John Pierce on the BBC News

[UK Observer]

John Pierce appeared on the main British Broadcasting Corporation news programme – News 24 – this evening talking about the weapon used in Newtown. He was asked by the anchor whether it was a good idea for civilians to have access to ‘high-calibre weapons that repeatedly fire off bullets .... [like] the military style weapon that Adam Lanza used’. John correctly pointed out that there were erroneous assumptions in this question, but I thought that what he then said was very misleading.

John said ‘the gun that he used was not a high calibre gun, it was 22 calibre gun. And it was not a military-style weapon it was simply a semi automatic twenty two. ... Fully automatic ... real assault weapons have been heavily regulated in this country since 1934 .... What it [the Clinton legislation] did was ban cosmetic features on common, semi-automatic sporting firearms’.

Many British viewers would be very familiar with the kinds of .22 rifles used for pest control by farmers here, but I wonder if John’s words will have rather pulled the wool over their eyes by putting the AR-15 in this same category. Perhaps some of the experts on the forum can help a novice like me understand by answering a few questions.

1. Is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 actually .223 and not .22?
2. Isn’t .223 better known to Europeans as 5.56 mm, under STANAG 4172 the calibre of one of the standard NATO cartridges?
3. Does not the combination of high velocity and yawing on impact make this a destructive round?
4. Is the AR-15 as manufactured by Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Colt, RRA, Stag, etcetera actually a (semi-automatic) civilian version of the military 5.56mm M-16?
5. Are not some current US military rifles, such as the M16A2 and M16A3, also produced in 5.56mm rather than say the 7.62 calibre of the M14 (so that any implication that ‘real’ assault rifles are necessarily of the heavier calibre is incorrect)?
6. Although the AR-15 sear/trigger mechanism is different from the M16 automatic mechanism, is it not the case that a drop in ‘lightening link’ can be purchased, which though illegal will convert the weapon to fully automatic mode?
7. Was the BBC anchor right when he suggested that even in semi-automatic mode Lanza got off more than 100 rounds?

If the answer to most of these questions is ‘yes’, then I think John owes his British viewers an apology. I like guns but I have my doubts about nut jobs running around with AR-15s. Most of all I don’t like BS – John must think us Brits will swallow any old flannel.

 

[motoxmann]

the bushmaster ar-15 as well as a majority of other AR-type rifles are available in .223 AND .22(LR). Whether the one used in Newtown CT was a .223 or a .22LR is really a big unknown. I have heard the reports over and over and over, and I have not heard anyone mention the actual caliber/ammunition that specific gun used. personally I think it was a 22LR, NOT a .223/5.56-NATO

another thing to note: nearly ALL of the initial reports on Newtown, sourced from multiple first-responders of all varying types, stated the shooter was carrying and used 2 handguns, and that a semi-automatic rifle was found in the car he drove to the school. This story was repeated over and over by first responders, and second responders, and investigators, and various other people. It wasn't until 24 hours later that reports came out stating the shooter used an "assault rifle" on all of his victims, and that he had 2 pistols on him but only used 1 of them to take his own life.

sounds extremely suspicious to me.

 

[UK Observer]

the bushmaster ar-15 as well as a majority of other AR-type rifles are available in .223 AND .22(LR). Whether the one used in Newtown CT was a .223 or a .22LR is really a big unknown. I have heard the reports over and over and over, and I have not heard anyone mention the actual caliber/ammunition that specific gun used. personally I think it was a 22LR, NOT a .223/5.56-NATO

.

Well dear experts, my information as a novice is that the .22 (LR) version would generally be an AR-15 fitted with a conversion kit. In fact a similar arrangement is used with military rifles such as our British SA80. I do not know about the AR-15, but with the SA80 the conversion limits the magazine capacity, and is intended primarily to allow practice use on .22 ranges. I haven't seen any reports that the Newtown weapon was converted and the rate of fire makes me doubtful that this was the case. Indeed, later in his BBC interview John Pierce himself flip-flopped into talking about two twenty threes, saying this was now the most common calibre for sporting rifles sold in the US.

 

[eye95]

I sell rifles. I can assure you that [strike]assault[/strike] rifles are available new in box, as manufactured, chambered, not converted, in .22LR. We sell them all the time. They are not as popular as those chambered in 5.56/.223.

BTW, there is a significant difference in a firearm chambered for .223 and 5.56, significant enough that manufacturers warn that 5.56 rounds fired in .223 firearms could damage them enough to render them useless. They are not the same round, and firearms chambered for each are not the same firearms, although it is possible to safely fire .223 in 5.56 chambered firearms.

However, this discussion is useless. This tragedy did not happen because the [strike]assault[/strike] rifle was .22 or .223 or 5.56 or whatever or handguns were used. It happened because some evil person decided to take a lot of lives, and we chose to house our precious children in an area where we consciously left them defenseless and advertised this fact. The way to prevent such future acts of evil is to allow trained faculty and staff to be armed.

Gun control laws will never stop those bent on evil from using firearms or other destructive weapons. As a Brit, where gun control is practiced, you know how many can be killed without benefit of a firearm. Norwegians know how many can be killed in a gun-free zone with a gun. In the US, while such incidents are horribly underreported in the media, we know how many lives can be saved by the presence of a lawfully owned and carried firearm in would-be mass shootings that have been stopped almost instantaneously. You need only do a rudimentary search of this site to find information on those shootings or attempted shootings.

Unfortunately, the news focuses on successful mass shootings in gun-free zones rather than unsuccessful shootings where a carrier stopped the attack, because "if it bleeds, it leads." This ridiculous state of affairs, where our children are set up as targets of opportunity, is partly the fault of the media (and well-meaning folks like you) making it sound like the firearm is the problem, and not the person on the other side of the firearm (or the knife, as in a recent case in China).

Do a little more study and get a little more rounded in your perspective.

 

[UK Observer]

I sell rifles.

However, this discussion is useless. This tragedy did not happen because the [strike]assault[/strike] rifle was .22 or .223 or 5.56 or whatever or handguns were used. .

Thank you for your clarification that the AR-15 is widely sold as manufactured in .22 (although I think it would be interesting to quantify the % sold in this form as opposed to .223 or converted .22). I also accept your point that the original 5.56x45 model is not identical to the .223. However, I think you have drifted off topic. the issue is whether the AR-15 is a military-style rifle. On that narrow question I think it is you who might wish to do a bit of research, looking at the origins of the design with ArmaLite, and its influence on weapons such as the M16, the HK416, etcetera (but actually I get the feeling that you have the expertise to know already). I will leave you gentlemen now, but I hope that John will reflect on what I have said about the misleading nature of his comments in the BBC news interview - people do notice!

 

[skidmark]

UK Observer -

Welcome to OCDO. My guess as to what brought you here is that it is the site that John Pierce co-owns, since the site itself is dedicated (as much as one can do that) to the open carry of handguns.

As to your questions -

1. Is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 actually .223 and not .22?

You are perhaps striving to differentiate between .22LR and .223. Both are .22 caliber, the difference being primarily in the amount of powder and thus the cartridge case used.

2. Isn’t .223 better known to Europeans as 5.56 mm, under STANAG 4172 the calibre of one of the standard NATO cartridges?

No, .223 is not the same as 5.56mm. Eye95 has provided the technical details.

3. Does not the combination of high velocity and yawing on impact make this a destructive round?

If a bullet is not destructive it is not functioning properly - unless you have put it on display under glass. Please remember that the 5.56mm (which the .223 copies in most regards) was developed to meet the requirements of the Hague Convention (I was going to write more about the differences but realized that meeting the requirements of the Hague Convention is all that is needed to shut down your "destructive bullet" emotional ploy.

4. Is the AR-15 as manufactured by Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Colt, RRA, Stag, etcetera actually a (semi-automatic) civilian version of the military 5.56mm M-16?

I hope that you realize that "civilian version" applies to external cosmetics only. The internal works are similar but not the same. Again, a nice try to introduce an emotionally-based argument in order to label these as "Evillllllll Black Rifles."

5. Are not some current US military rifles, such as the M16A2 and M16A3, also produced in 5.56mm rather than say the 7.62 calibre of the M14 (so that any implication that ‘real’ assault rifles are necessarily of the heavier calibre is incorrect)?

"Assault rifle" refers to the function of the firearm, not its caliber or external appearance. This again appears to be an attempt to use an emotional argument to label these as "Evilllll Black Rifles".

6. Although the AR-15 sear/trigger mechanism is different from the M16 automatic mechanism, is it not the case that a drop in ‘lightening link’ can be purchased, which though illegal will convert the weapon to fully automatic mode?

Is it not the case that repeatedly trying to drop emotional arguments into your list of questions is unethical? OCDO has as one of the rules for participation is:
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
Suggesting that any participant on OCDO would even contemplate violating the law is loathsome. We refer to ourselvs as LAC (Law Abiding Citizens) for a reason. I cannot speak for anyone else but I take your suggestion tat someone would even attempt to violate the law as an insult.

7. Was the BBC anchor right when he suggested that even in semi-automatic mode [name redacted] got off more than 100 rounds?

I have no information about the actual number of rounds fired. Had [name redacted]* used a bolt-action rifle it is possible that he could have fired a similar number of bullets. Your own Lee-Enfield rifle can be fired by a good rifleman with only a fraction of a second needed to work the bolt and get off another round. Suggesting that the total number of rounds fired, or how rapidly they were fired, in some way makes the behavior of [name redacted] somehow worse is, again, a play for emotionalism.

Seven questions, each couched in terms designed to create a negative emotional response, and yet nobody has called for you to be murdered or your house burned down or a cyberattack against you. I guess we are different from the anti-freedom, anti-self preservation, anti-gun rights folks.

stay safe.

* - the shooter's name has been redacted because I do not wish, even in passing, to allow him to attain either fame nor notoriety. There are those who posit that persons who behave such as he did do so based on, among other things, a feeling that the world does not even know they exist. Sort of the old "any kind of attention is better than no attention at all." That notion is so often seenin chidren who act out that is is accepted, at least generally, as a maxim.

 

[Deanimator]

However, I think you have drifted off topic. the issue is whether the AR-15 is a military-style rifle. On that narrow question I think it is you who might wish to do a bit of research, looking at the origins of the design with ArmaLite, and its influence on weapons such as the M16, the HK416, etcetera (but actually I get the feeling that you have the expertise to know already). I will leave you gentlemen now, but I hope that John will reflect on what I have said about the misleading nature of his comments in the BBC news interview - people do notice!

1. What exactly IS a "military-style rifle"? Is it one that LOOKS like a military rifle? If so, does that make a Remington 700 varmint rifle a "military-style rifle" because it's virtually indistinguishable from the military M-24 and M-40 sniper rifles?
2. What relevance does the APPEARANCE of a firearm have? Does a semi-automatic Kalashnikov system rifle become NOT an "assault weapon" if you paint it pink and stencil Hello Kitty on the stock?

I think the point of the original comments being referred to was that:

1. "caliber" has an actual meaning. It's bullet/bore diameter (along with actual cartridge configuration). "High caliber" is nothing but a WORSE deception than the one you perceive here.
2. The 5.56x45mm/.223 round is so NOT "high powered" that it's unlawful to use for deer hunting in a lot of places. What imbecile thinks that a 5.56mm is MORE powerful than a .30-06? If it's NOT, doesn't that mean that anything MORE powerful ought to be banned ALSO?

Gun control advocates are as viciously dishonest as Holocaust deniers. Refuting their LIES without creating further confusion is an art form.

 

[Deanimator]

Does not the combination of high velocity and yawing on impact make this a destructive round?

Sorry, I can't believe I missed this.

Can you name a modern high velocity rifle round that does NOT yaw on impact with human flesh?

Back in the '80s, the dishonest morons at the Stockholm International "Peace" Research Institute (SIPRI) made a profoundly deceptive claim that the U.S. M193 5.56mm ball round was "cruel" and should be banned because it yawed in human flesh. This was simply too much for world renowned scientist Dr. Marvin Fackler. He published a scathing response in which he presented a detailed analysis of the wounding properties of the 7.62x51mm ball ammunition in use at the time by the Swedish armed forces in their version of the German G-3 rifle. In fact, the Swedish 7.62mm round not only yawed in human flesh, it did so MUCH more consistently and repeatably than 5.56mm M193. Needless to say, the bigger, heavier bullet left an even more devastating permanent wound cavity. Strangely, after that rebuttal was published, SIPRI shut their collective lingonberry holes on the subject, never to raise it again. Gun control advocates are intellectually and morally indistinguishable from Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel.

Having established that virtually ALL "high velocity" rifle bullets act in a similar fashion, is it your contention that VELOCITY should be considered as a factor in banning ammunition? I personally have components for the assembly of literally THOUSANDS of rounds of rifle ammunition. Do you have some way of knowing how much IMR4350 or IMR4895 I put into any given cartridge?

How exactly will you control THAT without simply banning all modern rifles? Is it your contention that only relatively low velocity rifle ammunition such as the .32-20, .38-40 and .44-40 be permitted? How about the .45-70 and .50-70? Do you think somebody shot in the head with an M1886 Winchester lever action is ANY less dead than somebody shot with an AR15?

 

[UK Observer]

Final bite! My responses below

UK Observer -

Welcome to OCDO. My guess as to what brought you here is that it is the site that John Pierce co-owns, since the site itself is dedicated (as much as one can do that) to the open carry of handguns.

[Thank you for your hospitality. What brought me here was that John was identified by the caption on the news item as being 'from Opencarry.org'. I felt strongly enough about what I considered to be the misleading nature of hsi comments to register and post here.]

As to your questions -

1. Is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 actually .223 and not .22?

You are perhaps striving to differentiate between .22LR and .223. Both are .22 caliber, the difference being primarily in the amount of powder and thus the cartridge case used.

No, I am simply questioning the information in the direct quotation from John in the OP. Other terms such as 'real assault rifle' and 'military-style' also come from this quote and are not my invention.

2. Isn’t .223 better known to Europeans as 5.56 mm, under STANAG 4172 the calibre of one of the standard NATO cartridges?

No, .223 is not the same as 5.56mm. Eye95 has provided the technical details.

[Here I concede that I did not capture the full nuances of difference, but perhaps somebody should tell Bushmaster so that they do not engage in misleading advertising (they specify NATO 5.56/.223 Rem):

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/XM-15.asp

I'm not sure which variant the shooter had, but this is the shorter version of the AR-15. The same info can be found on the pages for other models. I thought Eye95 was talking about the chambering and cartridge rather than the calibre. The bullet diameter and barrel calibre for both is the same.]

3. Does not the combination of high velocity and yawing on impact make this a destructive round?

If a bullet is not destructive it is not functioning properly - unless you have put it on display under glass. Please remember that the 5.56mm (which the .223 copies in most regards) was developed to meet the requirements of the Hague Convention (I was going to write more about the differences but realized that meeting the requirements of the Hague Convention is all that is needed to shut down your "destructive bullet" emotional ploy.

[The morale is that from the point of view of the children involved they might just as well have been shot by an M16].

4. Is the AR-15 as manufactured by Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Colt, RRA, Stag, etcetera actually a (semi-automatic) civilian version of the military 5.56mm M-16?

I hope that you realize that "civilian version" applies to external cosmetics only. The internal works are similar but not the same. Again, a nice try to introduce an emotionally-based argument in order to label these as "Evillllllll Black Rifles."

[The word you were searching for was 'yes'.]

5. Are not some current US military rifles, such as the M16A2 and M16A3, also produced in 5.56mm rather than say the 7.62 calibre of the M14 (so that any implication that ‘real’ assault rifles are necessarily of the heavier calibre is incorrect)?

"Assault rifle" refers to the function of the firearm, not its caliber or external appearance. This again appears to be an attempt to use an emotional argument to label these as "Evilllll Black Rifles".

[Again the answer is 'yes'. Incidentally I have never heard the term (EBR) you use and it wouldn't be my choice of language.]

6. Although the AR-15 sear/trigger mechanism is different from the M16 automatic mechanism, is it not the case that a drop in ‘lightening link’ can be purchased, which though illegal will convert the weapon to fully automatic mode?

Is it not the case that repeatedly trying to drop emotional arguments into your list of questions is unethical? OCDO has as one of the rules for participation is:
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
Suggesting that any participant on OCDO would even contemplate violating the law is loathsome. We refer to ourselvs as LAC (Law Abiding Citizens) for a reason. I cannot speak for anyone else but I take your suggestion tat someone would even attempt to violate the law as an insult.

[People who break one law may very well violate another. I would hold open the possibility that a person planning mass murder might very well opt to maximise the killing power of his/her chosen weapon, and the question then arises: is that possible? If you regard that as an insult then you have thin skin.]

7. Was the BBC anchor right when he suggested that even in semi-automatic mode [name redacted] got off more than 100 rounds?

I have no information about the actual number of rounds fired. Had [name redacted]* used a bolt-action rifle it is possible that he could have fired a similar number of bullets. Your own Lee-Enfield rifle can be fired by a good rifleman with only a fraction of a second needed to work the bolt and get off another round. Suggesting that the total number of rounds fired, or how rapidly they were fired, in some way makes the behavior of [name redacted] somehow worse is, again, a play for emotionalism.

[About four months after the Dunblane school massacre (which led to the UK anti-gun legislation) a mentally-disturbed individual forced his way into a primary school and attacked staff and the children with a machete. He caused severe injuries to seven people but was overpowered before he killed anybody. Technology does matter.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverhampton_machete_attack

Seven questions, each couched in terms designed to create a negative emotional response, and yet nobody has called for you to be murdered or your house burned down or a cyberattack against you. I guess we are different from the anti-freedom, anti-self preservation, anti-gun rights folks.

stay safe.

[And, of course, you wouldn't want anybody to worry that people would behave that way as a result of an internet discussion, would you?]

* - the shooter's name has been redacted because I do not wish, even in passing, to allow him to attain either fame nor notoriety. There are those who posit that persons who behave such as he did do so based on, among other things, a feeling that the world does not even know they exist. Sort of the old "any kind of attention is better than no attention at all." That notion is so often seen in children who act out that is is accepted, at least generally, as a maxim.

[I concur with the sentiment that an individual like this does not deserve to have his name remembered: it isn't going to stick in my mind long. In fact, I am not anti-gun in general, but just like a bit of honesty.]

 

[eye95]

"Military style," like "assault rifle" or "tactical-looking rifle" (the term preferred by the folks for whom I work), are terms of art, used to redefine an item, making it sound more evil than it possibly can be. Some of the things that cause it to be considered such by the inventors of these terms of art are: black color, rails for mounting scopes ( as though scopes only have a military purpose), detachable magazines (like *gasp* almost all pistols), and other such nonsensical features.

While some folks do hunt with them, that is not the only justification for ownership. The reason behind the 2A is to ensure that every able-bodied American is armed with one or more weapons that, while they are not military weapons (and ARs, not being automatic, are NOT), they could be used as such in a pinch for defense of self, community, and State.

You should know this as the idea comes from English law, even though your great Kingdom has abandoned this idea in favor of an armed elite being solely responsible for defending the People, who have been tragically and immorally rendered defenseless.

Infantilizing the People like this strips them of their humanity, their responsibility, their autonomy, and their very humanity.

I never owned an AR in my life. However, when I see my government trying to disarm and infantilize me, I suddenly feel the need to own one, if for no other reason than to defend myself from a government quickly becoming as oppressive as the one we threw off! As of three days ago, I now own one.

Watch Suzanna Gratia Hupp remind Congress of the real reason behind the 2A. It is an eye-opener!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Aknazer]

John Pierce appeared on the main British Broadcasting Corporation news programme – News 24 – this evening talking about the weapon used in Newtown. He was asked by the anchor whether it was a good idea for civilians to have access to ‘high-calibre weapons that repeatedly fire off bullets .... [like] the military style weapon that Adam Lanza used’. John correctly pointed out that there were erroneous assumptions in this question, but I thought that what he then said was very misleading.

John said ‘the gun that he used was not a high calibre gun, it was 22 calibre gun. And it was not a military-style weapon it was simply a semi automatic twenty two. ... Fully automatic ... real assault weapons have been heavily regulated in this country since 1934 .... What it [the Clinton legislation] did was ban cosmetic features on common, semi-automatic sporting firearms’.

Many British viewers would be very familiar with the kinds of .22 rifles used for pest control by farmers here, but I wonder if John’s words will have rather pulled the wool over their eyes by putting the AR-15 in this same category. Perhaps some of the experts on the forum can help a novice like me understand by answering a few questions.

1. Is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 actually .223 and not .22?
2. Isn’t .223 better known to Europeans as 5.56 mm, under STANAG 4172 the calibre of one of the standard NATO cartridges?
3. Does not the combination of high velocity and yawing on impact make this a destructive round?
4. Is the AR-15 as manufactured by Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Colt, RRA, Stag, etcetera actually a (semi-automatic) civilian version of the military 5.56mm M-16?
5. Are not some current US military rifles, such as the M16A2 and M16A3, also produced in 5.56mm rather than say the 7.62 calibre of the M14 (so that any implication that ‘real’ assault rifles are necessarily of the heavier calibre is incorrect)?
6. Although the AR-15 sear/trigger mechanism is different from the M16 automatic mechanism, is it not the case that a drop in ‘lightening link’ can be purchased, which though illegal will convert the weapon to fully automatic mode?
7. Was the BBC anchor right when he suggested that even in semi-automatic mode Lanza got off more than 100 rounds?

If the answer to most of these questions is ‘yes’, then I think John owes his British viewers an apology. I like guns but I have my doubts about nut jobs running around with AR-15s. Most of all I don’t like BS – John must think us Brits will swallow any old flannel.

1. Depends, though the caliber only measures the bullet diameter and as such a .223 is only .003 larger than the .22 and as such could easily be called a ".22" due to rounding. Just as how the .308 caliber has a bullet that is roughly the same size as as an AK (the .308 is 7.62x51 compared to the 7.62x39 of an AK or a .380 vs 9mm round. So the main difference is the length of the cartridge as opposed to a difference in caliber)
2. As pointed out, no. There are differences between .223 and 5.56 though many people do get them confused and don't know that there's a difference.
3. If it was so destructive then why can't I hunt deer or larger animals with it in most states? And no what makes it so destructive is you're putting a piece of metal through flesh at a high rate of speed. But the round itself is on the LOW end of destructive power and effective range. It's been a complaint of those using it in Iraq/Afghanistan how it doesn't have the range to engage their targets
4. Your point here? Nearly all weapon designs were used at some point by the military, assuming they aren't still being used. What you consider a "hunting" rifle design is also a quite common design for military sniper rifles. Being a "civilian version" means there's changes to it compared to the military version even if they "look" similar.
5. You're missing what an "assault rifle" is. It is a weapon that has a select-fire feature. Select-fire is the ability to choose between semi-auto and another mode (either burst or full auto). Caliber doesn't matter, only the presence of the "select-fire" option does...something that the weapon used in the shooting did NOT have.
6. While one who has the tools might be able to do something like this (create their own parts), generally speaking no that isn't possible. The civilian versions of the guns have modifications from the factory to help prevent such actions from being done.
7. Your point? One can do that with almost any magazine/clip-fed gun. Hell, with enough time you can do that with ANY gun.

So I see 4 "No" answers, 1 "confusing/misleading" answer, and 2 "yes" answers. And with the two "yes" answers they are still so vague/genaric/misleading that they could be applied to ANY weapon and aren't limited to just the weapon in question.

 

[cloudcroft]

Just a personal anecdote (only remotely-related to the BBC query discussed above):

When I was in the RVN, I used my "military style" M-16 like a "civilian style" AR: ONLY in semi-auto, NEVER in full-auto (I preferred to hit my target vs. Spray & Pray, which was the routine American response to incoming at the time (and the ARVN did the same thing) -- still is I believe). So if MY personal M-16 didn't even HAVE full-auto capacity, I would never have missed it. Even in a combat zone, which I was in & out there in the bush (boonies) for a full 14 months (no leave or R&R). Then I went back to The World.

If I ever needed full-auto for a particular mission I was part of, I would leave the M-16 and carry the M-60 (I ALWAYS was the guy who carried the M-60 on patrols/night ambushes, AND the ammo -- 1000 rounds worth).

Whatever, I found semi-auto VERY efficient, even in the most serious testing environment one can find -- combat.

But again, that's probably just me...

P.S. Don't even have an AR anymore (sold it YEARS ago)...but since I believe (and recommend) that EVERYONE should have at least one "repel boarders" semi-auto rifle/carbine on hand for home & hearth defense, I chose a nice SKS (7.62x39): One 10-round fixed magazine, semi-auto only (just like a civilian AR of course). Bayonet use is optional. It'll do fine.

 

[Aknazer]

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).

 

[mohawk001]

Perhaps I'm reading some of the statements incorrectly, but it appears to me that most people believe that the military all uses full auto weapons. The fact is, most people will not use them as their main weapon in the US military. That is, unless there is a new one since I retired in 08 that is full auto and is also the common issue weapon. The M16A2 for example had a 3 round burst, but that is still not full auto. Yes, there were some versions that were still full auto that were for the special units, but it was not the common issue weapon. Full auto is a waste of ammo for most people and for those who have fired on full auto they can tell you it is also normally harder to stay on target.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've seen the term "high caliber" tossed around a lot lately in the wake of this tragedy in reference to the weapons used. I've been reading about and shooting guns for several years now, and frankly have never heard this term before this past week. Frankly, I'm not really sure what it means in the context in which it's being used.

It can't be talking about the bullet diameter(the usual definition of caliber) because, as John Pierce so rightly points out the .223/5.56 bullet is essentially the same size as the .22LR bullet, the most common round in the world the last I heard.

Is it perhaps referring to muzzle energies? A .223 Remington round is a good bit more powerful than a typical handgun(~2-3x a typical 9mm). The 5.56 Nato round is a little bit more powerful. Even so, either of these rounds is a good bit less powerful than something like a .30-06 Springfield or a .270 Winchester, both of which are ubiquitous deer hunting rounds in North America. Even a 30-30 Winchester, a common hunting round in the past that some now consider to be underpowered, packs a fair bit more punch than either a .223 or 5.56.

In fact, doesn't an "assault rifle", by definition, fire a cartridge which is intermediate in power between a handgun and a true rifle? Of course, the other part of that definition requires a select-fire weapon, which of course few people legally own now, so I guess that doesn't really count.

 

[ncwabbit]

Skidmark, well done kudos...

wabbit

ps: uk observer - Mate, stick around the forum for a bit and learn how the yanks discuss things...

pss: uk observer - how did the Bird incident work out since he was properly rightly licenced by the Cumbria Police??
(The taxi driver killed 12 people and wounded 11 others on 2 June, before shooting himself. ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11668697

 

[UK Observer]

Skidmark, well done kudos...

wabbit

ps: uk observer - Mate, stick around the forum for a bit and learn how the yanks discuss things...

pss: uk observer - how did the Bird incident work out since he was properly rightly licenced by the Cumbria Police??
(The taxi driver killed 12 people and wounded 11 others on 2 June, before shooting himself. ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11668697

Eye95’s comments prompted me to read through a few things on the Bushmaster website and forums, which raised one or two additional questions. From other sources on the web it appears that the shooter’s weapon was the Bushmaster Patrolman M4 carbine, with a calibre advertised by the manufacturer as NATO 5.56/.223 Rem (as per the link I posted above). This gun is said to be compatible with most standard AR-15 parts, and can accept all AR15/M16 type STANAG magazines. In light of our discussions above and the answers provided to my questions:

1. Why is the lower receiver of this weapon stamped 5.56 and .223, and why does the Bushmaster manual state that the weapon can fire both?
http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/49570-brand-new-bushmaster-ar-15-223-5-56-a.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-297830.html
http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=1535

2. Is it the case that this gun is actually chambered for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and will therefore safely cope with the .223? (see third link above).

3. Although I can see plenty of examples of AR-15s in .22LR by Colt, Smith & Wesson, DPMS, CMMG, etcetera (i.e. manufactured rather than converted) I can’t see a Bushmaster in .22LR in the current catalogue. Eye95 says he sells a lot: what is the model number?

It seems that my Q1 should have been: is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 not NATO 5.56mm rather than .22?

I do not think that I am wrong about the existence of the (illegal) drop-in auto-sear. Of course, I realise that forum members would not fit a device of this kind.

Regarding the UK Cumbria case, it is true that no law can get rid of the problem completely. The person involved did a lot of damage with his shotguns, which are still very common in the UK and obviously have many legitimate applications. I am glad he didn’t have an AR-15 though. In fact, I am undecided about whether a ban on AR-15 style weapons in the US is appropriate. I just think people should be honest about the nature of the beast and have a debate that considers things like magazine capacity and qualifications for ownership. In Germany for instance these weapons have to be modified to hold no more than three cartridges.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Eye95’s comments prompted me to read through a few things on the Bushmaster website and forums, which raised one or two additional questions. From other sources on the web it appears that the shooter’s weapon was the Bushmaster Patrolman M4 carbine, with a calibre advertised by the manufacturer as NATO 5.56/.223 Rem (as per the link I posted above). This gun is said to be compatible with most standard AR-15 parts, and can accept all AR15/M16 type STANAG magazines. In light of our discussions above and the answers provided to my questions:

1. Why is the lower receiver of this weapon stamped 5.56 and .223, and why does the Bushmaster manual state that the weapon can fire both?
http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/49570-brand-new-bushmaster-ar-15-223-5-56-a.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-297830.html
http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=1535

2. Is it the case that this gun is actually chambered for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and will therefore safely cope with the .223? (see third link above).

3. Although I can see plenty of examples of AR-15s in .22LR by Colt, Smith & Wesson, DPMS, CMMG, etcetera (i.e. manufactured rather than converted) I can’t see a Bushmaster in .22LR in the current catalogue. Eye95 says he sells a lot: what is the model number?

It seems that my Q1 should have been: is not the calibre of the Bushmaster AR-15 not NATO 5.56mm rather than .22?

I do not think that I am wrong about the existence of the (illegal) drop-in auto-sear. Of course, I realise that forum members would not fit a device of this kind.

Regarding the UK Cumbria case, it is true that no law can get rid of the problem completely. The person involved did a lot of damage with his shotguns, which are still very common in the UK and obviously have many legitimate applications. I am glad he didn’t have an AR-15 though. In fact, I am undecided about whether a ban on AR-15 style weapons in the US is appropriate. I just think people should be honest about the nature of the beast and have a debate that considers things like magazine capacity and qualifications for ownership. In Germany for instance these weapons have to be modified to hold no more than three cartridges.

1. Because the firearm is chambered in 5.56, 5.56 NATO weapons can safely fire both, however the military round fires at higher pressures, a 5.56 will chamber in a .223 rifle but if the .223 rifle isn't built for the increased pressure a military round can cause damage.

2. asked and answered
3. UK first off welcome to OCDO, it's not often we have foreign or opposite opinion visitors so thanks for coming and talking to us. second off, I think you're hair splitting over the .223 to .22LR distinction. I didn't see the interview, but it doesn't appear from what you're saying that Pierce ever alleged that the weapon was chambered in .22 long rifle, only that the bullet itself was .22 caliber. using the term caliber as a measurement of the diameter of the round itself, it is correct usage to say a .223 round fires a slug that measures .22 caliber. I don't know how familiar the average Briton is with firearms, but most firearm owners in the US would accept the use of .22 to explain the size of a .223 bullet. maybe he should've said "this bullet is comparable in size to the round fired by a .22 lr" or something like that, but it is not intentional deception of the British public, at least I don't think it is, but i can't speak for Mr. Pierce obviously.

4. auto-sears are illegal to sell in the united states unless registered with the ATF prior to 1986. if you own an auto sear AND a rifle it will fit, you have a machine gun under US federal law even if the sear is not installed. this is 26 USC 53. yes sears are out there and can be machined customely by someone with shop tools (i mean a machine shop, not just a set of wrenches) but it would be like saying anyone can manufacture a machine gun and use it in britain. i've never seen or heard of anyone who has an unregistered auto sear, never seen them for sale, never seen one used, never ever. they're probably not all that common.

Mag capacity is something i don't buy. even with our previous AWB the limit was ten shots. well it only takes 2 seconds to change a mag. i doubt it'd make a difference.
even in Canada the limit is 10 rounds, and all they do with AR mags is drive a pin in that mag that blocks the plate in the mag from moving further then the 10 rd mark. minimal tools can break the pin out no problem.

As far as three rounds, that would be far too little for the competitions I compete in. and would be useless. Germany has low crime, not because of their gun control laws but because of other factors. people on both sides like to point to different places with high and low crime rates and claim gun laws are the reason. for every place you can point too with low crime and strict gun laws, i can find a low crime with loose gun laws and vice versa. gun laws make no real impact in crime either way.

 

[eye95]

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>

 

[motoxmann]

side thought:
so much talk about civilian designated rifles being designed around military type weapons. isnt that a GOOD thing?? when you want to improve a design, make multiple versions, get it tested in mass volumes, record flaws and successes, and make a final design based around these gathered facts. isn't that the standard concept of prototyping? and design & research? hell, I personally am happy my weapons are derived from military issue weapons, it means I can trust my weapons to be reliable and accurate. I'm not gonna buy a gun some random person made in their basement without ever testing it, that'd be suicide.
it does NOT however give the excuse to call a civilian rifle a "military style" rifle in such a negative fashion!

look at it this way: car manufacturers. how do they create new designs? they put them in their race cars. if it proves successful, they implement the design into their standard production cars. IE: my father's ford pickup has a pushrod v8 with fuel injectors and high energy ignition. it is controlled by a computer, and burns petroleum based gasoline. ford racecars use this exact same design. does that make my dad's pickup truck a "race style automobile"? heck, even my mom's caravan uses technology originally tested and frequently used in the professional racing industry.

some military guns fire 5.56 nato rounds, and my friend's civilian AR-15 fires 5.56 nato rounds, so that makes my friend's gun a military style?
nascar cars use sparkplugs, and my jeep uses sparkplugs, so that makes my jeep comparable to nascar cars?

my 3" swiss army knife is constructed of stainless steel blades. military bayonets used to be made of mild steel (not sure what they're constructed of currently). stainless steel is stronger than mild steel. does that mean my 3" swiss army knife is military bayonet style? does it mean my swiss army knife is as deadly or MORE deadly than a military bayonet? by common logic strictly of the construction, yes. but common sense obviously says no, and knowledge of the other characteristics obviously make it a big no.

differences are differences, no matter what the differences are. if it's not identical or near identical, it is not relatable. even an exact replica is not the same as an original.

then theres the concept of pellet guns and bb guns. there are thousands of versions of these that cosmetically look 100% identical to the highly illegal real guns they were replicated from. does that mean they are just as deadly or just as likely to be used in an illegal violent crime as its real version? or as effective as the real version?