"Assault Rifles"...an explanation

Don M.

Don M.

SF VIP
Location
central Missouri
Whenever one of these awful mass murders occurs, the call for a ban on Assault Rifles is raised. Most people don't understand the difference between these military style rifles and ordinary hunting rifles, so I thought I'd present some basic information.

A "Hunting" rifle uses a fairly heavy bullet...130 to 240 grains, that usually has a "hollow point" with a lead core. It is designed to enter the prey, quickly expand into a Mushroom shape, inflict maximum shock and damage to the internal organs, and result in a quick and humane kill. A skilled hunter can usually drop a deer where it stands, and the animal suffers minimal stress.

An "Assault" rifle...M-16, AR-15, etc.,etc. uses a lightweight, high velocity, usually 55 grains, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet. This projectile is designed more to "wound" than to kill. The military, years ago, found that "wounding" a soldier is far more effective, from a battle standpoint, than killing him. If you kill a soldier, you take One person out of the battle. However, if you Wound a soldier, you take 6 or 7 others out of the battle. The wounded soldier, with his cries and suffering, immediately "distracts" several others around him, who then try to help him, thus removing them from the battle...and there are the Medics and their resources that must then be deployed. So, from a military standpoint, a "wound" is more effective than a Kill.

This basic difference in purpose has led many States to discourage, and even ban, the use of these .223 caliber weapons for deer hunting, etc. Often the use of such a weapon/bullet results in just wounding the deer, and it can run for quite a distance before it finally collapses...and often the hunter may not even find it.

As a long time hunter and gun owner, I have never had any desire to own a military style rifle...they are almost worthless for hunting, IMO. I strongly object to any gun laws that restrict a responsible person from buying/owning a hunting rifle, shotgun, and even handgun. However, I, like most responsible gun owners, find no objection to stronger regulations that might keep weapons out of the hands of the thousands of lunatics that roam our streets every day...and can even support stronger regulations for the purchase of these military style weapons.
 

Don M. said:
Whenever one of these awful mass murders occurs, the call for a ban on Assault Rifles is raised. Most people don't understand the difference between these military style rifles and ordinary hunting rifles, so I thought I'd present some basic information.

A "Hunting" rifle uses a fairly heavy bullet...130 to 240 grains, that usually has a "hollow point" with a lead core. It is designed to enter the prey, quickly expand into a Mushroom shape, inflict maximum shock and damage to the internal organs, and result in a quick and humane kill. A skilled hunter can usually drop a deer where it stands, and the animal suffers minimal stress.

An "Assault" rifle...M-16, AR-15, etc.,etc. uses a lightweight, high velocity, usually 55 grains, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet. This projectile is designed more to "wound" than to kill. The military, years ago, found that "wounding" a soldier is far more effective, from a battle standpoint, than killing him. If you kill a soldier, you take One person out of the battle. However, if you Wound a soldier, you take 6 or 7 others out of the battle. The wounded soldier, with his cries and suffering, immediately "distracts" several others around him, who then try to help him, thus removing them from the battle...and there are the Medics and their resources that must then be deployed. So, from a military standpoint, a "wound" is more effective than a Kill.

This basic difference in purpose has led many States to discourage, and even ban, the use of these .223 caliber weapons for deer hunting, etc. Often the use of such a weapon/bullet results in just wounding the deer, and it can run for quite a distance before it finally collapses...and often the hunter may not even find it.

As a long time hunter and gun owner, I have never had any desire to own a military style rifle...they are almost worthless for hunting, IMO. I strongly object to any gun laws that restrict a responsible person from buying/owning a hunting rifle, shotgun, and even handgun. However, I, like most responsible gun owners, find no objection to stronger regulations that might keep weapons out of the hands of the thousands of lunatics that roam our streets every day...and can even support stronger regulations for the purchase of these military style weapons.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation Don. I'm not a gun owner and haven't fired anything beyond a single shot .22 that my Dad gave me as a young boy. Glad to see a rationale position on possible gun control measures from a gun owner, instead of falling back on the NRA party line. I read far too many of those arguments in letters to the editor and on Facebook, so it's nice to see a reasonable voice here.
 
It's only taken how many senseless deaths for the pro-gun and anti-gun sides to at least find one common agreement...that no civilian should be able to own a gun easily capable of wounding and killing a hundred humans in record time. But then again you know there's going to be somebody piping up against this restriction leading to that restriction. After that it snowballs into " They're coming for our guns!!!!".
 

fureverywhere said:
It's only taken how many senseless deaths for the pro-gun and anti-gun sides to at least find one common agreement...that no civilian should be able to own a gun easily capable of wounding and killing a hundred humans in record time. But then again you know there's going to be somebody piping up against this restriction leading to that restriction. After that it snowballs into " They're coming for our guns!!!!".
Click to expand...

Every time something like this happens, we see the same Knee Jerk reactions, which fade away after a few days or weeks. Any legislation that is proposed seems to do Nothing to try to identify the types of people who seem prone to this kind of violence. It seems almost Taboo to try to limit the access to firearms for those who have a history of mental instability or terrorist sympathies. It appears that Political Correctness is more important than Common Sense. Treatment for the mentally ill is almost unheard of anymore, and none of the politicians, or this bloated bureaucracy called Homeland Security, can seem to address homegrown terrorism. All Homeland Security seems able to do is make the security checkpoints at the airports a pain in the rear. Any general Gun Control limitations are Not going to do much to stop this kind of violence...this is a People problem...and should be addressed as such. While eliminating high capacity firearms would potentially make it harder for these lunatics to commit their violence, most of them would find other means to commit their mayhem...similar to the Boston Marathon tragedy. We live in a world full of nutcases, and until the authorities recognize that, we will continue to see this happening.
 
I know nothing about guns and have never even seen one ( in real life) of any kind,so that was interesting Don M.
However, why would hunters only wish to wound a deer by using that weapon?
 
oakapple said:
I know nothing about guns and have never even seen one ( in real life) of any kind,so that was interesting Don M.
However, why would hunters only wish to wound a deer by using that weapon?
Click to expand...

No Sensible hunter would ever want to "wound" a deer. That is why only a bonehead would think about using one of these assault rifles to go deer hunting. Venison is a Very tasty meat...but only if the deer is taken while it is not alarmed. If a deer is spooked or wounded, it quickly releases a bunch of adrenaline into its flesh, which can give the meat a rather sour taste.

About the Only use I can think of for a assault rifle, in a "hunting" environment, might be if I lived in an area that was being overrun by feral hogs. Then, a rapid fire weapon, with a 30 to 50 round clip might be useful in getting rid of a herd of those vermin.
 
oakapple said:
I know nothing about guns and have never even seen one ( in real life) of any kind,so that was interesting Don M.
However, why would hunters only wish to wound a deer by using that weapon?
Click to expand...

Hunting is like any thing else humans participate in. The majority are responsible with a minority of idiots. The .223 is a wonderful varmit,(woodchuck,coyote,raccoon,etc) round. Its high speed and flat trajectory makes it ideal for that purpose. The .223 deemed to small to use as a deer round.

I still do not understand how banning any weapon will improve the problem. I read someplace that there are an estimated 12 to 15 million "assault weapons" in the hands of law abiding Americans.

Enforce the laws that are on the books, eliminate the "Gunshow" loop hole. Unify crime reporting to a central authority. Institute a national domestic violence hotline. Track all weapons manufactured going forward by serial number from cradle to grave. Fully fund mental health programs and bring back restricted mental health residences.

There are many many things that can be done.
 
The media, most of whom don't know an assault weapon from a blunderbuss, spread as much misinformation as they can manage.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top