The OK case

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I've said in the past, I'm not really interested in the semantic argument you seem to crave in this thread.  I suppose by your standard the M1 Garand my father owns is a weapon of war.  In essence you've just made an argument that all magazine fed semi-auto rifles are "weapons of war"  That just seems to be... dumb.


On the other hand the K98 is a Wizard of Wor!

A semantics argument based upon a selector switch just seems to be . . . "dumb." If you want to continue the insults I'm more than willing to accommodate.

Does a selector switch affect the wound characteristics? No. The ballistics? Other than an uncontrollable rise in the muzzle, no. Rate of fire? Yes, with a resultant decrease in accuracy. Accuracy? Yes, adversely.

So a weapon with selector switch with a 3 round burst will delivery a higher rate of fire less accurately than semiauto fire without any affect on the wound characteristics. And what's the number one factor when determining the morbidity and mortality of a GSW? Shot placement. What's the number one factor involved with shot placement? Marksmanship. The wasted ammo from the inaccurate automatic fire is what prompted the switch from auto to burst. But, the principle which prompted the switch still applies to burst; higher rate of less accurate fire. The decreased accuracy adversely affects shot placement which decreases its effectiveness at killing.

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 Just because an M1 is obsolete compared to a M-16 doesn't change the fact the M1 was a standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman.