In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Beretta still, to this day, refers to their BM59 as an "Assault Rifle". In the 1960's, firearms marketers and manufacturers used the term to sell their weapons to the gun-loving community. It was years later the term was turned against us.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
riiight, and every time we are cowed into censoring ourselves or bending to the will of anti-gunners, the more "power" they have... if you don't, they are powerless. it's all about what they can trick you into doing.
if you don't stand up for yourself, then you aren't standing up, are you???
The anti-gun crowd hijacked the term "assault rifle" and turned it against lawful gun owners. The more we use it the more we are running their program. Much as if somehow the anti-gun crowd and the media was able to tag the term "gun owner" with the term "potentially violent" gun owner. Then each and every time the term gun owner appeared, it would be presented as "potentially violent gun owner". If that were to happen (just an example) that would put each gun owner in such a deep hole that your would never be able to dig yourself out in an effort to present yourself as a respectable citizen.
What the anti-gun crowd did to us by tagging some guns with the "scary" term assault rifle, was to wage political and psychological warfare on us lawful gun owners. The antigun crowd wants to see that misleading term "assault rifle" used as much as possible by as many people as possible. It puzzles me that not every gun owner is able to see that fact. In my case I choose to not cooperate with such warfare by adopting and using their negative term for some of my "scary" looking guns.
But apparently others here are willing to cooperate with their program.
1. An "assault rifle" is a shoulder arm firing an intermediate caliber cartridge that is capable of both semi and fully automatic fire. An M16 is an AW, the AR15 is not due to its semi only function. The term AW has been used for marketing and to demonize guns by the antis.
2. Not sure what sort of defensive situation you envision. If you mean you live in a rural area and you might be outdoors and need a powerful defensive firearm then any rifle you are comfortable with will suffice. Jeff Cooper has suggested lever action carbines in pistol calibers as useful for close-range defensive work. I have a 16" Model 94 in .44 Magnum and I think it would be a dandy defensive carbine.
If you really want a military style rifle then pick your favorite. Any of the models out there, like the AR15, the AKM, or the FAL and variants will serve you well. Even the inexpensive SKS is sturdy and practical. Your choice.
If you are thinking of indoor defense the rifle is a not the best choice. Even a short rifle is cumbersome in a hallway and has too much penetration threatening loved ones behind walls and neighbors next door. Indoors I recommend a handgun as more useful in close quarters and less likely to be grabbed by an intruder who jumps at you out of the dark. Even a short shotgun with birdshot is really too powerful IMO and too easily available to the intruder bent on grappling with you for control of the gun.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
FCD made a plainly worded statement that says just about everything!
Unless jbjm04 envisions a scenario of "urban combat" where he will be "defending" the perimeter of his property and his family, a semi-auto anything, except a "shortened" shotgun is 'prolly NOT the recommendation he needs. Unless he AND HIS FAMILY is proficeint AND experienced with a handgun I hesitate to recommend one as a primary home defense firearm.
jbjm, get a pump shotgun, (the shorter the better, even if you have to "hack it up" a bit, 'prolly 20ga 0r .410) fit it with a light and one of those strap-on 5 round bandoliers, get "good" with it (this includes wife and kids) know where it is and BE PREPARED TO USE IT, if need be[;)]
BTW, any one of a number of shotguns are available in the "riot" or "urban defense"(?) configurations, very little assembly required, gauges vary, but most are 12ga.[:)]
How about assault vehicles, excursions, excalades, hummers...
How about assaulting ignorance... Some of our politcal leaders are ASSAULTING the American way of life with their IGNORANCE!!
ARGHHHHHHHH
the media has another full of snit, someone wish to tap his T&P for us?
The term "assault rifle" was widely used by the pro-firearm industry many years ago as a term that would attract certain types of individuals to buy certain types of firearms. The anti-gun forces cannot be blamed for coining the term, nor can they be blamed that the term was used as a marketing device by the pro-gun community. It is going to be really difficult, now, for the pro-gun community to deny the existence of such a classification of firearm, or to try to re-define what an assault rifle is. After all, it was the pro-gun community who first started using the term to describe semi-automatic rifles.
I have seen members here who apparently strongly object to the term "assault rifle", but will use the term "battle rifle" to describe a general class of weapon. Is there really a significant diffgerence between the terms "assault rifle" and
"battle rifle" that one term is acceptable, and the other is not? Hogwash. If all of a sudden, the anti-gun forces started using the term "battle rifle", is the pro-gun community going to get all offended? Or maybe it's okay for us to have "battle rifles" as opposed to "assault rifles".
It is going to be very difficult, in fact impossible, to turn back the hand of time on this one.
Personally, I get no negative connotations when the term ASSAULT RIFLE is used. I like them. If others get a negative connotation from the use of the term, that is their problem.
Wow.. Call up Walter Craig.. I will buy a semi truck load. My guess is prior to 1968. My 1980 Shooters bible has garands for $420.00 M1a's for $420 HK 91's for $420 Colt AR sporters for $377
quote:Originally posted by Lowrider
Too much! Any idea of the date on that bottom advertisement?
Correction, the Santa Fe ad was 1964, the Craig ad was 1966. Also note the '74 gun digest reference to the BM59 assault rifle. This is three ads from 60's - 70's calling this type of rifle an assault rifle. Was it wrong to do so? Perhaps, but this is what we have to deal with now. My point being, this term has been used for too long, and by the pro-gun community, to try to re-write history and blame the anti-gun forces for it's use.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
on the subject of overpenetration,
has anyone done any testing on the "tactical" rounds offered in 5.56?
I would guess that there either mushroom or fragment, increasing stopping power and preventing overpenetration.
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
battle rifle:
-full power cartridge
-semiauto- or bolt action
-full length barrel
-bayonet mounting point
may or may not have:
-high capacity magazine
-grenade launcher mounting point
examples: M14, M1 Garand, Mauser, HK G3, HK 91, Tokarev
assault rifle:
-low to intermediate power cartridge
-full auto
-full or carbine length barrel
-high capacity detachable magazine
may or may not have:
-bayonet mounting point
-grenade launcher mounting point
examples:M16, AK-47, Valmet, Galil, StG44
sporterized assault rifle ("assault weapon"):
same features of the assault rifle except it is semiauto.
AR-15, HK 93, SKS
machine gun:
-full power cartridge typical but not always
-full auto
-high capacity magazine/drum or belt-fed
-usually a squad weapon or crew-served
-usually too heavy to be shoulder-fired
-usually with mount and T&E mechanism
-often requires extra cooling with water, oil, or air fins
examples: M243, AK RPK, Vickers, Browning M2
note: AR-15 and AK-47 are NOT machine guns.
submachine gun:
-pistol cartridge
-full auto
-carbine or shorter length barrel
-never has a baoynet
-high capacity detachable magazine
examples: HK MP5, Thompson, Bizon, Uzi
I don't care who else has said what. these are the correct definitions. I call AR-15's "assault rifles" because they're close enough and I refuse to acknowledge politically correct inventions like "assault weapon". in the absence of any other terminology, an AR-15 is an assault rifle to me. maybe it should be called a "sporter" but I don't care.
And you could supply a source of reference with greater authority than Beretta to substantiate this? Or is this a "just because I say so" thing?
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
well, a full-auto rifle in .308 becomes and anti-aircraft gun after the 4th round [:D]
could you really "assault" with that?
Sure, if it happens to be a BM59. The BM59 has what was (maybe still is) the most efficient "tri-compensator" which is an extremely efficient muzzle brake/flash hider/grenade launcher combination. Take a look at the following video, BM59 in action, I don't see any need to be concerned for downed aircraft.
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
Where the heck is DWS?
HEY JARHEAD!!! HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STUFF THEY'RE POSTING ON YOUR FORUM HERE?
* YOUR HEAD OUT, FOR PETE'S SAKE!!
Believe me, I have don't believe I have an arguement with DWS. The point he was making during our discussion was valid, from a certain perspective, I understand why the term "assault rifle" is controversial. It is clear the term "assault rifle" has not been clearly defined, and the connotation has changed over all these many years. His point is valid from that perspective. My perspective is as stated.
It appears obvious that the anti-gun crowd did not create the term "assault rifle or weapon." And when I made reference to the anti-gun crowd and the term, I mentioned that the anti-gun crowd "hijacked" the term in order to instantly "create" a very large pool of guns that would instantly, by their very name, appear to be the type of guns that common citizens should not be able to own. Such action was in effect a big win for the anti-gun side in the psychological and political battle to ban, at first, a particular class of guns and then later all guns.
In 1994 Josh Sugarman, one of the gun hating (in the hands of civilians that is) leaders of Handgun Control Inc., latched onto the idea or created the idea to use the term "assault rifle/weapon" as an instant way to, not only offer, but to justify their argument that such guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. And what could be more perfect for their side? By spreading the usage of that term far and wide, it DID instantly seem to offer and justify banning certain types of firearms. Thus Clinton's "assault weapon" ban from 1994 through 2004.
Every gun owner here knows that there is little difference between a 5.56 (for example) semiauto Ruger Mini-14 and a AR-15 except basically for the looks. They will both shoot the same bullet just as fast and just as far and just as many as each other. But the Mini-14 is produced with a wooden stock and therefore looks at least a little more like a hunting rifle than the Ar-15. But Clinton's gun ban termed the AR-15 as an assault rifle but did not include the Mini-14 in that catagory. Later on, in the media and the anti-gun crowd, an effort was made, and succeeded, to include other guns like the Mini-14 into the "assault rifle" group.
Regardless of how/where the term came from, if a group who is my enemy starts using a particular term that is damaging to my interests everytime it is used, I for one will not help that group by also using that term widely, freely and cheerfully. Just as if I was a woman being raped, I would not assist my attacker(s).
For those here who do cheerfully use the term "assault rifle", when (and this will happen) your city or state government starts having public imput meetings about the idea of "assault weapons" being banned, it will be very interesting to me if I was able to follow you to one of those meetings. Meetings where you attempted to speak against banning your "assault weapons" and see if then you so freely and easily continue to use the term "assault weapons." As you attempt to convince your fellow non-gunowning citizens that you want, need and should be able to own something called an "assault weapon" you will come face-to-face with the reality of just how big a monkey the anti-gun crowd has placed on your back by making the term "assault weapon" a negative term which, in reality, is not justified. (RE: the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15).
In a public debate about banning "assault weapons" the anti-gun side merely need to present, and win, a single argument; that all "assault weapons" should be banned. We pro-gun people will have to win two arguments simultaneously. That the common citizen is already not allowed to own true "assault weapons" and that we should be allowed to continue owning our "looks like an assault weapons." How will you justify, to a room full of soccer moms, that you have a need to own "assault weapons?"
Bottom line, for those who view with distain the suggestion that we gunners try to avoid making the term "assault weapon" even more popular than it already is, that term is going to come around and bite you right in the * in the future. Count on it.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
It appears obvious that the anti-gun crowd did not create the term "assault rifle or weapon." And when I made reference to the anti-gun crowd and the term, I mentioned that the anti-gun crowd "hijacked" the term in order to instantly "create" a very large pool of guns that would instantly, by their very name, appear to be the type of guns that common citizens should not be able to own. Such action was in effect a big win for the anti-gun side in the psychological and political battle to ban, at first, a particular class of guns and then later all guns.
In 1994 Josh Sugarman, one of the gun hating (in the hands of civilians that is) leaders of Handgun Control Inc., latched onto the idea or created the idea to use the term "assault rifle/weapon" as an instant way to, not only offer, but to justify their argument that such guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. And what could be more perfect for their side? By spreading the usage of that term far and wide, it DID instantly seem to offer and justify banning certain types of firearms. Thus Clinton's "assault weapon" ban from 1994 through 2004.
Every gun owner here knows that there is little difference between a 5.56 (for example) semiauto Ruger Mini-14 and a AR-15 except basically for the looks. They will both shoot the same bullet just as fast and just as far and just as many as each other. But the Mini-14 is produced with a wooden stock and therefore looks at least a little more like a hunting rifle than the Ar-15. But Clinton's gun ban termed the AR-15 as an assault rifle but did not include the Mini-14 in that catagory. Later on, in the media and the anti-gun crowd, an effort was made, and succeeded, to include other guns like the Mini-14 into the "assault rifle" group.
Regardless of how/where the term came from, if a group who is my enemy starts using a particular term that is damaging to my interests everytime it is used, I for one will not help that group by also using that term widely, freely and cheerfully. Just as if I was a woman being raped, I would not assist my attacker(s).
For those here who do cheerfully use the term "assault rifle", when (and this will happen) your city or state government starts having public imput meetings about the idea of "assault weapons" being banned, it will be very interesting to me if I was able to follow you to one of those meetings. Meetings where you attempted to speak against banning your "assault weapons" and see if then you so freely and easily continue to use the term "assault weapons." As you attempt to convince your fellow non-gunowning citizens that you want, need and should be able to own something called an "assault weapon" you will come face-to-face with the reality of just how big a monkey the anti-gun crowd has placed on your back by making the term "assault weapon" a negative term which, in reality, is not justified. (RE: the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15).
In a public debate about banning "assault weapons" the anti-gun side merely need to present, and win, a single argument; that all "assault weapons" should be banned. We pro-gun people will have to win two arguments simultaneously. That the common citizen is already not allowed to own true "assault weapons" and that we should be allowed to continue owning our "looks like an assault weapons." How will you justify, to a room full of soccer moms, that you have a need to own "assault weapons?"
Bottom line, for those who view with distain the suggestion that we gunners try to avoid making the term "assault weapon" even more popular than it already is, that term is going to come around and bite you right in the * in the future. Count on it.
Because there should be no compromise with anti-gun forces. Period. The Second Ammendment does not guarantee the right to own firearms with pleasant sounding names. The Second Ammendment guarantees the right to own arms. If some people call those arms "assault weapons", and it draws a negative connotation from the term, that is their problem.
You ask how we, as gun owners, should be able to justify this position? First, we do not have to, this position is guaranteed by the Second Ammendment. If asked why I personally need such a firearm, I will say that our government cannot guarantee that the earth will not be hit by a significant meteorite, or experience the results of the Yellowstone Caldera errupting, or any other form of natural catastrophy by which the government of the USA will not be able to protect it's citizens. It may be from a local hurricane, or may result from an attack from a foreign country, or it may result from an attack from other US citizens who have been devistated in some manner. It is ultimately the right of Americans to have the biggest, baddest firearms they can possess. Attempting to explain away terms such as "assault rifle" does nothing to further this basic principle. If some liberal soccer mom doesn't care for the fact that Americans can own assault rifles, guess what. Her opinion doesn't matter in terms of the Second Ammendment.
For God's sake, stop trying to make these people happy by simply calling an apple some other name! If they don't care for the way the Bill of Rights is written, they have the option of attempting to pass a Constitutional Ammendment that would change our rights. Boy, I would sure like to see an attempt for that one to fly.
If some "pleeping" soccer mom tells me, "I don't think people should have the right to own assault weapons", I will tell her, there was not one single gun law passed in the period between years 1900 and 2000 that can be demonstrated to have reduced crime. There is simply no statistical evidence that gun laws work. Oh, the ban on machine guns? No, there is no evidence that the restrictions on fully automatic weapons reduced crime. Mrs. Soccer Mom, the whole of your knowledge of the effects of firearms in a community is contrary to actual facts and statistical evidence. Americans should not only be able to readily own "assault rifles", they should be able to readily own machine guns. In fact, the whole of the 1968 Gun Control Act should be scrubbed.
Rather than attempt to hold onto rights we currently still retain, I believe it is more appropriate to try to regain rights we lost. Do you want to consider this an "assault"? That is fine. There should be an assault on the behalf of firearms owners to regain, at least a portion, of the rights that were stripped from us. It is not only, "no more compromise". It is, "I want my other rights back".
TR, I understand completely what you are saying. My only take on it is, you are assuming a defensive position in terms of the right to keep and bear arms. And I have to admit, this is understandable, considering the continuing errosion of those rights. But there is evidence that the tide may be turning, and I believe we have to capitalize on that turn. Here in Kansas, there have been significant positive developments in overturning laws that are contrary to the Second Ammendment.
TR, I really don't know what State you live in. But yes, I have seen recent occasions where certain States have successfully passed anti-firearms initiatives. From my own perspective, this is because the pro-gun forces decided it was appropriate to compromise their position, and they laid in bed with the devil. In the morning, they realized they had been screwed.
My bottom line is this. Not only no more compromise, give me back the rights you already took from me. Give me back these rights because the laws did nothing in terms of achieving their objective, and in fact, they were stripped from me in an unconstitutional manner.
You could also try an SKS. They are inexpensive, plentiful, and there are plenty of aftermearket parts available, including stocks in the event you want pistol grip.
Took the but plate off a red rider. Hollowed out 3" and added a small device from a teddy bear. changed the recording to give assulting remarks every time you pull the trigger. Won't do much to proct the family, butr the criminal will die laughing.
BoeBoe. I live in KS, FYI. At one time I would totally have embraced your facts, attitude and argument. However, you are apparently planning on going into battle against the anti-gun forces using reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history on your side.
Sadly, you will learn the hard way that the anti-gun side rarely recognizes or values any of what I just described.(in red above).
Well I reccomend the Finnish RK-95 assault rifle by Sako. In 7.62x39mm ofcourse, accept no substitutes! This was the firearm I was issued during my stay in the army and it's reliable as hell and I think very accurate.
They don't make them anymore though so good luck getting one, they're very valuable. You'll want to search for the Sako M92S which is the civilian version, no full auto on that one
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
BoeBoe. I live in KS, FYI. At one time I would totally have embraced your facts, attitude and argument. However, you are apparently planning on going into battle against the anti-gun forces using reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history on your side.
Sadly, you will learn the hard way that the anti-gun side rarely recognizes or values any of what I just described.(in red above).
TR, what part of Kansas are you in? Ever make it to any shows? If you make it to any Wichita shows, let me know, we'll get together.
Actually, I already fully understand that the anti-gun forces will not use reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history in making their arguments. They will use emotion and the assumption that a compromise can be reached. They will continue to use this over and over again, and as long as we appear inclined to accept compromise, our gun rights will continue to slowly evaporate. The willingness of Second Amendment supporters to compromise has lead to our ongoing downfall.
I do see that there is a large enough portion of the population who are willing to use reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history that it will be difficult for the anti-gun forces to win, unless we let them. For example, in Kansas, there has been some significant overturnings of local anti-gun ordinances and the overriding of the Governor's anti-gun veto. On the national level, the expiration of the "assault weapons ban" is significant. So, yes, every once in a while, I see a glimmer of hope that reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history will ultimately prevail.
It is clear we value the same principles, and I understand the logic behind your argument. I just see no reason to attempt to undo any of the history of firearms in an attempt to appease the gun-grabbers. Is the term "assault weapon" something we should now apologize for? I think not. Supporters of the Second Amendment have no apologies to make to the anti-gun forces. To me, attempting to avoid the term "assault rifle" is something of an apology, or a concession that we made a mistake in the past. The only mistake we, as gun supporters made, was ever letting the anti-gunners go as far as they did.
nothing will top a AK when the chips are down,.easy to use,. even easier to maintain,.and will almost never break. they come in alot of diffrent sizes,. configurations,.and calibers ranging from .22 all the way up to 8mm.
i would recomend:
7.62x39 - a AK-103 clone,. it is the newest and most modern "plane jane AK",..lighter and more accurate than the orginal 47's if you need smaller easier to use in your home/ confined spaces,..find a underfolder or sidefolder type
5.56x45 - a SAR-3 or SA-M5 they are harder to find,.but the ammo is everywhere in this country,..and you get the best of both worlds of accuracy and reliablity.
5.45x39 - AKS-74,.AKS-74U,.or my personal pick for the same role,. the AK-105,.all round best trade off in compact size without giving up any accuracy,. shoots a nasty little round that is more capable that most would think,.at close range the HP rounds have a supprising fragmentation capability (read:for use in you home against any threat) small enough to use in you home or any confined space,. light enought to carry cross country if you have to bug out,.and accurate enough to reach out and touch anyone or anything within 500 meters.
quote:Originally posted by jbjm04
is that everything[?]
Exactly what are you planning to defend your family against? Roaming hordes of Latinos intent on your freeze-dried peaches? Gubmint agents with kevlar kneepads checking under your bed for links to Al Qaeda? Young punks coming in the night to steal the sterling tea cozy you got from Aunt Viv? Conveniently, all these fantasies involve yet another fantasy, an "assault rifle"; you imagine yourself with a double-serrated Gerber in your teeth and ten loaded magazines by your side, downing foe after foe from a clever position of cover and concealment, glorious, victorious, making it through another day of defending hearth and home just in time for American Idol. And later, by Coleman light, you will clean your trusty AK or AR or whatever and smile, confident in the wisdom of your purchase and in God's good grace.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
If you are defending your person & property, I see no need to place restrictions of the Geneva Convention on yourself. As such you could use soft-nose/hollow-point expanding bullets, thereby not having to rely on quantity of shots to bring down some assailant. Because of this you could go with a smaller cartridge and standard magazine capacity, unless you're looking at taking on the Gypsy Jokers or the Feds, in which case no single firearm will do you any good. So does anyone make a semi-auto 30 Rem anymore?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
Actually.......I think I might enjoy that....if I ever get myself to do it. Few years ago I had some interaction with Kimberkid and a-l-m-o-s-t forced myself to meet up with him and Interstatepawn and one other in Lawrence, KS. Kimberkid came across an extremely nice person and once Interstate and I got past disliking each other he seemed pretty nice also. I always kinda regretted I wimped out on them and never showed up. I even baited Interstate by saying I would show up if he would give me one of the AK-47's he was selling and he was kind enough to offer it to me at cost if I showed up.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
Actually.......I think I might enjoy that....if I ever get myself to do it. Few years ago I had some interaction with Kimberkid and a-l-m-o-s-t forced myself to meet up with him and Interstatepawn and one other in Lawrence, KS. Kimberkid came across an extremely nice person and once Interstate and I got past disliking each other he seemed pretty nice also. I always kinda regretted I wimped out on them and never showed up. I even baited Interstate by saying I would show up if he would give me one of the AK-47's he was selling and he was kind enough to offer it to me at cost if I showed up.
I never did.
Let's do it sometime. ISP moved back to the southeast, but it would be fun. I have actually noticed some very fair deals on guns at the the Topeka show. If we do it Saturday, we can be drunk and T-P the governor's mansion by 11:00 PM!
Just had to do the T-P interjection, I noticed our local school was hit Friday night.
Comments
riiight, and every time we are cowed into censoring ourselves or bending to the will of anti-gunners, the more "power" they have... if you don't, they are powerless. it's all about what they can trick you into doing.
if you don't stand up for yourself, then you aren't standing up, are you???
The anti-gun crowd hijacked the term "assault rifle" and turned it against lawful gun owners. The more we use it the more we are running their program. Much as if somehow the anti-gun crowd and the media was able to tag the term "gun owner" with the term "potentially violent" gun owner. Then each and every time the term gun owner appeared, it would be presented as "potentially violent gun owner". If that were to happen (just an example) that would put each gun owner in such a deep hole that your would never be able to dig yourself out in an effort to present yourself as a respectable citizen.
What the anti-gun crowd did to us by tagging some guns with the "scary" term assault rifle, was to wage political and psychological warfare on us lawful gun owners. The antigun crowd wants to see that misleading term "assault rifle" used as much as possible by as many people as possible. It puzzles me that not every gun owner is able to see that fact. In my case I choose to not cooperate with such warfare by adopting and using their negative term for some of my "scary" looking guns.
But apparently others here are willing to cooperate with their program.
2. Not sure what sort of defensive situation you envision. If you mean you live in a rural area and you might be outdoors and need a powerful defensive firearm then any rifle you are comfortable with will suffice. Jeff Cooper has suggested lever action carbines in pistol calibers as useful for close-range defensive work. I have a 16" Model 94 in .44 Magnum and I think it would be a dandy defensive carbine.
If you really want a military style rifle then pick your favorite. Any of the models out there, like the AR15, the AKM, or the FAL and variants will serve you well. Even the inexpensive SKS is sturdy and practical. Your choice.
If you are thinking of indoor defense the rifle is a not the best choice. Even a short rifle is cumbersome in a hallway and has too much penetration threatening loved ones behind walls and neighbors next door. Indoors I recommend a handgun as more useful in close quarters and less likely to be grabbed by an intruder who jumps at you out of the dark. Even a short shotgun with birdshot is really too powerful IMO and too easily available to the intruder bent on grappling with you for control of the gun.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Unless jbjm04 envisions a scenario of "urban combat" where he will be "defending" the perimeter of his property and his family, a semi-auto anything, except a "shortened" shotgun is 'prolly NOT the recommendation he needs. Unless he AND HIS FAMILY is proficeint AND experienced with a handgun I hesitate to recommend one as a primary home defense firearm.
jbjm, get a pump shotgun, (the shorter the better, even if you have to "hack it up" a bit, 'prolly 20ga 0r .410) fit it with a light and one of those strap-on 5 round bandoliers, get "good" with it (this includes wife and kids) know where it is and BE PREPARED TO USE IT, if need be[;)]
BTW, any one of a number of shotguns are available in the "riot" or "urban defense"(?) configurations, very little assembly required, gauges vary, but most are 12ga.[:)]
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
assault that...
assault rifles, the name could make me puke...
How about assault vehicles, excursions, excalades, hummers...
How about assaulting ignorance... Some of our politcal leaders are ASSAULTING the American way of life with their IGNORANCE!!
ARGHHHHHHHH
the media has another full of snit, someone wish to tap his T&P for us?
I have seen members here who apparently strongly object to the term "assault rifle", but will use the term "battle rifle" to describe a general class of weapon. Is there really a significant diffgerence between the terms "assault rifle" and
"battle rifle" that one term is acceptable, and the other is not? Hogwash. If all of a sudden, the anti-gun forces started using the term "battle rifle", is the pro-gun community going to get all offended? Or maybe it's okay for us to have "battle rifles" as opposed to "assault rifles".
It is going to be very difficult, in fact impossible, to turn back the hand of time on this one.
Personally, I get no negative connotations when the term ASSAULT RIFLE is used. I like them. If others get a negative connotation from the use of the term, that is their problem.
Too much! Any idea of the date on that bottom advertisement?
Correction, the Santa Fe ad was 1964, the Craig ad was 1966. Also note the '74 gun digest reference to the BM59 assault rifle. This is three ads from 60's - 70's calling this type of rifle an assault rifle. Was it wrong to do so? Perhaps, but this is what we have to deal with now. My point being, this term has been used for too long, and by the pro-gun community, to try to re-write history and blame the anti-gun forces for it's use.
on the subject of overpenetration,
has anyone done any testing on the "tactical" rounds offered in 5.56?
I would guess that there either mushroom or fragment, increasing stopping power and preventing overpenetration.
Check it out
www.theboxotruth.com
battle rifle:
-full power cartridge
-semiauto- or bolt action
-full length barrel
-bayonet mounting point
may or may not have:
-high capacity magazine
-grenade launcher mounting point
examples: M14, M1 Garand, Mauser, HK G3, HK 91, Tokarev
assault rifle:
-low to intermediate power cartridge
-full auto
-full or carbine length barrel
-high capacity detachable magazine
may or may not have:
-bayonet mounting point
-grenade launcher mounting point
examples:M16, AK-47, Valmet, Galil, StG44
sporterized assault rifle ("assault weapon"):
same features of the assault rifle except it is semiauto.
AR-15, HK 93, SKS
machine gun:
-full power cartridge typical but not always
-full auto
-high capacity magazine/drum or belt-fed
-usually a squad weapon or crew-served
-usually too heavy to be shoulder-fired
-usually with mount and T&E mechanism
-often requires extra cooling with water, oil, or air fins
examples: M243, AK RPK, Vickers, Browning M2
note: AR-15 and AK-47 are NOT machine guns.
submachine gun:
-pistol cartridge
-full auto
-carbine or shorter length barrel
-never has a baoynet
-high capacity detachable magazine
examples: HK MP5, Thompson, Bizon, Uzi
I don't care who else has said what. these are the correct definitions. I call AR-15's "assault rifles" because they're close enough and I refuse to acknowledge politically correct inventions like "assault weapon". in the absence of any other terminology, an AR-15 is an assault rifle to me. maybe it should be called a "sporter" but I don't care.
And you could supply a source of reference with greater authority than Beretta to substantiate this? Or is this a "just because I say so" thing?
could you really "assault" with that?
well, a full-auto rifle in .308 becomes and anti-aircraft gun after the 4th round [:D]
could you really "assault" with that?
Sure, if it happens to be a BM59. The BM59 has what was (maybe still is) the most efficient "tri-compensator" which is an extremely efficient muzzle brake/flash hider/grenade launcher combination. Take a look at the following video, BM59 in action, I don't see any need to be concerned for downed aircraft.
http://myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/Beretta.WMV
http://myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/Beretta.WMV
HEY JARHEAD!!! HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STUFF THEY'RE POSTING ON YOUR FORUM HERE?
* YOUR HEAD OUT, FOR PETE'S SAKE!!
Where the heck is DWS?
HEY JARHEAD!!! HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STUFF THEY'RE POSTING ON YOUR FORUM HERE?
* YOUR HEAD OUT, FOR PETE'S SAKE!!
Believe me, I have don't believe I have an arguement with DWS. The point he was making during our discussion was valid, from a certain perspective, I understand why the term "assault rifle" is controversial. It is clear the term "assault rifle" has not been clearly defined, and the connotation has changed over all these many years. His point is valid from that perspective. My perspective is as stated.
In 1994 Josh Sugarman, one of the gun hating (in the hands of civilians that is) leaders of Handgun Control Inc., latched onto the idea or created the idea to use the term "assault rifle/weapon" as an instant way to, not only offer, but to justify their argument that such guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. And what could be more perfect for their side? By spreading the usage of that term far and wide, it DID instantly seem to offer and justify banning certain types of firearms. Thus Clinton's "assault weapon" ban from 1994 through 2004.
Every gun owner here knows that there is little difference between a 5.56 (for example) semiauto Ruger Mini-14 and a AR-15 except basically for the looks. They will both shoot the same bullet just as fast and just as far and just as many as each other. But the Mini-14 is produced with a wooden stock and therefore looks at least a little more like a hunting rifle than the Ar-15. But Clinton's gun ban termed the AR-15 as an assault rifle but did not include the Mini-14 in that catagory. Later on, in the media and the anti-gun crowd, an effort was made, and succeeded, to include other guns like the Mini-14 into the "assault rifle" group.
Regardless of how/where the term came from, if a group who is my enemy starts using a particular term that is damaging to my interests everytime it is used, I for one will not help that group by also using that term widely, freely and cheerfully. Just as if I was a woman being raped, I would not assist my attacker(s).
For those here who do cheerfully use the term "assault rifle", when (and this will happen) your city or state government starts having public imput meetings about the idea of "assault weapons" being banned, it will be very interesting to me if I was able to follow you to one of those meetings. Meetings where you attempted to speak against banning your "assault weapons" and see if then you so freely and easily continue to use the term "assault weapons." As you attempt to convince your fellow non-gunowning citizens that you want, need and should be able to own something called an "assault weapon" you will come face-to-face with the reality of just how big a monkey the anti-gun crowd has placed on your back by making the term "assault weapon" a negative term which, in reality, is not justified. (RE: the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15).
In a public debate about banning "assault weapons" the anti-gun side merely need to present, and win, a single argument; that all "assault weapons" should be banned. We pro-gun people will have to win two arguments simultaneously. That the common citizen is already not allowed to own true "assault weapons" and that we should be allowed to continue owning our "looks like an assault weapons." How will you justify, to a room full of soccer moms, that you have a need to own "assault weapons?"
Bottom line, for those who view with distain the suggestion that we gunners try to avoid making the term "assault weapon" even more popular than it already is, that term is going to come around and bite you right in the * in the future. Count on it.
It appears obvious that the anti-gun crowd did not create the term "assault rifle or weapon." And when I made reference to the anti-gun crowd and the term, I mentioned that the anti-gun crowd "hijacked" the term in order to instantly "create" a very large pool of guns that would instantly, by their very name, appear to be the type of guns that common citizens should not be able to own. Such action was in effect a big win for the anti-gun side in the psychological and political battle to ban, at first, a particular class of guns and then later all guns.
In 1994 Josh Sugarman, one of the gun hating (in the hands of civilians that is) leaders of Handgun Control Inc., latched onto the idea or created the idea to use the term "assault rifle/weapon" as an instant way to, not only offer, but to justify their argument that such guns should not be allowed in the hands of citizens. And what could be more perfect for their side? By spreading the usage of that term far and wide, it DID instantly seem to offer and justify banning certain types of firearms. Thus Clinton's "assault weapon" ban from 1994 through 2004.
Every gun owner here knows that there is little difference between a 5.56 (for example) semiauto Ruger Mini-14 and a AR-15 except basically for the looks. They will both shoot the same bullet just as fast and just as far and just as many as each other. But the Mini-14 is produced with a wooden stock and therefore looks at least a little more like a hunting rifle than the Ar-15. But Clinton's gun ban termed the AR-15 as an assault rifle but did not include the Mini-14 in that catagory. Later on, in the media and the anti-gun crowd, an effort was made, and succeeded, to include other guns like the Mini-14 into the "assault rifle" group.
Regardless of how/where the term came from, if a group who is my enemy starts using a particular term that is damaging to my interests everytime it is used, I for one will not help that group by also using that term widely, freely and cheerfully. Just as if I was a woman being raped, I would not assist my attacker(s).
For those here who do cheerfully use the term "assault rifle", when (and this will happen) your city or state government starts having public imput meetings about the idea of "assault weapons" being banned, it will be very interesting to me if I was able to follow you to one of those meetings. Meetings where you attempted to speak against banning your "assault weapons" and see if then you so freely and easily continue to use the term "assault weapons." As you attempt to convince your fellow non-gunowning citizens that you want, need and should be able to own something called an "assault weapon" you will come face-to-face with the reality of just how big a monkey the anti-gun crowd has placed on your back by making the term "assault weapon" a negative term which, in reality, is not justified. (RE: the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15).
In a public debate about banning "assault weapons" the anti-gun side merely need to present, and win, a single argument; that all "assault weapons" should be banned. We pro-gun people will have to win two arguments simultaneously. That the common citizen is already not allowed to own true "assault weapons" and that we should be allowed to continue owning our "looks like an assault weapons." How will you justify, to a room full of soccer moms, that you have a need to own "assault weapons?"
Bottom line, for those who view with distain the suggestion that we gunners try to avoid making the term "assault weapon" even more popular than it already is, that term is going to come around and bite you right in the * in the future. Count on it.
Because there should be no compromise with anti-gun forces. Period. The Second Ammendment does not guarantee the right to own firearms with pleasant sounding names. The Second Ammendment guarantees the right to own arms. If some people call those arms "assault weapons", and it draws a negative connotation from the term, that is their problem.
You ask how we, as gun owners, should be able to justify this position? First, we do not have to, this position is guaranteed by the Second Ammendment. If asked why I personally need such a firearm, I will say that our government cannot guarantee that the earth will not be hit by a significant meteorite, or experience the results of the Yellowstone Caldera errupting, or any other form of natural catastrophy by which the government of the USA will not be able to protect it's citizens. It may be from a local hurricane, or may result from an attack from a foreign country, or it may result from an attack from other US citizens who have been devistated in some manner. It is ultimately the right of Americans to have the biggest, baddest firearms they can possess. Attempting to explain away terms such as "assault rifle" does nothing to further this basic principle. If some liberal soccer mom doesn't care for the fact that Americans can own assault rifles, guess what. Her opinion doesn't matter in terms of the Second Ammendment.
For God's sake, stop trying to make these people happy by simply calling an apple some other name! If they don't care for the way the Bill of Rights is written, they have the option of attempting to pass a Constitutional Ammendment that would change our rights. Boy, I would sure like to see an attempt for that one to fly.
If some "pleeping" soccer mom tells me, "I don't think people should have the right to own assault weapons", I will tell her, there was not one single gun law passed in the period between years 1900 and 2000 that can be demonstrated to have reduced crime. There is simply no statistical evidence that gun laws work. Oh, the ban on machine guns? No, there is no evidence that the restrictions on fully automatic weapons reduced crime. Mrs. Soccer Mom, the whole of your knowledge of the effects of firearms in a community is contrary to actual facts and statistical evidence. Americans should not only be able to readily own "assault rifles", they should be able to readily own machine guns. In fact, the whole of the 1968 Gun Control Act should be scrubbed.
Rather than attempt to hold onto rights we currently still retain, I believe it is more appropriate to try to regain rights we lost. Do you want to consider this an "assault"? That is fine. There should be an assault on the behalf of firearms owners to regain, at least a portion, of the rights that were stripped from us. It is not only, "no more compromise". It is, "I want my other rights back".
TR, I understand completely what you are saying. My only take on it is, you are assuming a defensive position in terms of the right to keep and bear arms. And I have to admit, this is understandable, considering the continuing errosion of those rights. But there is evidence that the tide may be turning, and I believe we have to capitalize on that turn. Here in Kansas, there have been significant positive developments in overturning laws that are contrary to the Second Ammendment.
TR, I really don't know what State you live in. But yes, I have seen recent occasions where certain States have successfully passed anti-firearms initiatives. From my own perspective, this is because the pro-gun forces decided it was appropriate to compromise their position, and they laid in bed with the devil. In the morning, they realized they had been screwed.
My bottom line is this. Not only no more compromise, give me back the rights you already took from me. Give me back these rights because the laws did nothing in terms of achieving their objective, and in fact, they were stripped from me in an unconstitutional manner.
Sadly, you will learn the hard way that the anti-gun side rarely recognizes or values any of what I just described.(in red above).
They don't make them anymore though so good luck getting one, they're very valuable. You'll want to search for the Sako M92S which is the civilian version, no full auto on that one
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/m92psotr.jpg
BoeBoe. I live in KS, FYI. At one time I would totally have embraced your facts, attitude and argument. However, you are apparently planning on going into battle against the anti-gun forces using reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history on your side.
Sadly, you will learn the hard way that the anti-gun side rarely recognizes or values any of what I just described.(in red above).
TR, what part of Kansas are you in? Ever make it to any shows? If you make it to any Wichita shows, let me know, we'll get together.
Actually, I already fully understand that the anti-gun forces will not use reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history in making their arguments. They will use emotion and the assumption that a compromise can be reached. They will continue to use this over and over again, and as long as we appear inclined to accept compromise, our gun rights will continue to slowly evaporate. The willingness of Second Amendment supporters to compromise has lead to our ongoing downfall.
I do see that there is a large enough portion of the population who are willing to use reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history that it will be difficult for the anti-gun forces to win, unless we let them. For example, in Kansas, there has been some significant overturnings of local anti-gun ordinances and the overriding of the Governor's anti-gun veto. On the national level, the expiration of the "assault weapons ban" is significant. So, yes, every once in a while, I see a glimmer of hope that reason, truth, logic, our constitutional rights and history will ultimately prevail.
It is clear we value the same principles, and I understand the logic behind your argument. I just see no reason to attempt to undo any of the history of firearms in an attempt to appease the gun-grabbers. Is the term "assault weapon" something we should now apologize for? I think not. Supporters of the Second Amendment have no apologies to make to the anti-gun forces. To me, attempting to avoid the term "assault rifle" is something of an apology, or a concession that we made a mistake in the past. The only mistake we, as gun supporters made, was ever letting the anti-gunners go as far as they did.
i would recomend:
7.62x39 - a AK-103 clone,. it is the newest and most modern "plane jane AK",..lighter and more accurate than the orginal 47's if you need smaller easier to use in your home/ confined spaces,..find a underfolder or sidefolder type
5.56x45 - a SAR-3 or SA-M5 they are harder to find,.but the ammo is everywhere in this country,..and you get the best of both worlds of accuracy and reliablity.
5.45x39 - AKS-74,.AKS-74U,.or my personal pick for the same role,. the AK-105,.all round best trade off in compact size without giving up any accuracy,. shoots a nasty little round that is more capable that most would think,.at close range the HP rounds have a supprising fragmentation capability (read:for use in you home against any threat) small enough to use in you home or any confined space,. light enought to carry cross country if you have to bug out,.and accurate enough to reach out and touch anyone or anything within 500 meters.
I saw PS-90's at the Gun Show last weekend for $1690.
For that kind of money you can buy 50 Jennings. I know its not technically an "assault rifle" but its the best overall gun of the last 100 years.
is that everything[?]
Exactly what are you planning to defend your family against? Roaming hordes of Latinos intent on your freeze-dried peaches? Gubmint agents with kevlar kneepads checking under your bed for links to Al Qaeda? Young punks coming in the night to steal the sterling tea cozy you got from Aunt Viv? Conveniently, all these fantasies involve yet another fantasy, an "assault rifle"; you imagine yourself with a double-serrated Gerber in your teeth and ten loaded magazines by your side, downing foe after foe from a clever position of cover and concealment, glorious, victorious, making it through another day of defending hearth and home just in time for American Idol. And later, by Coleman light, you will clean your trusty AK or AR or whatever and smile, confident in the wisdom of your purchase and in God's good grace.
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
Actually.......I think I might enjoy that....if I ever get myself to do it. Few years ago I had some interaction with Kimberkid and a-l-m-o-s-t forced myself to meet up with him and Interstatepawn and one other in Lawrence, KS. Kimberkid came across an extremely nice person and once Interstate and I got past disliking each other he seemed pretty nice also. I always kinda regretted I wimped out on them and never showed up. I even baited Interstate by saying I would show up if he would give me one of the AK-47's he was selling and he was kind enough to offer it to me at cost if I showed up.
I never did.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Boeboe, I live on the KS side of the KC area.
Every few months or so I am able to make it to a Topeka show, have met Kimberkid, Bigtire and Wundedknee up there. Do you ever make it to the Topeka shows?
No, I should go to places like gun shows, but I seem to be an anti-social type and I don't do much of anything but work, drink beer, watch movies, nap, look at my guns and look at my motorcycle.
dang, outside of the part where I try to make it to gunshows, and only have pictures of my 1947 and 1949 HD's to look at now, we have too much in common.
Let's try to make a gunshow together sometime! Topeka would be a good place, Kimberkid is a great host! The Topeka crowd is great to hang with. I wish I could make it there more often.
Actually.......I think I might enjoy that....if I ever get myself to do it. Few years ago I had some interaction with Kimberkid and a-l-m-o-s-t forced myself to meet up with him and Interstatepawn and one other in Lawrence, KS. Kimberkid came across an extremely nice person and once Interstate and I got past disliking each other he seemed pretty nice also. I always kinda regretted I wimped out on them and never showed up. I even baited Interstate by saying I would show up if he would give me one of the AK-47's he was selling and he was kind enough to offer it to me at cost if I showed up.
I never did.
Let's do it sometime. ISP moved back to the southeast, but it would be fun. I have actually noticed some very fair deals on guns at the the Topeka show. If we do it Saturday, we can be drunk and T-P the governor's mansion by 11:00 PM!
Just had to do the T-P interjection, I noticed our local school was hit Friday night.