Connecticut Post front page: Front sight makes AR-15 "deadly", "lethal"

[schneiderguy]

Libruls, please stop talking about firearms until you can demonstrate basic understanding of the subject.

 

[piasabird]

A 22LR pistol is also deadly and lethal. Anything that shoots a bullet or even an arrow is deadly and lethal if used correctly. A baseball bat or a hammer can be deadly and lethal. An automobile is deadly and lethal.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Holy fuck look at the difference between the .22 and the .223 rounds. I assume the extra is more explosive power for more velocity.

 

[piasabird]

A 22 Pistol takes up a lot less space. They typically have a 10 round magazine. You dont need a military looking weapon just to be deadly or lethal. It is just as deadly and lethal if it has a wood stock and a blued barrrel set up for hunting. Put a scope on it if you want. All hunting rifles have sights. Are people really this stupid?

A .223 round is about the same as a military 5.56 and it has a range of at least 1,000 Meters. I have seen the military version shoot through both sides of an ammo can. It is quite deadly.

Also a 30-06 and 270 and a 300 winmag are just as deadly if not more. A hunting round that can take down a moose has a little larger round.

At short range a hunting shotgun is just as deadly if not more. Just use deer slugs or 12 guage that will shoot through a wall.

 

[Double Trouble]

Are people really this stupid?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[piasabird]

A hunting rifle with 22-250 rounds can be just as lethal. It is another high speed round.

 

[piasabird]

I think all people should have to go to basic training or something like that.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think all people should have to go to basic training or something like that.

You mean all reporters before they get their first amendment license?

 

[compuwiz1]

It's funny as shit that the liberal anti-gun nuts are so misinformed about guns. No wonder some people walking by look like they are gonna shit their pants when I carry a shot gun out of my car!

 

[smackababy]

I am confused at how the compensator has anything to do with the lethality of a weapon. Are guns without compensators less deadly?

 

[Genx87]

I am confused at how the compensator has anything to do with the lethality of a weapon. Are guns without compensators less deadly?

Who knows. These anti-gun nutz display their ignorance on a near daily basis. The problem of course is people equally as ignorant carry the banner for them and help form public policy.

 

[Orignal Earl]

It's funny as shit that the liberal anti-gun nuts are so misinformed about guns. No wonder some people walking by look like they are gonna shit their pants when I carry a shot gun out of my car!

I always get a chuckle over how technical the big city computer right wingers are about their guns.
Everyone I know calls a magazine a clip, these guys were born with guns in their hands. Yet you folk have a hissy fit when someone calls it that, and have mentioned it means they know nothing about guns.
I imagine that's how you get when you learn all you know from books

 

[TerryMathews]

I always get a chuckle over how technical the big city computer right wingers are about their guns.
Everyone I know calls a magazine a clip, these guys were born with guns in their hands. Yet you folk have a hissy fit when someone calls it that, and have mentioned it means they know nothing about guns.
I imagine that's how you get when you learn all you know from books

The difference is we aren't just talking about some guy on the street, we're talking about people who are either writing policy or making Op-ed columns to influence policy.

Pointing out that Diane Feinstein doesn't know shit about guns is fair when she's claiming to be the expert for the purposes of gun control.

Its a perfectly acceptable strategy for discrediting an expert witness at a trial, what's the problem here aside from the fact that it offends your delicate sensibilities, eh?

 

[Orignal Earl]

The difference is we aren't just talking about some guy on the street, we're talking about people who are either writing policy or making Op-ed columns to influence policy.

Pointing out that Diane Feinstein doesn't know shit about guns is fair when she's claiming to be the expert for the purposes of gun control.

Its a perfectly acceptable strategy for discrediting an expert witness at a trial, what's the problem here aside from the fact that it offends your delicate sensibilities, eh?

I said I chuckle, I'm not offended in any way
Did you feel offended by what I said?

 

[TerryMathews]

I said I chuckle, I'm not offended in any way
Did you feel offended by what I said?

So you see nothing wrong with lawmakers passing laws they dont understand?

Got it.

 

[shady28]

A hunting rifle with 22-250 rounds can be just as lethal. It is another high speed round.

Actually a .223 is far far less deadly than say a 30-30 hunting rifle. The low caliber rounds are meant to wound, something that came up after WW I. A WW I .308 enfield will literally knock a limb off, while a .223 will go right through.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Oh crap, double post.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Actually a .223 is far far less deadly than say a 30-30 hunting rifle. The low caliber rounds are meant to wound, something that came up after WW I. A WW I .308 enfield will literally knock a limb off, while a .223 will go right through.

This...isn't true. .223 is designed to tumble end over end once it hits it's target, making a pretty terrible wound channel. Also, 30-30 is a less powerful round than 30-06, and even 30-06 won't really knock limbs off. MAYBE a 45-70 round would. Certainly a .50BMG round will. 30-30 is closer to behaving like the AK47's 7.62x39mm round. Similarly, 303brit is another round designed to tumble.

Now, the Japanese DID believe in rounds that wounded rather than killed, but it wasn't the overall mindset, and that was mostly their older 6.5mm round in the T38 Arisaka (and they learned in the 30s that they needed a new gun, hence the Type 99 and the new round to match it.)

Pressures:

7.62x39 45,000
30-06 Springfield 50,000 cup
30-30 Winchester 42,000
303 British 49,000
308 Winchester 62,000

In terms of the loads, I'll be cheap and do 30-30 and 30-06:
30-06 Springfield SP 150gr 2820 ft/lb 2910 ft/s - about the weakest 30-06 load. This is the one meant to shoot in your old Garands so you don't bend the operating rod.

30-30 Winchester Z-Max 160gr 2046 ft/lb 2400 ft/s - About the most powerful 30-30 round I could find, and is likely well out of SAAMI spec.

That's 800 ft/lb of energy delta at the muzzle. For comparison's sake, here's 454 casull, one of the more powerful handgun rounds:
454 Casull WFNGC 335gr 1904 ft/lb 1600 ft/s

 

[waggy]

So you see nothing wrong with lawmakers passing laws they dont understand?

Got it.

this is what bothers me. lawmakers making laws on stuff they don't understand. Trouble is they hire "experts" with a view that fits what they want to know.

 

[QuantumPion]

I am confused at how the compensator has anything to do with the lethality of a weapon. Are guns without compensators less deadly?

I think the argument back in the AWB days was that a flash suppressor was like a real suppressor and it let you shoot without giving away your position, which is baloney of course. And the pistol grip let you shoot the gun from the hip to spray and pray. The collapsible stock allowed you to conceal a full-size rifle under a coat. And don't forget the bayonet lug - got to ban those too due to all those drive-by bayonetings going on.

 

[Orignal Earl]

So you see nothing wrong with lawmakers passing laws they dont understand?

Got it.

Ya, I've watched gun laws come and go and I've managed along just fine.
I've got family who were very active in protesting gun registry etc.
I can't figure what you guys doing all this complaining on a tech message board is accomplishing but hey, if it makes you feel better then have at it

 

[QuantumPion]

Ya, I've watched gun laws come and go and I've managed along just fine.
I've got family who were very active in protesting gun registry etc.
I can't figure what you guys doing all this complaining on a tech message board is accomplishing but hey, if it makes you feel better then have at it

 

[SaurusX]

C'mon... Don't you get that this is all "common sense" and that it isn't gun control it's "reducing gun violence"?

 

[blankslate]

It's not a particular feature that makes a gun dangerous and deadly...

Unfortunately a lot of idiots are attracted to them. Or otherwise responsible people who own them get complacent and have a brain fart at the worst time and someone dies.

 

[trenchfoot]

this is what bothers me. lawmakers making laws on stuff they don't understand. Trouble is they hire "experts" with a view that fits what they want to know.

It's my sense that lawmakers make laws that will either get them re-elected, give themselves and their sponsors a profit, or on rare occasion, urge them to vote their conscience despite political risk. None of the aforementioned will induce the average politician to become an authority on firearms or whatever the case may be. Ergo, their "need" to enlist experts that help support their agenda. Opposing facts of the matter be damned, as it were.

So it seems that getting to the heart of a problem and equitably resolving it with new law is wholly dependent on what kind of benefit the politician can get back for themselves.

In this regard we, the voters who put these opportunists and fortune seekers into office are damned lucky to get any kind of law that benefit the commoner rather than the well placed special interests they end up representing.