Posted on 09/16/2014 5:12:08 AM PDT by rellimpank
Ten years ago I was in Iraq and carried an M16 rifle everywhere I went. I propped my M16 beside me while I drove our medical evacuation Humvee on monotonous yet foreboding convoys from Fallujah, Al Asad, Haditha and around western Al Anbar.
When we searched vehicles at checkpoints, I covered my fellow Marines with my M16. I slung my M16 in front of me on visits to a truck stop between Jordan and Ramadi where — against orders — we would buy roasted mutton or chicken cooked with tomatoes and peppers and wrapped in flatbread to alleviate the tedium of our rations.
Ten years later, I live in a community whose police think an assault rifle is necessary to keep people safe.
Madison equips police cars with AR-15 assault rifles, a variant of the M16 I carried in the Marines. The city police department’s AR-15s are kept loaded, just like Marines’ M16s on convoys and patrols.
Depending on how you squint at it, yes. A revolver will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger - the division between “double-action” vs “semi-automatic” is that in the former the trigger-pulling process provides ALL the energy for loading the next round, while in the latter the discharge (not the user!) provides that energy.
So for accurate shooting, there is enough of a difference to warrant separating categories ... but to your point, anti-gunners should be lumping the two together as it’s a matter of how fast the trigger can be pulled without some separate manual loading action (lever action, bolt action, break action, etc).
The other relevant point is the revolver mechanism inherently limits the capacity (usually to 6, not unusual for 5-9), while the semi-auto mechanism has no such limit (magazines range up to 100 rounds, the limit being the spring; belt-fed have no practical limit).
They do!!!!!
“essentially nullify that role of the second amendment.”
No, it wouldn’t. Such arms still require identifying the target, aiming/designating at it within ballistic range, and launching the round. Misses may be nearly eliminated thru technology, but sensible & practical training bring misses down to an acceptable level.
Regardless of such an advantage, the win usually goes to whoever fires first. Trust me, reliable hits on a 1m target at 1km with nothing more than a .308 with a decent 10x scope are not that hard after a few days’ training.
Not really - maybe some small part of 1% of all semiauto pistols. As far as I've heard, DAO automatics are limited to some police departments as a safety issue and those few people who collect curiosities (you know, like "Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolvers"). That's kind of a reach.
What I said is accurate for the overwhelming majority of pistols - and the DAO as well; the only difference is that DAO has a longer trigger pull.
An Ariska? You’re the MAN!
Of course only with the chrysanthemum proudly displayed.
That too.
The point wasn't your’s it was the post you responded to. The crux of the question was, why differentiate a mechanically actuated rapid shooter from a semi-auto rapid shooter, if the underlying fear is rapid fire capability. You can not bump fire a DA revolver, but you sure can shoot them amazingly fast. Ditto for a Model 37 Ithaca pump.
My point was that the ATF has no logical rules on the issue.
Hate to be annoying but they sure do: the barrels melt on most machineguns at the 100 round continuous burst point. That's why we teach our gunners to hold bursts to 5-7 rounds per and to change barrels when they get to 200-400 rounds.
whatever it takes to get roasted mutton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.