed to fire both, and the Mini-Ruger 14 can fire both, but as a general rule, it is not recommended.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:35 AM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,364,008 times
Reputation: 1473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
5.56 ammo has a thicker case neck. When fired in rifles with a .223 chamber (which isn't relieved to allow for the thicker neck) it can result in dangerous pressure spikes. I think (maybe an expert will chime in) that there is no problem shooting .223 in a 5.56, but not the other way around.
You are correct. A rifle designed for 5.56 can shoot .223 all day long, but one designed for (only) .223 could experience catastrophic failure if you use 5.56 in it. It's completely possible to shoot 5.56 in a .223 designed weapon and not have problems, but you're playing with fire.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,145 posts, read 20,560,120 times
Reputation: 14053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
With a gun-grabber in the whitehouse embolding people to start calling to ban assault weapons, I have a question.

What makes this:


More dangerous than this:


They both put identical bullets downrange at identical velocities. Since F=ma, the damage caused by these rifles would be identical. Yet the top one is demonized because it "looks scary". Does that make any sense whatsoever??
If you were to throw both guns into a fire, the first one would off-gas toxic fumes from the melting plastic while the sencond one would just burn, giving off normal smoke.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 11:40 AM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,984,865 times
Reputation: 14936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Yes, but then the SWAT team could easily tell where your fire was coming from.
As they should.

By the way, flash suppressors like sound suppressors don't make either magically go away.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,364,008 times
Reputation: 1473
Flash suppressors do not make the flash invisible. They redirect it in order to have less effect on the vision of the shooter. It's still quite visible to anyone who has the shooter in their field of view.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top