Kennedy 0
QuoteFor those of us who are less knowlegable about assault weapons:
You experts. Edumacate us, please. I'm no weapons expert. For you knowlegable guys it's going to appear as stupid questions, I know.
What makes an "assault rifle" an assault rifle?
Is it form or function?
If it's only form, then screw the fear mongers by simply changing the form, eh?
If it's only function, what is it about the function that is different than any other weapon?
In all simplicity, all weapons are the same. You fire it, it does some sort of damage to what you hit whether it's a target, a deer, or anything else.
Yes, I understand that there is a design goal in weapons development.... if you want to do this, then that is a better weapon to use to accomplish your goal.
Surely, any "assault weapon" could be, and is, used for other purposes than simply maiming humans, right? Hell, ANY weapon could be used for that so why do the fearful get all wadded up about "assault weapons" and create an assault weapon ban?
Thanks in advance.
Assault Weapons Ban thread
(not trying to be the repost police, just too lazy to copy the info into a new post)
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Coreece 190
QuoteSo, an "Assault Weapon"
1. Looks scary
2. Is semi-automatic
Well even an airsoft gun is semi-automatic and scary when pointed in your face.
Hell, even my recent gun avatar apparently looks scary and semi-automatically pisses people off...
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Quote
I heard for years that the Viet Nam War was really a testing ground for new weapons the military had come-out with. I never have found truth in that.
Here's a link to World Guns talking about the history of the AR-16/M16 and its initial use in Viet Nam.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html
Excerpt:
-----------
"With rapidly growing presence of US troops in Vietnam, in 1966 US Government makes the first large purchase of the Ar-15 / M16 rifles, ordering 840 000 rifles for US Armed forces, worth almost $92 millions, and in 1967 US Army officially adopts the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1".
During immediately following years, a number of negative reports apears from Vietnam. M16A1 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties.
There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. It also had different pressure curve, resulting in increased stress on operating parts of the gun.
This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and things soon turned bad. "
-----------
Other historical documentation also support the fact that there were major problems at first....and that soldiers bit the dust because of them. Testing ground? Yep.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Wow! That's a hard one to swallow. It definately brings to truth the rumor. Thanks for that.
Chuck
Chuck
JohnRich 4
Every war is a testing ground for equipment, new and old. Just like every drop zone is a testing ground for parachute equipment. Many things happen in widespread field use that cannot be envisioned or tested in advance by the creators.
Surely, there is some testing that could be done. When Smith& Wesson came-out with the Model 66, the Border Patrol really ran it through their 'field testing'. TheM-16 was purchased solely on the 'word' of Colt. Jets are tested, missles are tested and so-on. The M-16 could've been tested in the Okeefenokee (sp), for that matter. I think, our military was too easily impressed by a sales pitch.
Chuck
Chuck
QuoteEvery war is a testing ground for equipment, new and old.
Yes and no.
Yes, battle ground testing is the extreme.
No, battle ground testing CAN be simulated quite easily prior to release.
The case for the AR15/M16 was that simulated battle ground testing was glossed over and incomplete. It's inexcusable how that turned out.
QuoteMany things happen in widespread field use that cannot be envisioned or tested in advance by the creators.
I would argue the use of the word "many" in that proper testing could, and should, capture all the important things. If those things are not captured it's a failing of the testing entities.
Yes, a test program might not catch the problem of Joe Blow sticking his rifle in the microwave to warm it up but....WTH?
In the case of the AR15/M16, it seems pretty negligent to release a weapon to the battle field not knowing that normal use would cause it to jam....just to mention one problem.
Our guys paid for those mistakes.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
JohnRich 4
All military firearms go through a torture test to prove that they are fit for battlefield service.
With the M16, the Army told the soldiers that the rifle didn't need to be cleaned regularly, which was true if the ammo was loaded with the powder for which Stoner, the designer, had created it for. But then the Army went and changed the powder used in the cartridges, and that new powder left a residue behind, which built up over time and caused cases to stick in the chamber and fail to extract. So the fault was not with the designer, but with the Army itself.
With the M16, the Army told the soldiers that the rifle didn't need to be cleaned regularly, which was true if the ammo was loaded with the powder for which Stoner, the designer, had created it for. But then the Army went and changed the powder used in the cartridges, and that new powder left a residue behind, which built up over time and caused cases to stick in the chamber and fail to extract. So the fault was not with the designer, but with the Army itself.
Right along similar lines of what the Viet Nam grunts were thinking about the first shipments of the M16....
"I'm not sure I want my ass to depend on a weapon that's going to jam if you look at it wrong....for your asses sake, keep it clean even if you're in the middle of a rice paddy."
I heard for years that the Viet Nam War was really a testing ground for new weapons the military had come-out with. I never have found truth in that.
Chuck