Slashdot Mirror

Oh yes. I also love this technical note from ArmaLite, and specifically this bit:

Some of the worst cleaning practices are found among those expected to know best how
to maintain rifles: the military. Especially in peacetime and in garrison locations, military
procedures are too often focused not on cleaning properly, but on cleaning totally. That’s
because of tradition and the sad fact that it’s hard to make a judgement call that a rifle is
cleaned and preserved well enough for reliable service. It’s easier to say that there isn’t a
speck of dirt remaining on the rifle.
The fact is that Soldiers and Marines, in some situations, tend to vastly over-clean their
rifles, despite official guidance that “white glove” clean isn’t proper.

Take a look at a .50BMG, particularly what they call the "recoil check". It takes some of the still expanding gas and redirects it backwards, reducing some of the recoil experienced by the shooter.

First point: the 1994 "ban" didn't do anything. Since there's no "core technical difference" between a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like this Remington:

http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400w d.htm

and this "AR Pattern" rifle available in one of the *weaker* calibers Remington supports on the 7400 (the 308 Nato):

http://armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10b.htm

The Remington is pictured with a 5rd magazine but 10rd that poke out of the bottom of the gun are available now and with the ban on 10+ magazines gone, they'll be available there soon.

Both guns are semi-auto, magazine fed. After midnight tonight, it will be possible to sell either with such accessories as bayonette lugs, flash dohickey on the end of the barrel, etc...none of which affect lethality.

Because the guns that "look scary" aren't technically different from those that look more "sporting" like that Remington (one of many examples I could show), back in '94 Congress banned certain "evil features" that were purely cosmetic, in an attempt to home in on the "evil looking guns" and leave the deer rifles alone.

Which made the law arbitrary and stupid, and is what's really causing it's death tonight.

Which leaves two questions:

1) Why would anybody want a "military pattern rifle" in the first place?

A: first, parts are widespread and cheap. They usually share at least some components and accessories with the full-auto military versions which are banned; as long as the parts in question don't add full-auto capability, they're legal.

Second, when rifles are engineered to be able to handle full-auto stresses and battlefield conditions via rigorous testing, they're tough as nails. Once the full-auto capability is stripped for the civilian market, they're even tougher as they don't need to cope with that. (Full-auto fire can wear out a barrel in just a few hundred shots in some cases, which is why real military machine gunners keep extra barrels with them for quick swaps.)

Why have a tough gun?

Because competitive shooters must practice a lot - practice levels beyond what hunting rifles can cope with. The vast majority of full-power rifle competition happens not with deer rifles or even high-accuracy target rifles, but with AR-pattern critters distantly related to the US military M16 family, hot-rodded for accuracy.

The Remington probably has a total lifespan of a couple thousand rounds. Less in the hotter calibers like 30-06 or 270Winchester.

AR-pattern rifle owners can sign up for a three-day class in riflework by nationally known instructors such as John Farnham, and shoot 1500 rounds in a three day weekend...and the gun will *probably* hold up. He has loaner spares just in case they don't, as that's one hell of a duty cycle...one that no "pure civilian origin" rifle could even hope to survive.

-----------

Which leaves the other, more controversial issue: the full-capacity magazines of 20 to 30 rounds, or the truly high-cap mags like the Beta-C drums of 75 - 150.

Who needs that?

Slashdotters of all people should know a critical thing: the majority isn't always right. If you thought otherwise, why don't we format all our Linux partitions and run Windoze? I mean, the market has spoken, right?

Spoken in favor of rank idiocy. "The market" is made up of the same technoturnips that try and find the "any key" when the screen says "press any key to continue".

That particular kind of idiocy is harmless. But every once in a while, the sheeple masses get violently stupid all at once. They riot in LA because of a court decision, or a bunch of morons decide to loot after a hurricane or other natural disaster.

Those are recent examples; in both, homeowners and business owners often sto

Winchester Model 1894 .30-30

Armalite AR-180B

Remington Model 700 VLS

"you're quoting fictitious websites!"

Name the website I'm quoting from which is "fictitious".

"And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!"

Name a single website I have linked to which "has never heard of...".

"Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. "

They do not currently product the AR-16, but it was designed and built. Here is the picture of the AR-16, hosted on Armalite's website, and here is the website on which you can find details of the AR-16's design down about 2/3 of the page.

"And you got the caliber wrong, its .223, not 7.62."

So you're trying to correct me on the calibre of a weapon which you claim does not exist? That's just classic. If you'll read the site I just posted from Armalite's site, you'll see the following line quoted: "The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber".

And I guess you're also admitting that you were wrong about the AKS-74. Don't worry about my facts, I check them before I post them. If you want the site with the AKS-74 info, here it is. Just goes to show that you're so confused about the facts, your conclusions can't possibly have any bearing on reality.

"Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles"."

How about we ask the manufacturer of the weapon whether it's designed as an infantry assault weapon or a hunting weapon? How about we ban automatic weapons outright, because I've never seen a hunter say, "gee, I could have brought down that deer if only I had a gun capable of firing 600 rounds per minute".

"Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon."

So then you're now claiming that since the ban on assault weapons took effect, there hasn't been another hunter in the United States? No one has been able to go hunting since 1994? Or is it maybe that the ban on assault weapons somehow managed to distinguish between them and hunting rifles?

"You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns"

I do not want to ban weapons used for personal defense or hunting. I do want to ban automatic weapons, assault rifles, RPGs, and other such devices of mass death. I absolutely believe ever person is entitled to own a handgun or a hunting rifle if they so choose. I do not think that individuals should have access to weapons which could be used to wipe out an office building full of co-wokers. You seem to think that if everyone had an assault rifle at the ready, the world would be this magically peaceful place. You think that no bullets ever go astray and that every attack can be prevented if everyone were armed to the teeth. You seem to believe that no one would fire a weapon with malicious intent. And you further seem to believe that it is your god-given right to possess and use the most deadly weapons man has ever created.

The real fact in this case is that you are unable to provide any reason why anyone would need something beyond a hunting rifle or a hand gun. You are unable to tell me why you, or anyone else needs an AR-15, an AK-74, or anything like it. You're unable to tell me where you stand on where peoples' limits should rest when it comes to their possession of 'arms'.

You continue to avoid my question regarding where the right to bear arms ends. I will quote my question once again below, and will go no further in this discussion unless and until you answer it:

"You say that arms control is unconstitutional. Now you say that som

"you're quoting fictitious websites!"

Name the website I'm quoting from which is "fictitious".

"And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!"

Name a single website I have linked to which "has never heard of...".

"Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. "

They do not currently product the AR-16, but it was designed and built. Here is the picture of the AR-16, hosted on Armalite's website, and here is the website on which you can find details of the AR-16's design down about 2/3 of the page.

"And you got the caliber wrong, its .223, not 7.62."

So you're trying to correct me on the calibre of a weapon which you claim does not exist? That's just classic. If you'll read the site I just posted from Armalite's site, you'll see the following line quoted: "The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber".

And I guess you're also admitting that you were wrong about the AKS-74. Don't worry about my facts, I check them before I post them. If you want the site with the AKS-74 info, here it is. Just goes to show that you're so confused about the facts, your conclusions can't possibly have any bearing on reality.

"Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles"."

How about we ask the manufacturer of the weapon whether it's designed as an infantry assault weapon or a hunting weapon? How about we ban automatic weapons outright, because I've never seen a hunter say, "gee, I could have brought down that deer if only I had a gun capable of firing 600 rounds per minute".

"Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon."

So then you're now claiming that since the ban on assault weapons took effect, there hasn't been another hunter in the United States? No one has been able to go hunting since 1994? Or is it maybe that the ban on assault weapons somehow managed to distinguish between them and hunting rifles?

"You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns"

I do not want to ban weapons used for personal defense or hunting. I do want to ban automatic weapons, assault rifles, RPGs, and other such devices of mass death. I absolutely believe ever person is entitled to own a handgun or a hunting rifle if they so choose. I do not think that individuals should have access to weapons which could be used to wipe out an office building full of co-wokers. You seem to think that if everyone had an assault rifle at the ready, the world would be this magically peaceful place. You think that no bullets ever go astray and that every attack can be prevented if everyone were armed to the teeth. You seem to believe that no one would fire a weapon with malicious intent. And you further seem to believe that it is your god-given right to possess and use the most deadly weapons man has ever created.

The real fact in this case is that you are unable to provide any reason why anyone would need something beyond a hunting rifle or a hand gun. You are unable to tell me why you, or anyone else needs an AR-15, an AK-74, or anything like it. You're unable to tell me where you stand on where peoples' limits should rest when it comes to their possession of 'arms'.

You continue to avoid my question regarding where the right to bear arms ends. I will quote my question once again below, and will go no further in this discussion unless and until you answer it:

"You say that arms control is unconstitutional. Now you say that som

In all seriousness, if the proverbial fecal matter strikes the air circulation apparatus, I plan to hole up at a friend's place out in semi-rural Tennessee. This dude has a gun safe you could fit 3-4 normal-sized adults, 2 average Americans, or 10-12 Ethiopians in. He can't fit all his guns in it.

Among his firearms are:

• AR-50 rifle in .50cal BMG, with a scope that looks like it belongs in an astronomical observatory. It's sighted in for 750 yards, and he can put 5 rounds in a 10" circle at that range.
• Steyr AUG-P rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Armalite AR-15 rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Carbon-15 pistol, in 5.56mm NATO
• Isreali FN-FAL variant, heavy-barrel model with bipod, in 7.62mm NATO
• Standard FN-FAL, actually an Austrian STG-58, in 7.62mm NATO.
• Makarov CZ-52 pistol in 7.62mm Tokarev - IIRC, this one's high muzzle velocity plus small-diameter round mean that, with certain brands of ammo, it can penetrate the bullet-resistant vests worn by law enforcement.
• Colt Commander, with 4-14" barrel and laser sight, in .45ACP

And his place is basically a great big hill, easily defensible :)

In all seriousness, if the proverbial fecal matter strikes the air circulation apparatus, I plan to hole up at a friend's place out in semi-rural Tennessee. This dude has a gun safe you could fit 3-4 normal-sized adults, 2 average Americans, or 10-12 Ethiopians in. He can't fit all his guns in it.

Among his firearms are:

• AR-50 rifle in .50cal BMG, with a scope that looks like it belongs in an astronomical observatory. It's sighted in for 750 yards, and he can put 5 rounds in a 10" circle at that range.
• Steyr AUG-P rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Armalite AR-15 rifle in 5.56mm NATO
• Carbon-15 pistol, in 5.56mm NATO
• Isreali FN-FAL variant, heavy-barrel model with bipod, in 7.62mm NATO
• Standard FN-FAL, actually an Austrian STG-58, in 7.62mm NATO.
• Makarov CZ-52 pistol in 7.62mm Tokarev - IIRC, this one's high muzzle velocity plus small-diameter round mean that, with certain brands of ammo, it can penetrate the bullet-resistant vests worn by law enforcement.
• Colt Commander, with 4-14" barrel and laser sight, in .45ACP

And his place is basically a great big hill, easily defensible :)

Isn't the whole idea behind pop-up ads that they would be more effective if content-related? In Quake, you would strat from small arms pop-ups, going through more powerful stuff, all the way to those lovely smart missiles pop-ups.

Then you accused the Brazilian president of corruption. I did not defend him, if anybody has some concrete evidence, it's his or her duty to present that evidence in the proper court, and let the accused defend themselves. I just mentioned that the Brazilian political system can be favourably compared to the American one, since in Brazil a corrupt president is removed from office, while in the USA a president isn't ever tried for corruption. I showed a recent example where serious evidence was presented against an American president, and he wasn't even tried. IF he had been innocent in the affair, a proper trial would have been the best way to prove his innocence.

So, my point is this: you said Latin Americans are statistically corrupt, based on a correlation you perceive between the local crime rate and the proportion of latinos in the neighbourhood where you live. I say that's bullshit.

As a footnote, I think it's curious that Brazil and USA are both justified in accusing each other of increasing violent crime in the other country. In Brazil, the drug dealers' favourite guns are American Armalite rifles. In the USA, some of the most popular handguns are Brazilian Taurus pistols and revolvers. I think the causes of crime are too complex and still too much dependent on unknown parameters to allow an easy generalization.

Therefore, according to 10 USC Section 311, only those people have the right to keep and bear arms. So why is it that anyone can buy military assault rifles through the internet?