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.
Wrong. The AR-15 was originally designed as a semi-automatic civilian weapon in the 1950s. The M-16 (also referred to as the XM-16), was based upon the civilian AR-15, was fully automatic, and adopted by the USAF in the early 1960s. The M-16A1 was developed in 1967 for use by the Army and Marine Corps, and also fully automatic. About a decade after the M-16A1 was first used by the military, the military developed the M-16A2, which used a three-round burst and was no longer fully automatic. The M-4A1 carbine was based on the M-16A2. Then came the M-16A3 (which was only used by the Navy and USCG) and then the M-16A4.
Of all the different variants: AR-15, M-16 (XM-16), M-16A1, M-16A2, M-4A1 carbine, M-16A3, and M-16A4; only the M-16 (XM-16) and M-16A1 were fully automatic. The M-16A2, M-4A1 carbine, M-16A3, and M-16A4 use selective fire, semi-automatic and a three-round burst. The AR-15 was, and always has been, semi-automatic only.
You sir, are correct.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Agreed. Shotgun is the way to go for home defense
1. wide spray
2. does not go through several walls
I agree with using a shotgun for home defense, but not with your reasoning:
1. Wrong. At in-home distances the spread with a shotgun is only a few inches. You still have to aim or you will miss.
2. Partially wrong, depends on your definition of "several" and what size shot you are using. Anything with enough penetration to incapacitate a bad guy has enough penetration to go through at least a few gyp-board walls:
Tiny birdshot might only go through a few walls, but it won't do enough damage to the bad guy to stop him. Large buckshot will go through several interior walls, an exterior wall, and keep on going to say "Hi!" to your neighbors. Small buck (#4B) or large Bird (Lead BB or maybe #2) is best for home defense unless you live in a rural area and don't have anyone in the house but yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
What kind of carbine is .45 cal? I have had the Thompson semi-auto version, but am not familiar with a .45 cal, but it sounds interesting. Does it shoot a pistol round like the Thompson? Who is the maker? I have .30 cal carbines, although.
Those mentioned, plus Berreta makes the CX4 Storm (can be chambered in 9x19, .40S&W, or .45 ACP), and a few companies make conversion kits to turn a standard 1911 into a carbine.
Incorrect. The AR-15 is, and always has been, a civilian weapon. The M-16, which was based upon the AR-15, is the military weapon. The AR-15 was created, sold, and used by civilians for more than a decade before the M-16 was adopted for use by the military. Lots of military weapons were first civilian weapons originally. Just because the military uses civilian weapons does not mean that the weapon should not be used by civilians. Both the Remington and Mossberg shotguns are still used by the military. Should all shotguns now be banned from civilian use simply because the military uses them?
Spot on mon ami. This is a misinformation tactic that is a media/disarmament freak, darling tactic. If the military has it, it's a not suitable for civilian "sporting purposes". Never mentioning, of course, that militia purpose is NOT "sporting use". Nor is home defense. Certain firearms purposes are not a hobby.
According to leftist disarmament doctrine, civilians have no "need"for weapons intended for defensive use. We have cops for that, and need only depend on that. Many folks, myself included, do not agree with that. My question bebind this proposed restriction on ownership of rifles like the AR is: If they are banned from civilian ownership, will LE then shelf tbeir ARs? If no one in the populace can be so armed, then, LE then has no "need"of such weapons either, yes? LE being armed thus, would be nothing but intimidating to the public, causing unnecessary fear. After all, a ban on civilian ownership of service style, semi auto, rifles will stop these mass shootings, negating the need for LE to be equipped with military style gear. All will be peace and joy.
I agree with using a shotgun for home defense, but not with your reasoning:
1. Wrong. At in-home distances the spread with a shotgun is only a few inches. You still have to aim or you will miss.
2. Partially wrong, depends on your definition of "several" and what size shot you are using. Anything with enough penetration to incapacitate a bad guy has enough penetration to go through at least a few gyp-board walls:
Tiny birdshot might only go through a few walls, but it won't do enough damage to the bad guy to stop him. Large buckshot will go through several interior walls, an exterior wall, and keep on going to say "Hi!" to your neighbors. Small buck (#4B) or large Bird (Lead BB or maybe #2) is best for home defense unless you live in a rural area and don't have anyone in the house but yourself.
Those mentioned, plus Berreta makes the CX4 Storm (can be chambered in 9x19, .40S&W, or .45 ACP), and a few companies make conversion kits to turn a standard 1911 into a carbine.
Agree, not to mention other issues that can arise from using a shotgun such as short stroking, slow reloading, large size of the gun and the heavy recoil, especially for women. 99% of all guns made are designed for an average sized male, this causes guns to be over large for most women. Bad ergonomics + heavy recoil = poor self defense choice.
Shotguns can be a very useful tool but require more training than any other type of weapon to function well.
Spot on mon ami. This is a misinformation tactic that is a media/disarmament freak, darling tactic. If the military has it, it's a not suitable for civilian "sporting purposes". Never mentioning, of course, that militia purpose is NOT "sporting use". Nor is home defense. Certain firearms purposes are not a hobby.
According to leftist disarmament doctrine, civilians have no "need"for weapons intended for defensive use. We have cops for that, and need only depend on that. Many folks, myself included, do not agree with that. My question bebind this proposed restriction on ownership of rifles like the AR is: If they are banned from civilian ownership, will LE then shelf tbeir ARs? If no one in the populace can be so armed, then, LE then has no "need"of such weapons either, yes? LE being armed thus, would be nothing but intimidating to the public, causing unnecessary fear. After all, a ban on civilian ownership of service style, semi auto, rifles will stop these mass shootings, negating the need for LE to be equipped with military style gear. All will be peace and joy.
Whenever I am in Alaska's bush I am literally armed for bear. Whether I am just hiking, camping, or fishing, I bring along firearms capable of stopping brown bears, grizzlies, moose, or wolves. Ideally, I would prefer the AA-12 fully automatic shotgun. However, I would settle for the magazine-fed Akdal MKA 1919 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.
Nothing will stop mass shootings. However, eliminating gun-free zones will certainly reduce their frequency. From 1977 to 1990 Anchorage invested millions in high schools that included indoor gun ranges, for the purpose of educating high school kids on firearms. However, after the Democrat controlled Congress banned firearms in schools nationwide, those ranges could no longer be used. Now, schools nationwide are mass shooting magnets. Democrats must really hate children to want to see them die by the score from some deranged lunatic.
Agree, not to mention other issues that can arise from using a shotgun such as short stroking, slow reloading, large size of the gun and the heavy recoil, especially for women. 99% of all guns made are designed for an average sized male, this causes guns to be over large for most women. Bad ergonomics + heavy recoil = poor self defense choice.
Shotguns can be a very useful tool but require more training than any other type of weapon to function well.
Buy an Akdal MKA 1919 12-gauge instead. It is light weight and easy to load. The felt recoil is also much less than most rifles.
Personally, I like a 12-gauge pump shotgun for home defense. There is nothing like the sound of cycling a round into the chamber to instill fear in the criminal.
There are some shotguns that truly are "assault weapons", as the FBI defines them, not as the brain-dead media defines them. If the weapon is capable of selective fire (either fully automatic or a three-round burst, in addition to being semi-automatic) then according to the FBI it is an "assault weapon."
In the case of shotguns, the AA-12 is fully automatic, and therefore an "assault weapon" according to the FBI.
The Atchisson Assault shotgun has a 300 round per minute rate of fire .
Have you ever saw that thing in action? Locked doors? No problem. That shotty will cut it half in about five seconds. Dropped it in the lake? No big deal. It'll fire the instant you pull it out. Recoil is very low as well. I saw a guy shoot it with one hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
I prefer the Taurus Judge. It is a revolver that holds 5 shells consiting of a .45 bullet AND 410 shotgun pellets.
It is much easier to maneuver in a house then a shotgun.
I just hope forn your sake that the bad guy isn't wearing a leather jacket or your screwed with 410 pellets.
The Judge is first and foremost a snake/rat gun, and then a novelty at best.
Incorrect. The AR-15 is, and always has been, a civilian weapon. The M-16, which was based upon the AR-15, is the military weapon. The AR-15 was created, sold, and used by civilians for more than a decade before the M-16 was adopted for use by the military. Lots of military weapons were first civilian weapons originally. Just because the military uses civilian weapons does not mean that the weapon should not be used by civilians. Both the Remington and Mossberg shotguns are still used by the military. Should all shotguns now be banned from civilian use simply because the military uses them?
That is incorrect, the military tested the AR-15 and awarded a contract for prototypes back around 1960, some actually ended up in Vietnam under limited production for testing. The military was ready to purchase AR-15's but the procurement was denied and they went with the M16 which is a close variant of the AR-15 design at the time, both were semi-auto and auto. The AR-15 is now civilian but extremely close to the M16, except the civilian version does not have a full auto.
The discussion was that the AR-15 was not a military style weapon, that is not true as the M16 design is functionally identical.
As for your assertion that they're "more accurate & more reliable" that's bull. ... I have yet to meet a hunter who would be caught hunting with an AR-15. The true sportsmen [judge not, Mike] use traditional "looking" firearms..Often times bolt action. If they can't hit their target with one shot, they shouldn't be hunting.
Not everyone is hunting deer, elk, etc., Mike.
Ever hear of pest control? Ask the livestock farmers, or agricultural farmers about it. A family of hogs can take out most of a field in a single night. Wolves & coyotes kill. The AR is the perfect platform for that type of hunting.
Whenever I am in Alaska's bush I am literally armed for bear. Whether I am just hiking, camping, or fishing, I bring along firearms capable of stopping brown bears, grizzlies, moose, or wolves. Ideally, I would prefer the AA-12 fully automatic shotgun. However, I would settle for the magazine-fed Akdal MKA 1919 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.
Nothing will stop mass shootings. However, eliminating gun-free zones will certainly reduce their frequency. From 1977 to 1990 Anchorage invested millions in high schools that included indoor gun ranges, for the purpose of educating high school kids on firearms. However, after the Democrat controlled Congress banned firearms in schools nationwide, those ranges could no longer be used. Now, schools nationwide are mass shooting magnets. Democrats must really hate children to want to see them die by the score from some deranged lunatic.
Self reliance, particularly as it applies to self defence, is anathema to leftist disarmament junkies. They preach total reliance on the police to protect us, which is an impossibility. Therefore, we must run and hide, or, meekly submit, in the face of violent attack, subject to the whims of the attackers, until LE arrives. Not sharing this view makes leftist heads explode. Since the vast majority of them have never been subject to criminal attack, they just don't get it. They seem to think a cop is in shouting distance at all times, or, that a violent attacker will give them time to run or make a 911 on their smart phone, and then wait for the cops to arrive.
In all honesty, leftist logic makes MY head explode. (Smack) Personally, I find the ability to effectively defend myself far more comforting than the thought a cop will be responding in 15 minutes.
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.
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.
