The OK case

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 10:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would consider any standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman used for combat a "weapon of war."  Just because an M1 is obsolete compared to a M-16 doesn't change the fact the M1 was a standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman.

Pretty sure the M-16 is obsolete as far as military issue

But as to the bigger point: The weapon matters little. the intent of the user determines if it is a "weapon of war". Hell, I've seen folks use rocks.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 01:58 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: You never used 3 rnd burst for cover fire ?
Granted, you guys probably had a SAW along for that, but I'd imagine situations came about where you might need the other option.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

The only time/reason for the burst option is if your automatic weapon malfunctioned in an ambush or suppression situation.

Folks used to think it was useful for aerial threat.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 01:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, but the true issue is what KIND of gun.  

Only to those that care about the type of gun.

[BmorePat87]

(04-03-2017, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: "I swear it looked like a gun"

She said he had a 9mm

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure the M-16 is obsolete as far as military issue

But as to the bigger point: The weapon matters little. the intent of the user determines if it is a "weapon of war". Hell, I've seen folks use rocks.

I'm not certain, but has the M-16 totally been phased out of the inventory? Regardless, the M4 is just a variant of the same design.

If the weapon matters little, then why do you think the M-16 is obsolete? The M-16 can only be obsolete if the type of weapon matters. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then the M-16, and a rock for that matter, can't be obsolete. If the weapon doesn't matter why does the military upgrade their weapons inventory?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only to those that care about the type of gun.

Like the military?

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not certain, but has the M-16 totally been phased out of the inventory?  Regardless, the M4 is just a variant of the same design.

If the weapon matters little, then why do you think the M-16 is obsolete?  The M-16 can only be obsolete if the type of weapon matters. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then the M-16, and a rock for that matter, can't be obsolete. If the weapon doesn't matter why does the military upgrade their weapons inventory?

They upgraded because a fixed stock no longer made sense. So the design and not the type is obsolete. Of course there are weapons more effective than others; however their intended use can only make them a "weapon of war", which is a silly term IMO.  But I'll leave you to argue the semantics with SSF.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2017, 01:54 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: But anyway, I'll reiterate the continued value of having an AR, as it is modular and can perform many tasks, depending on configuration.
That saves some money, sometimes.

I know you make the comment of to each their own, but I could argue that there are shotgun setups that would provide the required versatility for someone not needing to engage in urban warfare, but would allow for home defense, hunting, and a host of other things, and at a lower price point than an AR.

For instance, my parents own (well, mine now since my dad can't handle a long gun any longer) a Remington 870. That shotgun can be used for turkey, deer, waterfowl, recreational shooting, and home defense. All with either a barrel change or, even simpler, a choke change and different ammunition.

As you said, though, to each their own.

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you make the comment of to each their own, but I could argue that there are shotgun setups that would provide the required versatility for someone not needing to engage in urban warfare, but would allow for home defense, hunting, and a host of other things, and at a lower price point than an AR.

For instance, my parents own (well, mine now since my dad can't handle a long gun any longer) a Remington 870. That shotgun can be used for turkey, deer, waterfowl, recreational shooting, and home defense. All with either a barrel change or, even simpler, a choke change and different ammunition.

As you said, though, to each their own.

And.....
I would agree with you, providing the owner had no need of shooting an elk at a bit longer range, or something.
In a wilderness survival scenario, I'd likely go with the shotgun (with long and short barrels) and a bevy of different shells.
In the urban apocalyptic Alex Jones wet-dream scenario, I'd favor an AK (with AR coming in second).
In both scenarios I'd really want a pistol, as well. (probably an older Ruger semi-auto 9mm)

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They upgraded because a fixed stock no longer made sense. So the design and not the type is obsolete. Of course there are weapons more effective than others; however their intended use can only make them a "weapon of war", which is a silly term IMO.  But I'll leave you to argue the semantics with SSF.

The M4 is just a smaller, lighter version of the M16 which is the military nomenclature the rifle Stoner designed for the military as a battlefield rifle for the US infantryman. Can you shoot targets with it? Sure. But, it was designed as a battlefield rifle for infantrymen to kill the enemy. Calling it anything else is semantics.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree with the accuracy logic, of course.
I also agree with the idea that you CAN suppress with semi-auto.
I guess my thought was that in a scenario where you were outnumbered the 3 round burst may have a psychological advantage in suppression, as it could give your small group an appearance of being larger.
Semi-auto has always made sense to me, logistically and efficiency wise.

I think a three round burst would have the opposite psychological effect. As in, "Let's go, Habib. They don't have machine guns."

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 01:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guess my thought was that in a scenario where you were outnumbered the 3 round burst may have a psychological advantage in suppression, as it could give your small group an appearance of being larger.

(04-03-2017, 04:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think a three round burst would have the opposite psychological effect. As in, "Let's go, Habib. They don't have machine guns."

Pretty sure I 've read that MSG Donald R. Hollenbaugh used burst during the 2004 Battle for Falluja in an effort to make the insurgents think they were battling a larger and it was credit as saving quite a few Marines.

Of course it's been a while; I may be mis-remembering.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure I 've read that MSG Donald R. Hollenbaugh used burst during the 2004 Battle for Falluja in an effort to make the insurgents think they were battling a larger and it was credit as saving quite a few Marines.

Of course it's been a while; I may be mis-remembering.  

I'm not familiar with the incident in question. But, have you ever confused the sound of small arms fire on three round burst with automatic fire?

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not familiar with the incident in question. But, have you ever confused the sound of small arms fire on three round burst with automatic fire?

Hell, I've been in close enough quarters to mistake multitude of single shots as automatic. Walls and streets do funny things with sound. Not sure if he was trying to replicate automatic fire as his intended goal was to present a larger force.

[Dill]

(04-02-2017, 10:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we're speculating if we think; however, we are not speculating when we point to what really happened. I truly don't know how to answer the question you have asked, but I'll give it a go: Yes we are speculating if we say it didn't have to be a "military style" (whatever the hell that is); as that is not what was used in this situation.

The debate is most likely only settled among rational folks. I overestimated the audience. 

I have zero idea what you have said it these 3 sentences. Perhaps you or someone can "dumb it down" for me. 

I'm sure I can.

I was commenting on the double standard in your use of "we" and "they." I see no evidence anything could change your mind, but you would distinguish yours from "theirs" by claiming nothing can change theirs. "They" want to impose their personal preferences on folks via law (weapons they deem suitable), which implies the preferences you would impose (weapons you deem suitable) somehow rise above personal preference. You are "rational"; "they" are not.

But a rational guy ought to understand something of logical implication.

A "military style" weapon is one which is or mimics military issue weapons. There term is most frequently used now in reference to guns which are or intended to mimic assault weapons like the M-4 or AK 47. A Winchester Model 04 30.30 would not be a military style weapon, nor would a Remington pump shotgun. An AR 15 would be a military style weapon.

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 06:00 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm sure I can.

I was commenting on the double standard in your use of "we" and "they." I see no evidence anything could change your mind, but you would distinguish yours from "theirs" by claiming nothing can change theirs. "They" want to impose their personal preferences on folks via law (weapons they deem suitable), which implies the preferences you would impose (weapons you deem suitable) somehow rise above personal preference. You are "rational"; "they" are not.

But a rational guy ought to understand something of logical implication.

A "military style" weapon is one which is or mimics military issue weapons. There term is most frequently used now in reference to guns which are or intended to mimic assault weapons like the M-4 or AK 47. A Winchester Model 04 30.30 would not be a military style weapon, nor would a Remington pump shotgun. An AR 15 would be a military style weapon.

They make an AR-15 in .22 long rifle.
Do folks consider that an "assault rifle", because it's aesthetically very similar ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 07:30 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: They make an AR-15 in .22 long rifle.
Do folks consider that an "assault rifle", because it's aesthetically very similar ?

Depends which folks you ask.

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 08:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Depends which folks you ask.

Please tell me you've watched Action Figure Therapy ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 08:53 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Please tell me you've watched Action Figure Therapy ?

I have not, but sounds like something I would be interested in.

[Dill]

(04-02-2017, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since you have no way to determine this, for any purchaser, this is the type of throwaway point that the gun control crowd lives for.  

What does this crowd live for?