New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:45:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries
In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita (but not in
good medical outcomes), in cost of pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're
number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.

Well, disregarding their "many shot" magazines they are quite a handy
rifle and they are even used in target shooting, and there are shorter
magazines available.

But basically, their one shot per trigger pull action, is no different
than any so called "semi-automatic" firearm and these date back to, in
U.S. made weapons, 1903.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/27/2020 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries


In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year, versus roughly
1500 for edged weapons. Most years automatic weapons account for zero
incidents with zero deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/

Here's a more complete breakdown:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

If "Firearms type not stated" exceed known rifle murders by a factor of
ten, I think it's premature to give rifles a free pass.

But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.

But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly and
threatening.* An AR is a lighter platform with a generally smaller
round[1] but the same rate of fire as an M1 Garand or a revolver. Please
get over the aesthetic.

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.

But not legally modified.

I might note here that the Colt 1911 .45 automatic was illegally
modified to fire full automatic as far back as the 1930's as both
Lester M Gillis, later as “Baby Face Nelson” and one John Herbert
Dillinger, had versions built by Mr. Hyman Saul Lebman of San Antonio,
Texas

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."

And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.


An SAW doesn't look scary like that at all yet
is an actually Very Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png

I think that looks scary to most people.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:09:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/27/2020 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote [but I just
corrected one minor typo]:
On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:


I've never been to a two-way range, and I hope never to
experience that, but many things can transpire in a very
long full sixty second minute. Your
off-the-top-of-the-head 'standard' is idiotic.

I can tell you don't like my standard. But your post
contains no real rebuttal, except for what Jim Jeffries
notes from about 1:45 to 2:00 in this clip:
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=102

I've never claimed that lots of guns can't shoot more than
five rounds in a minute. I know they can. I've shot several
myself.

Instead I'm saying (outside of military combat, of course)
that capability isn't needed. It's detriments to society far
outweigh it's benefits.

We rode by a shooting range just a few days ago. Among the
normal reports of normal target practice we could hear one
guy's occasional "pop pop pop pop pop." What do you suppose
he was pretending?


Pretending my ass. Probably home defense training which is
popular and like anything else deserving of practice in
order to be effective.

Pretending. They may be pretending they'll prevent a home
invasion by shooting an intruder, but their shooting
practice is based on pretending.
* This
from Tuesday:

https://abc7chicago.com/waukegan-new...mpted/6506524/



Yes, and as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago - someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old kid. This afternoon we rode by several
memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun ready in the living room, because any punk on
the street can easily get a rapid fire weapon and barge in.
It's beyond me how someone can pretend that's wonderful.


'Rapid fire' is vanishingly rare and a red herring to your argument,
unless one defines 'rapid' as 'normal rate'. There were just a handful
of crimes committed using automatic weapons in the entire country since
1934.

My contention is that nobody but military needs a gun that will shoot
more than five to ten rounds in a minute.

But Frank, I've told you( and told you) that normal, ordinary, been
made for more then 100 years, firearms will fire at rates far in
excess of your 5 - 10 rounds a minute. A normal, made in 1917, S&W
revolver will, and has been, fired at a rate of 5 shots in 2/5ths of a
second - that is 750 rounds per minute.

Why aren't you raving about S&W revolvers?


Yes, I know that's considered a "normal rate." And I know nobody else is
saying what I'm saying.

But I'm saying faster shooting is not needed by civilians, and that on
the balance that capability is detrimental to society.

Bicycles aren't "needed" but you advocate them...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:57:31 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/27/2020 9:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 11:22:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:07:48 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg


... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be
armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts
the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that
police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was
not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be
infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never
been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any
and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical
interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act
is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago.
They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day
nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass
multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid
individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven
detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red
light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD
(International Socialist) for those who see any difference
whatsoever among the sorry lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4
seconds
when actually concentrating on a target. Guys who are
good
at that sort of thing use 8-shot revolvers and the
record is
one second.

Back when I was a competition pistol shooter I used to
practice on a
range where the State Police also practiced and I used
to,watch then
shooting the "Practical Police Course" that included 10
rounds at 10
feet, or some such distance. 5 rounds, reload and 5 more
in 10
seconds... with a six shot revolver and loose ammunition
:-)

I'm curious how much time the typical British police have
to put into
that kind of drill.

Probably very similar.
"in the year 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised
Firearms Officers,

... That's out of 130,000 total police? Not very similar to
the U.S.

12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised
throughout
England and Wales"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...United_Kingdom

and, it might be noted that in N.Ireland - still a part of
the British
Empire - all police are armed.

It doesn't sound very similar at all to the U.S. First, that
paragraph talks about only Northern Ireland, not Great
Britain or the entire UK. IOW, it's not the "typical British
police" I asked about.

Also, that article said that during World War Two, police
were given revolvers "in case of invasion" but did not carry
them on patrol. "Training for the Webley & Scott revolvers
usually consisted of firing six shots and to pass, it was
required that three shots had to be on target although
loading of the actual weapon was not taught."

That was a special circumstance during wartime, and even
then there was no mention of pop-up targets and other
extensive shooting drills that American cops frequently use.

https://atstargets.com/home/security...tems-security/




That's funny! I wonder who they hired if loading a Webley
revolver without formal instruction was a possible impediment.

I read on a different site that the English reckoned it would take 2
weeks training before their officers could be equipped with a firearm.
Which was one of the reasons mentioned for not equipping the British
police with weapons.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 4:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/27/2020 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the
kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries


In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective
weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year,
versus roughly 1500 for edged weapons. Most years
automatic weapons account for zero incidents with zero
deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/


Here's a more complete breakdown:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/


If "Firearms type not stated" exceed known rifle murders by
a factor of ten, I think it's premature to give rifles a
free pass.

But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much
in favor of hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters,
target shooters, etc. have no real need of a gun that fires
more than five to ten rounds in a minute.
I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly
and threatening. An AR is a lighter platform with a
generally smaller round[1] but the same rate of fire as an
M1 Garand or a revolver. Please get over the aesthetic.

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns
can be and have been modified rather easily to have extreme
rates of fire and extremely large capacity magazines -
again, features that have no practical use except for
killing. And that those are the first choice of American
mass murderers.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What
are the benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the
M1 Garand? It's not accuracy, as needed for target shooting
or hunting. It's not as if the lighter weight cures any
massive fatigue problem of more conventional long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller
package is easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out
city, easier to whip around and shoot when surprised by an
assailant. And military versions benefit by burst firing,
which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the
Walter Mitty guys who buy them primarily because they think
it's cool to have something that looks deadly. There's
probably a lot of overlap with Call of Duty players living
in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our society
benefits from that at all.

As this guy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never saw
the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates
the rifle MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job
done in eight shots, maybe you need to head back to the
practice range."

An SAW doesn't look scary like that at all yet is an
actually Very Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png


I think that looks scary to most people.


We'll just agree to disagree about fire rate since that M1
fires at the same rate as every other semi; pistol or rifle.

I have engaged a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints on
firearms and various aspects of their place in society for
many years. I've learned a lot, seen other points of view
and changed a few opinions here and there. I have to say
your position on fire rate is the first I've ever heard of such.

I'm not surprised. I never heard it from anyone else either. But I stand by the idea.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

And I can go on and on, I can fire a pump action Remington shotgun
faster then a rate of 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a Colt 1911
pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a High standard
..22 cal pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute.

In fact when you talk about rounds per minute firing rate I'm fairly
sure that I can equal or maybe surpass that with a standard bolt
action rifle.

Yup, here is a guy that fires 48 rounds in one minute, with 5 round
clips, with a bolt action rifle
https://tinyurl.com/y5mtvrk2

In short just about every repeating firearm that has been built can
fire faster then your bench mark.


It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

Which ones are legally modified to fire automatically?

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski

Have it your own way. But you are wrong.
The AR geometry isn't "based on jungle combat" unless, of course you
believe that every army in the world is planning on fighting in a
jungle, see
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...the-world.html
for examples.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle
for an extremely detailed presentation.

The AR configuration, more commonly refereed to as an "Assault Rifle"
apparently began with the StG 44 developed by the Germans and first
used in 1943... in the jungles of Europe?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:41:22 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

And I can go on and on, I can fire a pump action Remington shotgun
faster then a rate of 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a Colt 1911
pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a High standard
.22 cal pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute.

In fact when you talk about rounds per minute firing rate I'm fairly
sure that I can equal or maybe surpass that with a standard bolt
action rifle.

Yup, here is a guy that fires 48 rounds in one minute, with 5 round
clips, with a bolt action rifle
https://tinyurl.com/y5mtvrk2

In short just about every repeating firearm that has been built can
fire faster then your bench mark.


It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

Which ones are legally modified to fire automatically?

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski

Have it your own way. But you are wrong.
The AR geometry isn't "based on jungle combat" unless, of course you
believe that every army in the world is planning on fighting in a
jungle, see
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...the-world.html
for examples.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle
for an extremely detailed presentation.

The AR configuration, more commonly refereed to as an "Assault Rifle"
apparently began with the StG 44 developed by the Germans and first
used in 1943... in the jungles of Europe?

Further to the above I just came across an article that stated that:

An H&R “Topper” break open single shot exposed hammer 20 gauge shotgun
with ejector can be fired , in a brief gust, at about 30–33 rounds a
minute, at least for the first 4 or 5 rounds using properly staged
ammunition.

And 10 shots, 1.57 seconds, ( or 382 rounds per minute) using a
Winchester Model 1873 lever action rifle.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/27/2020 10:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski


Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian
sporting arm, always and only, and so they remain down to
today. That it shares features with other models is true
but that doesn't change the facts at all. Hell your bicycle
shares some materials and technology with an AR-15 which
also proves nothing.

Mr Slocumb and I both noted that on any given morning we
could, with a few nonprecision file strokes, make our M1911
fully automatic. But we haven't and likely never will, just
as you could, like Mr Beattie, turn your bicycle frame into
a planter stand for the garden. But you don't.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/27/2020 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

And I can go on and on, I can fire a pump action Remington shotgun
faster then a rate of 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a Colt 1911
pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a High standard
.22 cal pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute.

In fact when you talk about rounds per minute firing rate I'm fairly
sure that I can equal or maybe surpass that with a standard bolt
action rifle.

Yup, here is a guy that fires 48 rounds in one minute, with 5 round
clips, with a bolt action rifle
https://tinyurl.com/y5mtvrk2

In short just about every repeating firearm that has been built can
fire faster then your bench mark.


It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

Which ones are legally modified to fire automatically?

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski

Have it your own way. But you are wrong.
The AR geometry isn't "based on jungle combat" unless, of course you
believe that every army in the world is planning on fighting in a
jungle, see
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...the-world.html
for examples.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle
for an extremely detailed presentation.

The AR configuration, more commonly refereed to as an "Assault Rifle"
apparently began with the StG 44 developed by the Germans and first
used in 1943... in the jungles of Europe?


Yikes! That's completely wrong.

AR-14 stands for Armalite Rifle model 15.
Eugene Stoner designed it as a semi (sporting rifle) and so
it remains.

The popular press in the US of A began conflating
sturmgewehr with semis some time in the 1980s but that
doesn't make it true.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971