John Pierce on the BBC News

[motoxmann]

On the issue of high-capacity magazines being somehow more lethal, I would refer you to the Aurora shooting and urge you to compare it to the Luby's shooting. Again, the Gratia-Hupp testimony will be informative on this point.

And, while watching that video, listen to Ms. Gratia-Hupp explain the real point behind the 2A.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

^broken link, vid doesn't play on a computer, only on phones. here's a link that does work:
http://www.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk

and another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

 

[Deanimator]

If the AR-15 should be banned because it's "based on" the M-16, then just about EVERY popular bolt action hunting rifle should be banned because most of them are based on the Mauser action.

Mauser didn't design their actions for hunting. Their bolt action hunting rifles were as much of an afterthought as the Remington R15.

 

[skidmark]

Final bite! My responses below ....

Analysis:

Picking at the details is not, from my perspective, under consideration. I can't tell if that is so because you are still ignorant enough that the details are still meaningless or if the details get in the way of your argument.

I tend towards the latter.

#########################

Oh and skidmark, given that we're already talking about a person who broke MULTIPLE laws in order to commit this act, I don't see the problem in talking about the "drop in auto sear" comment. Especially since it's not even a viable option for most people and there's legal ways to replicate full-auto fire out there (like bump stocks).

The problem with the comment was that it was not directed towards or about the shooter in Connecticut, It was a generalization that "any of us" or possibly only "some of us" would do so. For the most part OCDO is populated by Law Abiding Citizens (I have not run a background check on each and every member) and therefore the suggestion was an affront if not an insult. In the normal course of things it would not be dignified with a response but UK Observer appears to be bound and determined to find fault with what he sees as the laxity of American gun laws.

If anything the discussion should be about how society as a whole let down the individual, his family, and his community as a whole. The two biggest excuses I read and hear are "It's not my job" and "I don't want to appear to be intetrferring". I am by no means suggesting that we implement blockFeuhurs bt lamenting that we no longer see oursels as our brothers' keepers. http://www.answers.com/topic/am-i-my-brother-s-keeper

BTW - bump firing simulates full auto fire. Those pesky words do insist on meaning something, don't they?

stay safe.

 

[Greg Bradburn]

Maybe this will help:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

 

[UK Observer]

Maybe this will help:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

Thanks for interesting video, which I viewed. I thought the argument would have been more convincing if the officer had laid out an military M16 or M4, a semi-automatic Bushmaster Patrolman M4 (as used in the school shootings), and a semi automatic 22LR hunting rifle. Instead he picked an AK-47 as his assault rifle example.

As a couple of ex-service men have said on this thread, if a military M4/ M16 is switched to semi-auto, which would be their preferred mode of use, then it isn't very different from the civilian M4/AR-15. The claim that the M16/M4 and Bushmaster M4 are cosmetically similar, but completely different weapons inside is plain BS. I wonder what the owners of the patents (Colt?) would think of that argument! This is true in spades if one argues that the Bushmaster M4 is really more similar to a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a different patented design. Yes, there are differences between the civilian AR15 and M16 in the trigger/sears mechanism and the moulding that will receive these parts, but if you took the top cover off the auto and semi-auto AR-15 design weapons (as the officer in the video did with the two semi-automatic weapons) they look pretty much the same. As I have said, the Bushmaster can work in full auto with an illegal trigger mechanism modification. They both fire NATO 5.56 ammunition, with the more powerful charge in the cartridge and what that means. Yes, I know you can buy more powerful hunting rifles. But if people like John are going to say the murder weapon is just a common .22 sporting rifle, it is fair for somebody like me to point out that a common .22 rimfire firing gun doesn't have the killing power of the NATO 5.56mm round. I really think that it is a mistake to base the argument for keeping AR-15s legal on this dishonest foundation and better to make the case that a 5.56mm service-style weapon in the hands of a properly-vetted person, with appropriate modifications is allowable.

I realise that we are not going to agree but have enjoyed my discussion with forum members. Merry Christmas to all.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

(snip)..For the most part OCDO is populated by Law Abiding Citizens (I have not run a background check on each and every member)...(snip)

But you have on some of us?

 

[ncwabbit]

But you have on some of us?

probably but believe he won't tell anybody what he found in our backgrounds or where we actually live...

wabbit

 

[FreeInAZ]

@ UK Observer.

Maybe this video will help frame the whole "Assault Weapons" gibberish for you. Sadly, many equate guns to violence. If this were truly the case would not the UK be one of the most peaceful places on earth???

[video=youtube;evEg1VNfX3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=evEg1VNfX3o[/video]

 

[LkWd_Don]

Something continues to gnaw at me with the whole argument of AR15 derived from the Military M16 as I recall that the M16 had been derived from the AR15.

I went looking for the Armalite History of the AR15 that I recall reading many years ago and could not find it. I have found many sites that do list how in 1952 or so, Eugene Stoner while working with the Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, was trying to come up with basically the next great Military Weapon.

From http://700rifle.com/ar-15-history-design-field-stripping.php

An early "AR" rifle was the AR-10, chambered for the 7.62mm NATO round (same as the .308 Winchester). The AR-10 was not a commercial success and was never produced in great numbers.

Later design efforts produced the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle chambered for the smaller 5.56mm round, which is essentially the same as the .223 Remington. Armalite could not persuade the US military to adopt this early AR-15 design, and so the company fell into financial difficulty.

Following this, I recall that Armalite was selling the new rifle for hunting purposes, up until:

in 1959 the patent was sold to Colt. Despite a change of ownership, the "AR" prefix stuck and, as the rifle gained fame and became a commercial success, it became known as the "Colt AR-15". (Some people believe the "AR" stands for "Automatic Rifle"... it actually stands for "Armalite").
The USAF first ordered the rifle in a select fire configuration (semi-automatic or full automatic) in the 1960s and designated this rifle as the M-16. Other service branches quickly followed suit and adopted the M-16 as their standard battle rifle.
Its distinctive appearance became well known to the public during the Viet Nam War. Over the last forty years both the civilian AR-15 and its military brother, the M-16, have continued to be refined and improved.
Patents expire after about 20 years, and the AR-15/M-16 patent, owned by Colt, did just that. Therefore, many other companies now make the AR-15 and M-16, with no loss in quality.
Current production M-16s do not have a full auto option... only a semi-auto mode and a "burst fire" mode, where three rounds are fired with each pull of the trigger.

Here is another site that indicates that the AR15 was Civilian First "In our last post, we studied how the AR-15 rifle was morphed into the M16 A1 model"
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/05/history-and-development-of-assault.html

And yet another one that implies that the AR15 was used as a Civilian Firearm before becoming a Military Assault Rifle. "Derived from the AR-15 rifle, the M-16 provides selectable firing in automatic or semi-automatic modes and has been widely issued to military forces since the 1960's"
http://www.americanspiritarms.com/m16-rifle

 

[carolina guy]

 

[MAC702]

...manufacturers warn that 5.56 rounds fired in .223 firearms could damage them enough to render them useless. ...

While I am aware of the differences between the two, I would like to read such strong warnings from a manufacturer. Can you cite this, please?

 

[Aknazer]

Thanks for interesting video, which I viewed. I thought the argument would have been more convincing if the officer had laid out an military M16 or M4, a semi-automatic Bushmaster Patrolman M4 (as used in the school shootings), and a semi automatic 22LR hunting rifle. Instead he picked an AK-47 as his assault rifle example.

As a couple of ex-service men have said on this thread, if a military M4/ M16 is switched to semi-auto, which would be their preferred mode of use, then it isn't very different from the civilian M4/AR-15. The claim that the M16/M4 and Bushmaster M4 are cosmetically similar, but completely different weapons inside is plain BS. I wonder what the owners of the patents (Colt?) would think of that argument! This is true in spades if one argues that the Bushmaster M4 is really more similar to a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a different patented design. Yes, there are differences between the civilian AR15 and M16 in the trigger/sears mechanism and the moulding that will receive these parts, but if you took the top cover off the auto and semi-auto AR-15 design weapons (as the officer in the video did with the two semi-automatic weapons) they look pretty much the same. As I have said, the Bushmaster can work in full auto with an illegal trigger mechanism modification. They both fire NATO 5.56 ammunition, with the more powerful charge in the cartridge and what that means. Yes, I know you can buy more powerful hunting rifles. But if people like John are going to say the murder weapon is just a common .22 sporting rifle, it is fair for somebody like me to point out that a common .22 rimfire firing gun doesn't have the killing power of the NATO 5.56mm round. I really think that it is a mistake to base the argument for keeping AR-15s legal on this dishonest foundation and better to make the case that a 5.56mm service-style weapon in the hands of a properly-vetted person, with appropriate modifications is allowable.

I realise that we are not going to agree but have enjoyed my discussion with forum members. Merry Christmas to all.

Here you go again bringing up the illegal trigger mod as if it's actually an option. It simply isn't realistic and if someone can do it then they are likely skilled enough to literally make their own gun. Modern guns are modified in order to not accept an simple drop-in auto sear and as such one would really have to know what they are doing to get it to work. You also apparently don't understand why people in the military would prefer semi over burst/full auto. The point of semi-auto is that you're more accurate. The point burst/full auto is to lay down suppressive fire. Which is kinda the point of an assault rifle. Makes it easier to assault an enemy position by being able to lay down suppressive fire for troops to move, but then select a more accurate shooting method when not simply suppressing the enemy.

Also the 5.56/.223 is becoming more and more common in hunting and the .22LR is responsible for far more deaths than the 5.56/.223. So your arguement that the .22LR doesn't have the "killing power" is false. It would be better to say that it isn't AS powerful, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't kill plenty of people.

 

[UK Observer]

Here you go again bringing up the illegal trigger mod as if it's actually an option. It simply isn't realistic and if someone can do it then they are likely skilled enough to literally make their own gun. Modern guns are modified in order to not accept an simple drop-in auto sear and as such one would really have to know what they are doing to get it to work. You also apparently don't understand why people in the military would prefer semi over burst/full auto. The point of semi-auto is that you're more accurate. The point burst/full auto is to lay down suppressive fire. Which is kinda the point of an assault rifle. Makes it easier to assault an enemy position by being able to lay down suppressive fire for troops to move, but then select a more accurate shooting method when not simply suppressing the enemy.

Also the 5.56/.223 is becoming more and more common in hunting and the .22LR is responsible for far more deaths than the 5.56/.223. So your arguement that the .22LR doesn't have the "killing power" is false. It would be better to say that it isn't AS powerful, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't kill plenty of people.

Well I had researched that and only post more precise info with some trepidation, and with the added note that I certainly would not advocate such modifications, and know that the forum and the members most certainly would not. The links below will however be well known to a lot of people on here and will also educate other members about the legal pre-1961 modification, which is useful general knowledge. Apart from the issue of whether these modifications exist, the links also show the spectrum of variation in internal components used in civilian AR-15s (the bolt carrier in particular) and how vulnerable some variants may be to modification. You will notice that some civilian weapons have a bolt carrier which is very close to the M16/M4 bolt carrier, which gives the lie to the sharp difference claimed in the video between semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html

If you still believe that the modification requires access to a machine ship please review the link on one of these pages to the product marketed at one time by a US company that I won't name.

Apart from trying to erect an over-sharp line between between the semi-auto and automatic variants, the officer in the video makes the mistake of equating military with fully automatic and saying this is quite different from the civilian semi-automatic. True there is selective fire on most military weapons but the position is:

M4 - semi automatic and 3-round burst
M16A2 as above
M16A4 - as above
M4A1 - full auto (mainly special forces but due to be phased in for wider use in US military in 2014).
M16A3 - fully auto (US Navy)

Don rightly said that the AR-15 came before the M-16 (certainly not news to me - it was others who said 'based on'). You can find many sources that show that ArmaLite and then Colt always aimed the AR-15 primarily for the military market, though Colt also subsequently tried civilian versions. One indication is that many early Colt AR-15s were stamped, 'Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the US Government, Caliber .223' (See Ezell. E.C. (1990) Small Arms of the World, 12th Revised Edition, pp. 744-75). That in other words was before Colt went into regular M16 production. Notice the .223 above: as we have said before, the weapon was actually chambered for NATO 5.56mm ammunition.

Regarding killing power and the destructive effect of the NATO 5.56 round, this is something that has been widely reported but it is hard to be sure. There was extensive negative publicity about the nature of the wounds suffered by enemy combatants hit by M16s in Vietnam. This was blamed on tumbling due to the slow twist rate of 5.56mm ammunition, but according to others may have been due to bullet construction and fragmentation. In any event this led the US government to classify information from these wound reports until the 1980s.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that UK people will be very familiar with the basic pest control .22 we have here but it does not carry the whack of the .223/5.56mm. That is why the British army bought a modification kit to convert the SA80 (NATO 5.56mm) to .22 so that it could be used safely on ordinary .22 target ranges.

 

[eye95]

I am becoming more and more convinced that your position is bigoted, and you will not listen to facts that interfere with your "reality."

Modifying civilian weapons is just not happening! Why not? Several reasons, grounded in reality: One, it is difficult. It requires knowledge, skill, and machinery well outside that which the ordinary person has. Two, burst/full auto are just not useful for civilian applications--even nefarious ones. Three, in close quarters, the situation in which most will use a firearm against another person, a handgun or a shotgun will be far more effective.

Why are you so focused on the firearms ability to spray, even though NO ONE is doing that? The same reason most antis put forth their arguments: emotional value; it's scary, even though in a room to room situation, from a rational POV, a semi-auto rifle (the legal, untaxed civilian kind, the kind that exist in reality) are far more effective, semi-auto handguns would be even more so, and semi-auto shotguns would be the most so.

There is no good reason to ban semi-auto rifles, so you rely on emotion, specifically fear, rather than ration, to try to convince the most rational group of people to whom I have ever talked of an idea that is completely irrational: that semi-autos are being modified in a way that anyone who has ever fired one knows is less effective, except in very specific situations in which bad guys just don't put themselves.

Seriously, watch the Suzana Gratia-Hupp video. She talks of the very reason that law-abiding citizens should very definitely be allowed to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.

Oh, and there is one more reason: because it is a right, enshrined in the Constitution. Should we Americans decide that it no longer should be a right, legislation is not the way to change it; an amendment to the Constitution is. Remember, though, the reason that Right is so enshrined: because the king of your country at that time, in an effort to suppress a People of whom he wanted to take advantage, launched several efforts to disarm those People. As Suzana Gratia-Hupp pointed out, the main reason for the Right is that we, the People, may yet again have to throw off tyrants.

One of the first things tyrants try to do is to take away the means with which they can be stopped.

WE are the authority in a true Republic, not the political leaders. They should serve at OUR pleasure and act on OUR desires, as long as those desires to not interfere with the rights of others.

So, if you wish to live as a subject, stay where you are and encourage your system to continue to disempower the individual. Americans in general want to be self-reliant citizens of a political entity with a minimalist government. Expand your narrow POV to include ours when you are discussing OUR nation and OUR rights.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye you touched on something I will expand upon slightly, many countries they are subjects, we here are supposed to be free men.

 

[Aknazer]

Well I had researched that and only post more precise info with some trepidation, and with the added note that I certainly would not advocate such modifications, and know that the forum and the members most certainly would not. The links below will however be well known to a lot of people on here and will also educate other members about the legal pre-1961 modification, which is useful general knowledge. Apart from the issue of whether these modifications exist, the links also show the spectrum of variation in internal components used in civilian AR-15s (the bolt carrier in particular) and how vulnerable some variants may be to modification. You will notice that some civilian weapons have a bolt carrier which is very close to the M16/M4 bolt carrier, which gives the lie to the sharp difference claimed in the video between semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html

If you still believe that the modification requires access to a machine ship please review the link on one of these pages to the product marketed at one time by a US company that I won't name.

Apart from trying to erect an over-sharp line between between the semi-auto and automatic variants, the officer in the video makes the mistake of equating military with fully automatic and saying this is quite different from the civilian semi-automatic. True there is selective fire on most military weapons but the position is:

M4 - semi automatic and 3-round burst
M16A2 as above
M16A4 - as above
M4A1 - full auto (mainly special forces but due to be phased in for wider use in US military in 2014).
M16A3 - fully auto (US Navy)

Don rightly said that the AR-15 came before the M-16 (certainly not news to me - it was others who said 'based on'). You can find many sources that show that ArmaLite and then Colt always aimed the AR-15 primarily for the military market, though Colt also subsequently tried civilian versions. One indication is that many early Colt AR-15s were stamped, 'Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the US Government, Caliber .223' (See Ezell. E.C. (1990) Small Arms of the World, 12th Revised Edition, pp. 744-75). That in other words was before Colt went into regular M16 production. Notice the .223 above: as we have said before, the weapon was actually chambered for NATO 5.56mm ammunition.

Regarding killing power and the destructive effect of the NATO 5.56 round, this is something that has been widely reported but it is hard to be sure. There was extensive negative publicity about the nature of the wounds suffered by enemy combatants hit by M16s in Vietnam. This was blamed on tumbling due to the slow twist rate of 5.56mm ammunition, but according to others may have been due to bullet construction and fragmentation. In any event this led the US government to classify information from these wound reports until the 1980s.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that UK people will be very familiar with the basic pest control .22 we have here but it does not carry the whack of the .223/5.56mm. That is why the British army bought a modification kit to convert the SA80 (NATO 5.56mm) to .22 so that it could be used safely on ordinary .22 target ranges.

I challenge you to go and reread the the pages you posted about the full-auto features. They require older guns (i.e. ones you won't be buying new from the store), machining, AND/OR testing all to make sure that it works properly. That is NOT an "easy" thing to do and is out of the realm of probability for most civilians (even moreso for those who are likely to commit such crimes). And the fact that it isn't something easily done is also backed up by the fact that there has yet to be a mass shooting with such a modified weapon.

As for your comment about wounding, there's also been plenty of reports from Iraq and Afghanistan of "through-and-through" shots where the 5.56 failed to put down a threat because the bullet DIDN'T yaw/tumble and just passed through the threat instead. There's also the fact that Vietnam was a jungle situation and as such hitting vegitation could easily change the balistics of the round.

And the point that we're making to you is that what you are calling a ".22" is in fact a ".22LR" which is a very specific type of round. The statement that it was a ".22 caliber round" and that such rounds are "less lethal than a standard hunting round" are both true statements in regards to a .223/5.56 round. The fact that those who are ignorant to guns ASSUME that .22 caliber=.22LR is an issue for them to fix and does NOT make the original statement false or misleading.

 

[LkWd_Don]

Well I had researched that and only post more precise info with some trepidation, and with the added note that I certainly would not advocate such modifications, and know that the forum and the members most certainly would not. The links below will however be well known to a lot of people on here and will also educate other members about the legal pre-1961 modification, which is useful general knowledge. Apart from the issue of whether these modifications exist, the links also show the spectrum of variation in internal components used in civilian AR-15s (the bolt carrier in particular) and how vulnerable some variants may be to modification. You will notice that some civilian weapons have a bolt carrier which is very close to the M16/M4 bolt carrier, which gives the lie to the sharp difference claimed in the video between semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html

If you still believe that the modification requires access to a machine ship please review the link on one of these pages to the product marketed at one time by a US company that I won't name.

Apart from trying to erect an over-sharp line between between the semi-auto and automatic variants, the officer in the video makes the mistake of equating military with fully automatic and saying this is quite different from the civilian semi-automatic. True there is selective fire on most military weapons but the position is:

M4 - semi automatic and 3-round burst
M16A2 as above
M16A4 - as above
M4A1 - full auto (mainly special forces but due to be phased in for wider use in US military in 2014).
M16A3 - fully auto (US Navy)

Don rightly said that the AR-15 came before the M-16 (certainly not news to me - it was others who said 'based on'). You can find many sources that show that ArmaLite and then Colt always aimed the AR-15 primarily for the military market, though Colt also subsequently tried civilian versions. One indication is that many early Colt AR-15s were stamped, 'Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the US Government, Caliber .223' (See Ezell. E.C. (1990) Small Arms of the World, 12th Revised Edition, pp. 744-75). That in other words was before Colt went into regular M16 production. Notice the .223 above: as we have said before, the weapon was actually chambered for NATO 5.56mm ammunition.

Regarding killing power and the destructive effect of the NATO 5.56 round, this is something that has been widely reported but it is hard to be sure. There was extensive negative publicity about the nature of the wounds suffered by enemy combatants hit by M16s in Vietnam. This was blamed on tumbling due to the slow twist rate of 5.56mm ammunition, but according to others may have been due to bullet construction and fragmentation. In any event this led the US government to classify information from these wound reports until the 1980s.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that UK people will be very familiar with the basic pest control .22 we have here but it does not carry the whack of the .223/5.56mm. That is why the British army bought a modification kit to convert the SA80 (NATO 5.56mm) to .22 so that it could be used safely on ordinary .22 target ranges.

I've emphasised what in your post I am going to refer to.

First in the links you provided in oder to use those devices you either need to purchase M16 Parts such as the Hammer and Carrier/bolt group in order to use the DIAS, need to do some machine work to the Carrier/Bolt group for use with the SWD Auto Connector, and then in both cases you still have to know how to disassemble the lower beyond a normal field-strip as you have to replace trigger and selector lever. Here are a couple quotes from the DIAS "The M-16 carrier is specifically manufactured so that the lower surface of the carrier trips the sear in a specific location to ensure that the hammer is released at the correct time." "Selective fire with a DIAS is obtained due to the M-16 disconnector and selector."

I don't know much about the available supply of Military Parts on the Civilian market, but needing Military replacement parts to make the DIAS function does not make is a likely choice even for the criminal looking for an easy conversion.

Now here are a couple quotes from the SWD Auto Connector page. "The bottom carrier in the photo above, the M-16 carrier will not work with the link but I have included it on this scan so you can see how the SP-1 carrier was made by cutting down an M-16 carrier. It would be possible to make a SP-1 type carrier from a M-16 carrier or simply mill an AR-15 carrier to the proper profile." "One complaint I've ever heard about the Lightning Link is that the link converts the firearm to full auto only. This issue was solved by a clever idea that Scott Bell came up with while he was working with John Norrell in about 1990. The solution, which was worked out in a few hours one afternoon, was to use modified parts from an M16A2 fire control kit to control the mode of operation of the Lightning Link."

As you can see here, both machining and M16A2 replacement parts are needed to make a properly functioning rifle that doesn't simply fire AUTO continuously.

~~~~

Please show where the M4A1 and the M16A3 are Full Automatic Only as your post is implying?


~~~~

Yes, Eugene Stoner was hoping to invent a New Rifle that would be accepted by the Military, but neither the AR10 nor the AR15 were.. and before they sold the AR15 Patent to Colt, it was not Commercial Popular, so they fell into financial difficulty. Here is something that for whatever reason, you ignored something or twisted it into what you wanted it to say. Untill the Air Force approached Colt about buying the AR15 in a selectable semi/auto fire abiltiy, they were produced and being sold commercially as a semi-automatic sporting rifle.
http://700rifle.com/ar-15-history-design-field-stripping.php

Maybe you would care to provide a link to credible source material showing that Colts primary desire was to sell them to the Military!

~~~~

Next, did you miss in my first post, where when the AR15 was being designed, it says: "Later design efforts produced the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle chambered for the smaller 5.56mm round, which is essentially the same as the .223 Remington." Oh, wait a minute, this says both that the AR15 was designed intitially as a semi-auto rifle.. not as a Military Assualt Rifle and that the 5.56 is essentially the same as the .223 Remington. That information was contained in http://700rifle.com/ar-15-history-design-field-stripping.php and this same site also contains some information about the difference between the .223 and the 5.56. Read it for yourself.

The .223 Remington vs. the 5.56mm NATO Round
The commercial .223 Remington round and the 5.56mm NATO military round are nearly identical, but the 5.56mm case is slightly thicker and the 5.56mm develops higher chamber pressures than the .223.

So, the only difference is that the 5.56 case is thicker, which allows the crimp to hold the bullet tighter, which increases the chamber pressure before the bullet is expelled. <--- this last statement is from presonal reloading experience.

~~~~

Three more of your talking points debunked. Maybe you should study the material before you post it and study the material posted before you incorrectly comment on what was posted.

 

[LkWd_Don]

I am becoming more and more convinced that your position is bigoted, and you will not listen to facts that interfere with your "reality."

Modifying civilian weapons is just not happening! Why not? Several reasons, grounded in reality: One, it is difficult. It requires knowledge, skill, and machinery well outside that which the ordinary person has. Two, burst/full auto are just not useful for civilian applications--even nefarious ones. Three, in close quarters, the situation in which most will use a firearm against another person, a handgun or a shotgun will be far more effective.

Why are you so focused on the firearms ability to spray, even though NO ONE is doing that? The same reason most antis put forth their arguments: emotional value; it's scary, even though in a room to room situation, from a rational POV, a semi-auto rifle (the legal, untaxed civilian kind, the kind that exist in reality) are far more effective, semi-auto handguns would be even more so, and semi-auto shotguns would be the most so.

There is no good reason to ban semi-auto rifles, so you rely on emotion, specifically fear, rather than ration, to try to convince the most rational group of people to whom I have ever talked of an idea that is completely irrational: that semi-autos are being modified in a way that anyone who has ever fired one knows is less effective, except in very specific situations in which bad guys just don't put themselves.

Seriously, watch the Suzana Gratia-Hupp video. She talks of the very reason that law-abiding citizens should very definitely be allowed to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.

Oh, and there is one more reason: because it is a right, enshrined in the Constitution. Should we Americans decide that it no longer should be a right, legislation is not the way to change it; an amendment to the Constitution is. Remember, though, the reason that Right is so enshrined: because the king of your country at that time, in an effort to suppress a People of whom he wanted to take advantage, launched several efforts to disarm those People. As Suzana Gratia-Hupp pointed out, the main reason for the Right is that we, the People, may yet again have to throw off tyrants.

One of the first things tyrants try to do is to take away the means with which they can be stopped.

WE are the authority in a true Republic, not the political leaders. They should serve at OUR pleasure and act on OUR desires, as long as those desires to not interfere with the rights of others.

So, if you wish to live as a subject, stay where you are and encourage your system to continue to disempower the individual. Americans in general want to be self-reliant citizens of a political entity with a minimalist government. Expand your narrow POV to include ours when you are discussing OUR nation and OUR rights.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I would say they are trying to justify their mistaken belief that the Civilian AR15 or variant is somehow an Assault Rifle. The only traction they will get with that argument is with other Anti's and those who know nothing about firearms who will believe them.

I hope all had a Merry Christmas!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I personally want to see Mr. Pierce's interview with BBC.

if anyone knows where the video or a transcript is, I would like to see it.

 

[UK Observer]

I hope all had a Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Don!

Just to take your three points in turn. You start by highlighting the sentence where I suggest you look at an onward link from the webpage (a pdf which gives fitting instructions). Did you read it? With the older Colt featured on that sheet you would see you do not need a machine shop for the modification. It is said that large numbers of weapons were modified in this way in the 1970s and 80s. I think a lot of these parts still exist though I doubt that they are still fitted (quite illegal of course). I thought that in other answers members did make a valid counter point that some manufacturers have tried to make the bolt carrier on newer guns more different from the M16. Against this though there is a spectrum of variants, with a lot of older guns still around, and I was arguing against the claim that somebody would need to manufacture a trigger mechanism from scratch in a machine shop (like saying that somebody in the UK could make a machine gun from scratch with the right gear), when the links show that certain companies have in the past made kits that require much less work. The part of your post about the need for both machining and additional M16 parts applies only to those modifiers who want to duplicate the original selective fire switch - that isn't necessary just to use the lightening link.

On point 2, as should be evident from my previous mention of selective fire switching, I was saying the two final weapons in the list provide the other two options plus a fully auto setting. The point isn't that I am obsessed with spraying, but that, as ex-service men have said, they would not normally use the M4 on auto to suppress enemy fire because that option does not exist except on special forces variants. If the officer in the video had compared the killer's Bushmaster M4 with the standard military M4 (which some would call an assault rifle, though I know it is a carbine) he would have had to show that it only has the two way switch and the 3 shot burst wouldn't have made the point he wanted to make.

On point 3, the controversy about the M16 in Vietnam and Government's decision to classify the info are matters of record. Was it the barrel twist rate, or the construction of the round? It is hard to be sure but do an internet search and you will see there is much comment on this. You can also read Alexander Rose's (2008) 'American Rifle; a Biography', pp 372-75. You may argue that modern rifles have higher twist rates and that the NATO 5.56 round is not the Vietnam M193, but if I had to be hit I'd pick the .22LR rather than the others.

I did read your point about the history of the AR-15 but it did not make sense to me. Are you really saying that the AR-10 was scaled down to 5.56mm by ArmaLite with the civilian market in mind? All I can say is that there is a lot written that does not fit with that.

I most certainly don't say that you guys are bigots, although I do believe that the attempt to erect a hard distinction between the military M4 and the .22 sporting rifle M4 is dishonest. The argument about the right to bear arms on the other hand is honest and puts the issues fairly on the table for people to debate. In my opinion a discussion like we've had may help both sides firm up their arguments, but I suspect members will be getting bored by now so will try to desist.

P.S. My PVR recorded the interview but I am sorry to say I have since deleted this.