What makes NFA firearms more 'fearsome' and 'deadly' than others? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What makes NFA firearms more 'fearsome' and 'deadly' than others? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/17/2006 10:05:12 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
there is a stiff penalty for NFA weapons for the same reason there is a stiff penalty for murder. To discourage such deadly weapons for being easily obtainable like before 1934.

FA = Lots of firepower, and you gotta pay to get it. legally.

Mind telling me where Clyde Barrow got his BARs?

Natl Guard armories

Ding da ding!
So how did NFA stop him and his ilk???

It didn't....it and the 68, 86 where designed to keep us for getting the covered weapons. Any bad guy with money can buy any of the weapons covered by the laws. IMO the only reason for the 1986 ban was that machineguns where starting to get popular and the Bradys jumped on it before it got to the piont they couldn't.

Posted: 1/17/2006 10:33:41 PM EDT

[#2]

I was always a big fan of the difference between SBR's and SBS's. The going stories are tha tthe .gov wanted to surplus out a bunch of M1 carbines, but they would have been NFA, so to make them sell better, they changed the min. barrel length to 16" for rifles. The other story is that it was to avoid pissing off all the people with lever-action Winchesters with <18" barrels. Either way, it's pretty fucking stupid to send an otherwise law abiding person to prison for an arbitrary law based on nothing more than the length of a metal tube.

I also heard that pistols were going to be NFA too, the problem was that the .gov would have pissed off everyone if they had done that.

The whole thing is idiotic and needs to be done away with. But we already knew that...

Posted: 1/17/2006 10:51:32 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
there is a stiff penalty for NFA weapons for the same reason there is a stiff penalty for murder. To discourage such deadly weapons for being easily obtainable like before 1934.

FA = Lots of firepower, and you gotta pay to get it. legally.

I'm coming to your house to kill you. You've got a choice between eating eating 30 rounds out of my semi-auto WASR-10 or 30 rounds out of my full-auto AMD-65. Which will kill you deader?

Idiot.

Posted: 1/17/2006 11:11:44 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
there is a stiff penalty for NFA weapons for the same reason there is a stiff penalty for murder. To discourage such deadly weapons for being easily obtainable like before 1934.

FA = Lots of firepower, and you gotta pay to get it. legally.

I'm coming to your house to kill you. You've got a choice between eating eating 30 rounds out of my semi-auto WASR-10 or 30 rounds out of my full-auto AMD-65. Which will kill you deader?

Idiot.

+1

Posted: 1/17/2006 11:52:43 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
there is a stiff penalty for NFA weapons for the same reason there is a stiff penalty for murder. To discourage such deadly weapons for being easily obtainable like before 1934.

FA = Lots of firepower, and you gotta pay to get it. legally.

You really don't know anything about the NFA act of 1934, and what it did, do you?

Having a weapon with a shorter barrel sure makes those weapons more deadly, doesn't it? And those hollywood quiet silencers that make larger caliber centerfire rifles sound like PFFFT. We all know those are too deadly for the civilian populace to just be able to buy... we must regulate and tax them!

Let me ask you this: if I take the muffler off my car, I will be ticketed for noise if I drive it on a public street. This is to control noise pollution as well as prevent peoples hearing loss by extended exposure to loud noise. Why then would not the same benefits be extended for those that enjoy the shooting sports? A muffler for your gun would be safer on your, and your bystanders, hearing, not to mention it would abate much of the noise generated by shooting facilities. But according to you these mufflers, as part of the NFA, are illegal because untaxed posession of them is akin to murder.

You'll forgive me, but your logic is so flawed as to be borderline retarded. In the future, think before you speak.

Posted: 1/17/2006 11:57:48 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Why are they more deadly and powerful?

Propaganda

Because if you get hit with three rounds instead of one you are more likely to die?

I don't buy the arguments that it's harder to hit with FA - I see people punching holes in silhouette targets all the time. And it's never just one hole, and it's always much quicker than I could should with my pistol. The simple fact is that FA weapons are capable of putting more energy on target in a give amount of time than semi weapons.

It's silly to make the argument that FA as effective or less effective than SA fire. If that were the case none of us would want the crappy machineguns.

FA fire from a shoulder-fired weapon is useful for suppression and for close range fire. In those roles it is much more effective than SA fire.

Posted: 1/18/2006 12:02:48 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

I'm coming to your house to kill you. You've got a choice between eating eating 30 rounds out of my semi-auto WASR-10 or 30 rounds out of my full-auto AMD-65. Which will kill you deader?

Well, I bet one of them can put more rounds on target faster, or alternatively greatly increase your ability to score multiple hits under stress at close range.

Let's not be blinded by the politics of it. You wouldn't own a FA AMD-65 if it didn't have advantages. Why deny them?

The real position should be "yes, it's more effective at killin', and sometimes people need killin'!" But we're pussified to the point that we're arguing AGAINST the effectiveness of machineguns to make some bedwetting liberals feel better. Fuck it. I want machineguns BECAUSE they're more deadly.

Edit to fix awkward mixed metaphor

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:27:05 AM EDT

[#8]

I think most of the penalties are there so that prosecutors have extra charges to tack on to people's cases. When people are looking at 20 years for a SBS, a plea can look pretty good.

It's probably easier to bust the local gangbanger for a sawed off shotgun or other NFA violation and use him/her to snitch on their higher-ups with the threat of 20 years in the federal pen than to assemble a "real" case based on gangbanging / drugs, etc.

Hell - a lot of well-meaning but uninformed "regular" gun owners are probably out there violating NFA and other fed gun laws without knowing it or meaning to.

Over the last 10 years, we've all probably seen AWB violations at gun shows by uninformed gun owners that weren't up to speed on parts counts, etc.

Part of the reason I started coming to ARFCOM and other boards was to get informed and make sure I was proceeding legally...

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:33:44 AM EDT

[#9]

What makes NFA firearms more 'fearsome' and 'deadly' than others?

More Fearsome? : Willful ignorance, illogic, chronic propaganda aimed at invoking fear, and fear itself.

More Deadly? : See above. The laws pertaining to machineguns were all propagated out of the above reasons.

Criminals have no less access to machineguns than anyone else. Remember, criminals don't obey laws and almost any gun can be made to fire full auto, some easier than others. Just because a law is put on the books as a stumbling block to law abiding citizens, it does nothing to stop a criminal who is intent on obtaining a machinegun.

The laws passed in 1934, 68, 86, 94 ect were all reactionary to some incident that preceeded them and based on willful ignorance, illogic, propaganda and fear.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:17:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm coming to your house to kill you. You've got a choice between eating eating 30 rounds out of my semi-auto WASR-10 or 30 rounds out of my full-auto AMD-65. Which will kill you deader?

Well, I bet one of them can put more rounds on target faster, or alternatively greatly increase your ability to score multiple hits under stress at close range.

Let's not be blinded by the politics of it. You wouldn't own a FA AMD-65 if it didn't have advantages. Why deny them?

The real position should be "yes, it's more effective at killin', and sometimes people need killin'!" But we're pussified to the point that we're arguing AGAINST the effectiveness of machineguns to make some bedwetting liberals feel better. Fuck it. I want machineguns BECAUSE they're more deadly.

Edit to fix awkward mixed metaphor

Well back to the North Hollywood model and you have lots of fire power and yes more rounds in the general direction of the target.....and what did it buy the guys with the AKs...a couple more minutes of life. And they wouldn't have had that much if the cops had rifles to begin with...semi auto rifle as a matter of fact....

bottom line is full auto is nice, but good hits win in the end.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:32:48 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I think most of the penalties are there so that prosecutors have extra charges to tack on to people's cases. When people are looking at 20 years for a SBS, a plea can look pretty good.

It's probably easier to bust the local gangbanger for a sawed off shotgun or other NFA violation and use him/her to snitch on their higher-ups with the threat of 20 years in the federal pen than to assemble a "real" case based on gangbanging / drugs, etc.

Hell - a lot of well-meaning but uninformed "regular" gun owners are probably out there violating NFA and other fed gun laws without knowing it or meaning to. Over the last 10 years, we've all probably seen AWB violations at gun shows by uninformed gun owners that weren't up to speed on parts counts, etc.

Part of the reason I started coming to ARFCOM and other boards was to get informed and make sure I was proceeding legally...

The problem is the gangbanger will do a couple years and become a "better" criminal. While the poor shmuck that gets popped for the 14 1/2 in barrel on his M4orgery because he didn't nail the flash hider to ATF specs will be screwed for life.

Posted: 1/18/2006 3:58:28 AM EDT

[#12]

..

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:35:52 AM EDT

[#13]

Because to a liberal mindset, the more scary it looks the more damage and carnage it is likely to cause. 100% pure ignorance.

I have more fear of a competition shooter who puts three rounds of 38 super into my head in one second than I am a gangsta who has a FA turned sidewise and spraying rounds in true bling bling fashion. Or the one with that sawed shotgun with #6 loads. Or of ever being assinated with a silenced rifle.

Face it: ignorance of truth = need to instill fear. Thy make these types of weapons seem scarier bescause it furthers their final agenda. They can't ban guns, so they compromise with, "Well, surely these guns are much more deadly than regular guns!"

Posted: 1/18/2006 6:27:23 AM EDT

[#14]

Just because something is on the black market doesn't mean it will cost more. Illegal full auto weapons, be they smuggled, stolen, or converted, often have a street value of a bit less than their legal semi counterparts. (and therefore they of course come nowhere near the legal, transferable weapons in price). This is because illegal FA weapons are considered a liability by many who own them, be they unscrupulous collectors and shooters, or criminals who decide they want or need one for some reason. It's like buying a house at auction that has a huge outstanding property tax debt.

Posted: 1/18/2006 6:36:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because if you get hit with three rounds instead of one you are more likely to die?

I don't buy the arguments that it's harder to hit with FA - I see people punching holes in silhouette targets all the time. And it's never just one hole, and it's always much quicker than I could should with my pistol. The simple fact is that FA weapons are capable of putting more energy on target in a give amount of time than semi weapons.

What? In a given amount of time? So if I place three rounds in you, from my SA58 in 2 seconds, it is more upsetting to you that with a happy switch I did that in 0.8 seconds? 6 rounds in 4 seconds or 6 rounds in 2 seconds makes a big difference in the death rate?

Sure there are some benefits to full auto fire: Less jerking of the trigger, ability to "walk" rounds to the target and so on. But the claim that they are a league of deadly unto themselves is just silly. Unless we are talking a beltfed of some kind, you carry the same firepower into a fight with an M16 or an AR15 assuming the same ammo load-out. In fact the semi shooter may be more deadly since he his more forced into the judicious use of that resource.

I know for a fact I would not suddenly feel out-gunned in a situation where a bad guy had a FA AK where I would have felt confident if he were using a semi. If nothing else I may get more oppertunity to move and position while he reloads.

Please do not put words into my keyboard. My two statements were simply this:

1) That you were more likely to die from being hit with multiple ["three"] rounds than one.
2) That a FA weapon can place more energy on target in a given amount of time.

Do you dispute either assertion? If not, then go find someone else to argue with.

My beef with FA is that the people I've encountered who have them, with only a couple of exceptions, turn out to be complete a$$holes. On the positive side, they never save their brass and I love it when they leave hundreds of .45ACP empties for me to add to my reloading stash.

I wasn't trying to put words in your keyboard. In the context of this thread it appears you were saying that NFA weapons are more 'fearsome' and 'deadly' because they can put multiple rounds into a target instead of one. If that's not what you are trying to say then I misunderstood what you were refering too.

No one is disputing that the cyclic rate of the FA weapon is higher or that it delivers more energy per time division than a semi. That still does not put it in a class by itself is all most are trying to say. My experiance with owners of NFA items has been just the opposite actually. I've seen a few nutcases but most have been very friendly and decent folks. Just a different observation.

Posted: 1/18/2006 6:55:29 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why are they more deadly and powerful?

Propaganda

Because if you get hit with three rounds instead of one you are more likely to die?

I don't buy the arguments that it's harder to hit with FA - I see people punching holes in silhouette targets all the time. And it's never just one hole, and it's always much quicker than I could should with my pistol. The simple fact is that FA weapons are capable of putting more energy on target in a give amount of time than semi weapons.

It's silly to make the argument that FA as effective or less effective than SA fire. If that were the case none of us would want the crappy machineguns.

FA fire from a shoulder-fired weapon is useful for suppression and for close range fire. In those roles it is much more effective than SA fire.

I agree to an extent. FA makes those tasks easier, not suddenly possible, just easier. Suppressive fire can be made with SA rifles as well. You just need enough noise and hits on the area to make people keep their heads down. That is certainly possible with practice to do. It's not that FA isn't useful, but the claim that where a SA rifle is just a pussy-cat it's FA clone is a death-dealing murder machine and that the only difference is a switch that rotates further is what amazes me from even other gun owners.

Posted: 1/18/2006 6:57:41 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
It didn't....it and the 68, 86 where designed to keep us for getting the covered weapons. Any bad guy with money can buy any of the weapons covered by the laws. IMO the only reason for the 1986 ban was that machineguns where starting to get popular and the Bradys jumped on it before it got to the piont they couldn't.

Well it didn't work. MGs are more popular than ever!

Posted: 1/18/2006 7:09:23 AM EDT

[#18]

I think we should outline the points we are trying to make here.

- Full autos are more effective than semi-autos at suppresive fire, and at close range fighting
- Semi-auto fire (wether from a semi-auto rifle, or from a full-auto rifle selected to semi) is just as effective as full auto in putting lead on target at intermediate to long ranges.
- Having a machine gun does not make you able to hit your target
- A trained man with a semi auto (Matix and Platt) will trump jokers with a full auto (Phillips and Matasareanu)
- Full auto weapons (like SBS/SBR) are not deathdealing babykilling milk curdling machines that are more deadly than other weapons.

Can we agree on the above points?

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:19:09 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Shotgun
2) Shotgun

1 Rd 3" 00 buck = 1/2 magaazine out of a 9mm SMG

seiously though if the antis ever figured out what a shotgun is capable of within its effective range the Fudds are screwed

Good point - you are right. The only thing a Mac/MP5/etc. would have over the shotgun is that it's more easily concealable and that it can utilize JHP rounds.

More then what .......a Glock with a 33 round magazine? Ever watch a IPSC shooter run though El President ?...with mag changes?

I'm pretty damn fast, I fun mag change to fire time in the 1.2 to 1.4 second range, I shoot good and fast to. I'm not shit compared to say an MP-5, now you get someone with an SMG that's trained to use it whether it be through terrorist training, a cop or soldier gone nuts, or someone like me that's learned to shoot for fun go nuts with that kind of weaponry, then I worry. What the libtards don't get though, is that since a LEGALLY OBTAINED CLASS 3 WEAPON HAS NEVERBEEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, that more laws don't do one damn bit of good. Actually this fact is a case to make it a tad easier for us to obtain them to equalize things but they don't get logic.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:20:52 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Shotgun
2) Shotgun

1 Rd 3" 00 buck = 1/2 magaazine out of a 9mm SMG

seiously though if the antis ever figured out what a shotgun is capable of within its effective range the Fudds are screwed

Good point - you are right. The only thing a Mac/MP5/etc. would have over the shotgun is that it's more easily concealable and that it can utilize JHP rounds.

More then what .......a Glock with a 33 round magazine? Ever watch a IPSC shooter run though El President ?...with mag changes?
I'm pretty damn fast, I fun mag change to fire time in the 1.2 to 1.4 second range, I shoot good and fast to. I'm not shit compared to say an MP-5, now you get someone with an SMG that's trained to use it whether it be through terrorist training, a cop or soldier gone nuts, or someone like me that's learned to shoot for fun go nuts with that kind of weaponry, then I worry. What the libtards don't get though, is that since a LEGALLY OBTAINED CLASS 3 WEAPON HAS NEVERBEEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, that more laws don't do one damn bit of good. Actually this fact is a case to make it a tad easier for us to obtain them to equalize things but they don't get logic.

actually they have been used in TWO since 1934. one a suicide, the other was a dirty cop killing a witness with a mac-11

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:25:19 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Shotgun
2) Shotgun

1 Rd 3" 00 buck = 1/2 magaazine out of a 9mm SMG

seiously though if the antis ever figured out what a shotgun is capable of within its effective range the Fudds are screwed

Good point - you are right. The only thing a Mac/MP5/etc. would have over the shotgun is that it's more easily concealable and that it can utilize JHP rounds.

More then what .......a Glock with a 33 round magazine? Ever watch a IPSC shooter run though El President ?...with mag changes?
I'm pretty damn fast, I fun mag change to fire time in the 1.2 to 1.4 second range, I shoot good and fast to. I'm not shit compared to say an MP-5, now you get someone with an SMG that's trained to use it whether it be through terrorist training, a cop or soldier gone nuts, or someone like me that's learned to shoot for fun go nuts with that kind of weaponry, then I worry. What the libtards don't get though, is that since a LEGALLY OBTAINED CLASS 3 WEAPON HAS NEVERBEEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, that more laws don't do one damn bit of good. Actually this fact is a case to make it a tad easier for us to obtain them to equalize things but they don't get logic.

actually they have been used in TWO since 1934. one a suicide, the other was a dirty cop killing a witness with a mac-11

From what I was told the cop didn't go through the same procedures that we have to. Whether it be a PD purchase or illegal. I dunno if it's true, but gee, what do you mean? A cop broke a gun law that a civilian hasn't? OMG don't tell the libs they think we are the devil. And I heard about the suicide. That shouldn't count. You wanna off yourself, fine? I know attempted suicide is a crime but really how can killing yourself be illegal? What are they gonna do to you for it?

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:26:10 AM EDT

[#22]

I can sum the answer in one word: IGNORANCE

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:27:29 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Shotgun
2) Shotgun

1 Rd 3" 00 buck = 1/2 magaazine out of a 9mm SMG

seiously though if the antis ever figured out what a shotgun is capable of within its effective range the Fudds are screwed

Good point - you are right. The only thing a Mac/MP5/etc. would have over the shotgun is that it's more easily concealable and that it can utilize JHP rounds.

More then what .......a Glock with a 33 round magazine? Ever watch a IPSC shooter run though El President ?...with mag changes?
I'm pretty damn fast, I fun mag change to fire time in the 1.2 to 1.4 second range, I shoot good and fast to. I'm not shit compared to say an MP-5, now you get someone with an SMG that's trained to use it whether it be through terrorist training, a cop or soldier gone nuts, or someone like me that's learned to shoot for fun go nuts with that kind of weaponry, then I worry. What the libtards don't get though, is that since a LEGALLY OBTAINED CLASS 3 WEAPON HAS NEVERBEEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, that more laws don't do one damn bit of good. Actually this fact is a case to make it a tad easier for us to obtain them to equalize things but they don't get logic.

actually they have been used in TWO since 1934. one a suicide, the other was a dirty cop killing a witness with a mac-11

The reason I don't like this argument is that it opens up a lot more weapons to NFA controls.
"If semiautomatic assault cannons of death were added to NFA, there would be fewer crimes"

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:35:46 AM EDT

[#24]

You have to add that shitloads of stolen, illegally created, illegally imported weapons that should be NFA have been used in the commission of crimes. You put all the facts down and it's just more proof that more laws don't help, they will just find ways around them. And that criminals will break a lesser law, like a weapons possession charge to commit a larger one, like murder. They don't care about the law, that's what people should be seeing. But being liberal means your not capable of such logic.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:35:47 AM EDT

[#25]

Someone trained to use controlled bursts on full auto can POTENTIALLY be more effective than someone trained who only has a semi-auto. Their rate of fire goes up, which MAY increase their chances of extra hits.

More deadly? Not at all.

Just more volume, if needed, to keep some people's heads down.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:36:44 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Someone trained to use controlled bursts on full auto can POTENTIALLY be more effective than someone trained who only has a semi-auto.

More deadly? Not at all.

Just more volume, if needed to keep some people's heads down.

it just means that they reload more often, making them easier to kill

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:37:37 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I think we should outline the points we are trying to make here.

- Full autos are more effective than semi-autos at suppresive fire, and at close range fighting
- Semi-auto fire (wether from a semi-auto rifle, or from a full-auto rifle selected to semi) is just as effective as full auto in putting lead on target at intermediate to long ranges.
- Having a machine gun does not make you able to hit your target
- A trained man with a semi auto (Matix and Platt) will trump jokers with a full auto (Phillips and Matasareanu)
- Full auto weapons (like SBS/SBR) are not deathdealing babykilling milk curdling machines that are more deadly than other weapons.

Can we agree on the above points?

Yep - I agree with each of your points.

Posted: 1/18/2006 9:57:37 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone trained to use controlled bursts on full auto can POTENTIALLY be more effective than someone trained who only has a semi-auto.

More deadly? Not at all.

Just more volume, if needed to keep some people's heads down.

it just means that they reload more often, making them easier to kill

If you say so...

A controlled 3-shot burst comes from the carbine faster. If you can control the burst, all three rounds end up in the target faster -- allowing you to move on to the next target sooner.

If you have a semi-auto the three rounds come out slower, keeping you on target 1 longer.

Again, I am talking about trained auto fire, not HEAT and North Hollywood shootout style full auto fire.

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:16:07 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone trained to use controlled bursts on full auto can POTENTIALLY be more effective than someone trained who only has a semi-auto.

More deadly? Not at all.

Just more volume, if needed to keep some people's heads down.

it just means that they reload more often, making them easier to kill

If you say so...

A controlled 3-shot burst comes from the carbine faster. If you can control the burst, all three rounds end up in the target faster -- allowing you to move on to the next target sooner.

If you have a semi-auto the three rounds come out slower, keeping you on target 1 longer.

Again, I am talking about trained auto fire, not HEAT and North Hollywood shootout style full auto fire.

considering that three bullets are going to put someone out of the fight just as well as one, I dont see the super lethality here

Posted: 1/18/2006 10:43:20 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
considering that three bullets are going to put someone out of the fight just as well as one, I dont see the super lethality here

If you train with a "single, magic bullet" mindset, you are ALREADY easy to kill.

Would hate to shoot someone ONCE in the chest and find out they had hard armor on...

I don't know about you but, in shooting the M16 quite a bit, I have found getting 1 and 2 shot bursts, with the selector on AUTO, is fairly easy.

Hammer pairs come easy, AND FAST, with the giggle switch...

FWIW.

Posted: 1/18/2006 11:09:00 AM EDT

[#31]

Ignorance does.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What makes NFA firearms more 'fearsome' and 'deadly' than others? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us