HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)


[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
[font color="red"]Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)[/font][/font]

Of that, only a tiny percentage (if any!) involve M855. And of course rifle homicides have fallen precipitously since 2005. From FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Tables 20:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285

This proposal seeks to outlaw inexpensive surplus target ammo used heavily by competitive shooters and almost never by criminals. It is less lethal than any civilian .223 load you can buy at Walmart, even the cheapest $5/box FMJ.

Anyone fighting to outlaw practice ammo for the most popular target rifles in America (not just AR's, but all .223's) doesn't give a crap about "saving lives", because you are going directly after lawful target shooting with this.

Edited to add: The "saving cops' lives" angle is also BS. NIJ Level IIIA body armor will not stop rifle calibers, period. NIJ Level III body armor, if up to spec, should stop any ball ammo up to .308/7.62x51mm, including .223 M855 which is non-AP ball (.223 AP is M995 and is already restricted). NIJ Level IV body armor will stop all AP rifle rounds up to .30-06 M2 tungsten core (7.62x63mm). So this isn't about saving anyone's life; it's about sticking it to people whose life choices you disagree with.

Rate of sustained fire, hmmm....

Spencer - sustainable rate-of-fire in excess of 20 rds per min

For clarification, that's the rate of sustained fire for the early 1860s Spencer, 7+1 and reloadable with speedloaders.

Comparing apples to apples, here are the U.S. military specs on the M16 (the NFA Title II restricted select-fire military rifle, not non-automatic civilian AR's, but similar limitations apply):


Rate of fire: 1215 rounds/min sustained
4560 rounds/min semi-automatic
700950 rounds/min cyclic

Note that the rates of semiauto and cyclic fire are instantaneous rates and do not take reloading or heat buildup into account, unlike the listed sustained rate. The M16, and all other military infantry rifles, are not designed for or capable of sustained high-volume fire (see Wanat); that's what machineguns and SAWs are for.

Ha, what you refer to are drastically substandard to modern semi-auto rifles & used mostly in the latter couple years of the Civil War. We went over this in an earlier thread; link below pegs spencer at 1 rd per 3 seconds: Spencer- sustainable rate-of-fire in excess of 20 rds per min
A modern semi-auto 2 or 3+ rds per second quickfire with extra mags by your side, a henry or spencer maybe 1 rd per second underaimed until your approx 15 rds are up, thus Yankees using Henrys & spencs more prone to suppress rapid fire for a better aim.

So you consider a sustained 1 round per second "underaimed" but think the average person can sustain 0.33 to 0.5 second splits aimed fire with a civilian semiauto while aiming? A more realistic one round per second, plus pauses for reloading, put speedloader-capable lever-actions and the AR-15 and other civilian semiautos on a lot more even footing than you care to acknowledge. And as you well know, 30+ round lever actions were produced in the early 1870s, though the development of more convenient and reliable box magazines truncated their development.

There's also the pesky fact that semiauto has been the default civilian mode of operation for decades, outside of guns optimized for long-range lethality. You're not going to ban semiautos any more than you're going to ban 11 to 30 round magazines. And given that 30-round rifles account for fewer than 300 homicides a year out of 8000+ in this country, despite being some of the most popular civilian firearms in U.S. homes, I'd suggest that your crusade is wrongheaded and counterproductive.

Dude, they *had* fast-shooting lever actions in the Civil War (many using speedloader systems),

which can deliver rate of aimed fire not far off that of a modern semiauto, and they had them in fairly large numbers. They didn't change the outcome of the war.

Ironically, many of those Civil War vintage lever-actions would be banned from new production by this wrongheaded bill, due to holding 15 or 16 rounds.

I was thinking of .308 rifles and carbines, like Straw Man mentioned.

The AR-10, FAL, CETME, SCAR-17, FN Herstal FNAR, Springfield M1A, etc. etc. all have a capacity of 20 rounds, because that seems to be the ideal compromise between weight/bulk and reserve capacity in that caliber. For .223, which is considerably smaller than .308, the "sweet spot" for rifle capacities seems to be 30, at least in non-bullpup designs.

Yeah, a .308 pistol would be a handful to shoot. The old Remington XP-100 hunting pistol was chambered in that round beginning in 1963, and recoil must have been pretty stout!

Update, the bill number is S.407 (114th Congress).


That ship sailed decades ago, when the gun control lobby chose to fight for 10-round limit.

Today, a 20 or 30 round limit would be seen as merely a stepping stone to a 15- or even 10-round limit, and would be a nonstarter.

As an aside, I think 20 rounds makes sense for 9mm pistols or the .308 family, since full-sized 9mm pistols hold just under 20 rounds and most .308-based semiautos hold 20, but that limit wouldn't really make sense for smaller calibers like .22LR or .223 where the default capacity has been 30 for many years. Banning common 30-rounders would punish tens of millions of gun owners for absolutely no social benefit, and might ultimately push the civilian rifle market back toward larger calibers, as the 1994 magazine price increases did for pistol calibers.

Oh, not this crap again...civilian magazine ban introduced in Senate.


Another proposal to ban ordinary civilian magazines with a capacity of more than 2/3 of what you could buy at a gun shop in the 1860's (rifle) or 1930s (pistol), even though there are already a billion-ish 11- to 30-rounders in civilian hands.

The sponsors hype 100-round magazines (as usual), but introduce a bill to jack the price on ordinary 11 to 30 round magazines (as usual), give Dems a black eye (as usual), and prod gun owners to spend more money stocking up on yet more replacement magazines (as usual), just so the same group of sponsors can get in front of the cameras and preach at us sinners again.

Maybe they should ask Gov. Hickenlooper how well a 15-round limit went over in Colorado, or how well this same 10-round limit went over nationwide back in 1994 before small-caliber rifles were so popular.

I notice that this bill doesn't bother to exempt tube-magazine lever-action centerfires, like the 1866 Winchester or 1861 Henry. The old 15+ round lever-actions squeaked past the 10-round limit in '94 because of the "named guns" exemption, but there is no such exemption this time.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2