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.
Name another purpose for a firearm registration database. It's none of the Govt's damn business what anyone owns. They passed the background check why do they want to track weapons?
They know every person, their address and firearm owned in Canada. So ya, they can easily pinpoint and confiscate if they see fit.
This is helpful. So we don't need to ban ARs, just large magazines. Which makes sense to me. You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer. You don't need 30 rounds to stop a burglar. In fact, the only thing I can think of that large capacity magazines have been used for in the US is shooting up schools and movie theaters.
A few years ago, homes in my neighborhood were being burgled. It was a gang of three doing it. How many rounds would I need for three burglars?
Name another purpose for a firearm registration database. It's none of the Govt's damn business what anyone owns. They passed the background check why do they want to track weapons?
If one isn't married to a blind partisan view, they might think of legitimate reasons, but nah, bumper sticker policy and victimhood is easier.
A few years ago, homes in my neighborhood were being burgled. It was a gang of three doing it. How many rounds would I need for three burglars?
Just think if someone stole a few firearms that the owner wasn't aware of, then committed a few crimes with them. That owner could technically be in some serious hot water.
From what I have read, this arises from a true story. It was not, however, intentional.
After Colt bought the AR-15 design from Armalite, the first series of barrels produced by the company were of disastrously low twist rate- 1 in 24 to 1 in 40 in some cases. This was only the case for the first few hundred rifles produced, but these were the guns that were sent to be tested by US soldiers in Vietnam.
Because of the low twist rate, almost making it smoothbore, the projectile really did fly wildly off aim and tumble in the air. The only reason this was not picked up on was due to the very short engagement ranges, 50 yards or less, that made precise aim less necessary.
Against unarmoured soldiers, as was usual at the time, it truly was devastating. The test units reported fantastic results back: limbs torn from the body, chest cavities exploded open, all in a rifle that could carry more ammunition with less recoil and weight than the currently issued M14.
That was written down in official literature for most of the Vietnam war. After Colt switched from the poorly produced barrels to the standard ones, both the good and bad aspects of the low-twist barrels soon went away, but the myth persisted.
We were originally given that low twist rate as a spec. for the M16 barrels we were setting up to make in Longbranch with our test guys scratching their heads and wondering how anyone expected to hit anything they aimed at but before production started those were changed.
I found this article explaining it further:
All projectiles have a tendency to tumble. To compensate, they are given a certain rate of spin by use of a rifled barrel or use fins like many rockets and some tank projectiles do.
The proper amount of spin depends on the shape of the projectile, its mass, speed, and the density of what it’s travelling through. The value is calculated using the Greenhill Formula or similar equation and result used in making the rifling. Early AR-15 and M-16 were designed to use 55 grain bullets and purposely spun a rate that was somewhat low. This allowed the round to destabilise quickly, beginning to tumble within inches after entering a body. This tumbling action causes the round to slow down, transferring energy to the target. This energy transfer results in massive damage, acting in a near explosive manner. In contrast, the round from a AK-47 ( and SKS-47 ) will begin its tumble only after travelling through 12 or more inches of flesh. This means the round will not exhibit tumbling on human targets, only on something larger like a deer.
However, the new design was shown to have trouble when used in severe cold. The chilled air being denser, the round failed to stabilize at all, giving poor accuracy figures. So changes were made, a heavier round and higher twist rates.
The newer rifles still have rounds that tumble in flesh, but not at the level the original weapon could generate.
FL IRON is correct. That piece has been put up here a lot. Yes, the history of the myth behind the "tumbling" round is familiar to me. My Dad was on the test team for the original M 16 at Aberdeen PG. In addition to a horrible wrong twist rate the wrong propellant was used as well which caused extreme fouling issues.
I've also seen original CAR 15s keyhole badly from barrel whip. Even when meticulously clean. But no, none of it was intentional. Just standard military SNAFU.
And the problem has ling hence been corrected. New ARs have no such issues. My own AR is fantastically accurate. I did see tumbling with 55 gr ball at the 800+ yardstick. My barrel is 1/7 for projectiles 62 gr and up. The 55s were plumb sideways in the aluminum plate I was shooting at. The heavier bullets were stuck in like darts.
That sort of range is asking a lot from a 5.56/223. But I wasnt referring to the tumbleweed theory. That's from some clown claiming to be a trauma surgeon that says he has seen the "devastating effects of AR 15 rounds" that are far beyond what "regular guns" are capable of.
And on the rare occasion when a criminal walks down the street looking for places to knock over, he thinks about all those guns, and the residents who know how to use them. And he quietly decides to withdraw and look for some other town. And presto, a crime (or three) is deterred, doesn't take place. And the town's low crime rate continues, all without a shot being fired, and the residents maintaining the don't need their guns for protection.
I suspect that a street full of houses with territorial dogs would be more of a deterrent. A dog is more likely than a sleeping owner to hear an intruder and dogs make a lot of noise. I remember reading several years ago about a burglar who was caught with a diagram in his pocket showing all the houses which had dogs.
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.
