Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/25/2003 2:59:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:03:16 PM EDT
purpose, intent, effort, "I did my best", "I did the best I could", etc. count for shit in my book. This works both ways. I couldn't care less if you tried your best to do something, if you failed, then you suck. It also carries over into the "design intent" of inanimate objects. I don't care if something was designd to feed the starving, or kill the masses, it's an inanimate object, and it's the person using it that matters. Not sure if this is what you're asking or not, but there it is.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:08:45 PM EDT
Look at it this way. The Maxim machinegun was designed to prevent any war. It supposed to be such a terrible killing machine that no one would ever want to use it and no one would go to war. The end result of it's use didn't really fit what the designer had in mind. I don't really have a point and don't if it even applies, but there it is.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:14:02 PM EDT
The only "design purpose" I see a firearm has is to fire a projectile. Whether it is semi, full, select or single fire; magazine, drum, clip or breach loaded is of no consequence. The "user" decides what they will target. If I shoot at paper all day, my semi-auto, magazine-fed rifle is a target rifle. It only becomes an anti-personnel weapon if I, the user, point and fire it at another human. I make the deciding choice on how that firearm is being used. I am certain that certain design criterion are considered as the firearm is in development or design stage, but the ultimate decision on how it will be used is up to the end user. Not G Stoner, not C Heston, M Moore, S Brady or my parents. Me. -934
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:20:46 PM EDT
I think that the more you know about guns, the less you're concerned with the "design purpose". Unfortunately, that means that *many* people think it matters. I don't. Every firearm is designed to provide a safe (for the shooter) and stable platform for launching a projectile. Doesn't matter if it's CO2 behind a copper ball or burning powder behind a lead slug. *That's* the design. Unless you've got some seriously funky stuff (I'm excluding shotguns here), that's all every firearm will do. And, again excluding funky Class III stuff, that's only going to happen once with each pull of the trigger. The only other variables are how quickly a fresh round is brought up and chambered and how many rounds can be accessed without having to refresh the magazine. I suppose an argument could be made that semi-auto actions and detachable mags have a "design purpose" to increase potential rate of fire. Was that his objection? Actually, what was your point? [;)]
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:38:52 PM EDT
KeithC - Every firearm is designed to provide a safe (for the shooter) and stable platform for launching a projectile. I agree. When Remington and Winchester released their Model 700 and 70 rifles, they were as big game (deer) rifles. Take it in the woods and shoot a deer. It's a "deer rifle". During war time, some individuals got the idea of putting a telescopic sight on them and pointing it at the emeney. Now it's a "sniper rifle". I have rifles that were designed for hunting that have only shot paper. They must be "target rifles". Like KeithC said "Every firearm is designed to provide a safe (for the shooter) and stable platform for launching a projectile." It's the shooter that determines its use.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 3:40:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 3:44:05 PM EDT by Andreuha]
[smartass] Why semi-auto only? I'm going to build me a sporting weapon for the blind. The reasoning is that one-shot-one-kill isnt a possibility for someone who cannot even see their target, and it's just wrong not to let physically disables peoples to use firearms due to such discrimination. Here's the initial design. [img]http://members.es.tripod.de/jumiju/minigun2.jpg[/img] [;D] [;D] [;D] [;D] [/smartass]
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 4:01:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 4:03:42 PM EDT
I think alot of people think design matters I for inststance hunt predators (coyotes, bobcats). Most people do that with "hunting rifles". I use too till I got tired of calling in multibles and couldn't get shots off at the others. Got smart,got an AR, and now I have the perfect predator calling rifle. It was designed as a battle rifle, but also doubles as a great hunting rifle. I don't think design matters as long as the tool fits the job at hand. I still get funny looks when I get out with it, but most want one when they see the results.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 4:29:15 PM EDT
Here's one for your father. Take him to a store that sells BB guns and paint ball guns. Tell him to check the magazine capacity on these firearms. Show him a Kentucky long rifle (designed originally as a sniper rifle) Go back over the garand. Discuss the mauser bolt action and the mod 70 and 700's use as a sniper rifle for the past 50 years. Show him that the firearms that were used for battle in the revolutionary war were also used for bringing home food. Show him the lever action winchester that he probably has in the closet/gun safe/cabinet and point out that it was designed as a cavalry weapon for killing indians. Ask him if enhancements in car design makes them a greater threat to the public. The AR was simply designed to be easier to use. That is all there is to it. A stable platform to launch a projectile that is easier for the operater to use than other systems. Plain and simple.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 5:37:02 PM EDT
When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, the design intent for it was safer tunnel construction and excavation. For the construction worker, it was a safer, stable alternative to using only the highly unstable nitroglycerine. He never considered until later that it could be used in a negative manner. Another example? Nuclear fission. It's not just for making bombs. It's an alternative to highly pollutive coal and oil and inefficient gas power production.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 5:37:06 PM EDT
They are all designed for the same thing. Well, on a fundamental level anyway. I don't have a problem with that.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 6:03:07 PM EDT
I just thought of another comparison: 19th century repeating rifles. Design intent was to allow the mounted soldier the ability to fire successive shots without having to dismount to reload, but also benefitted ground troops and later hunters. The Henry rifle is the grandfather of many lever actions that put venison on the table. The rugged all-weather features of a battle rifle made them attractive to hunters. Many surplus Krags, Springfields, Enfields and Mausers found their way into the backwoods and beanfields as sturdy hunting rifles.
Top Top