Colt Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This controversy again over assault weapons reminds me of the Winchester '97 trench gun. It has no disconnector and will fire as it is pumped if the trigger is held back. Years ago "Soldier of Fortune" magazine did a test on the Winchester '97 trench gun and found you could put more 9mm rounds on the target than with an Uzi in the same amount of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
;) let's say 3 minutes is the time, I doubt you can reload that 97 faster than another mag can be put in the UZI. 9 rounds of 38 cal in a double ought buck and 8 rounds to the shotgun give 72 rnds from the shotgun before a reload but at only 8 targets. UZI can place 32 rounds on 32 targets and where you want them to go. Rate of fire is 600 rpm so three minutes is 1800 rounds while you run 200 rounds of double ought through to get the same number. Can you run 200 buck shot in three minutes?;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
Or like my former Ohio National Guard Riot Gun made in 1940 and sold as excess military equipment in 1976 for $150.00?







It was supposedly used within the Ohio State Prison System but I haven't been able to confirm that yet. I traded a Springfield Armory M1A for it; as nice as condition as mine is (and what I had in the M1A) I think I got a darn good deal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,820 Posts
There is such a thing as an "assault rifle"...the definition is based on the original German Stg44...

1) it must be a carbine;
2) it must fire an intermediate round;
3) it must fire from a locked breech;
4) it must have a detachable magazine;
5) it must be select-fire.

If it doesn't meet all five of those requirements, it simply isn't an assault rifle. The M1 Garand, M14, FN-FAL, H&K G3, M1903 Springfield, SMLE and others are main battle rifles...they fire full-power rounds, are not carbines, don't have pistol grips and are either not select-fire or fire full-power rounds if they are select-fire. A bayonet lug doesn't make them assault rifles...they're only to fit a bayonet on the rifle when necessary.

The M1 Carbine fits all those criteria if it was select-fire...the M2 Carbine is one. If that feature had been adopted on the M1 it would have been the first and original assault rifle.

Unfortunately, the term has been misappropriated by politics and the media...as usual with no knowledge of facts and historical context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I am of the opinion that the Stg44 was an assault rifle because Hitler called it one.
I also thought that the term battle rifle was stupidity personified.
I could never understand, at what point of combat, would a soldier exchange his battle rifle for an assault rifle.

The firearm pictured above looks like an assault shotgun.
Jim C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,820 Posts
Even if Hitler did coin the term, it doesn't change the definition as the definition was defined by the Stg44. It would have been called something at any rate. If the M2 Carbine had been the first, would it have still been called an assault rifle or something else? We'll never know.

I'm guessing the terms "assault rifles" and "main battle rifle" were used as much as anything to delineate the difference between the two as they do have specific definitions that set one another apart...even if current usage mixes the two.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,804 Posts
This controversy again over assault weapons reminds me of the Winchester '97 trench gun. It has no disconnector and will fire as it is pumped if the trigger is held back. Years ago "Soldier of Fortune" magazine did a test on the Winchester '97 trench gun and found you could put more 9mm rounds on the target than with an Uzi in the same amount of time.
Same thing fanning an SAA. Hold down the trigger, spray and pray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
How about those Winchester SL's? I have a 1907 .351 WSL and a Model 1903 .22 Auto mag made in 1912. I bought several boxes of ammo for it; not the cheapest rimfire ammo! When I went to get a link for my 1907 I found that my photo (with photo credit in my website's name - IWANTTHATKNIFE.COM) on a Russian website about the Winchester .351 Self Loader....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,882 Posts
Problem of Definitions

Here's a good definition: The semi-automatic rifles xxxx used Sunday night to blow away roughly 558 people, 58 with such massive wounds the blow-away was total.

Whatever you want to call these they were described as firing a 9mm bullet three times faster than a handgun could with such power that a ballooning shockwave was created in the victim, tearing blood vessels and organs, literally shredding Grandma's or little Stevie's insides.

I call them "war guns" for short. The 2nd A., and I'm a firm believer, was authored by folks surrounded by quite different weapons. I don't think if they were around Sunday night watching the videos they would have cried with one voice, "Everybody's got to have one of those." Likely the opposite.

Many guns and laws support safety for the innocent while allowing the usual THREE: Self-Defense, Sport, or Target use. These are fine, the guns and the laws. But these guns I saw in action Sunday are not supported in use for any of the THREE. They are not NEEDED for Self Defense because there are hundreds of other gun choices (or if they are needed then everybody should have a tank too), they are not needed for hunting, in fact the thought makes me queasy of what that would like in action, and they are not needed for target practice unless the object is to shred as much paper as possible.

You all know much more of weapon nomenclature, their internals, rounds etc, especially in long guns, than I do.
I just know what I see.

Please get them out of my country, or sell them to the military, "used specials".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
assault-vehicle-its-black-scary-looking-and-was-clearly-designed-to-7895793-1.png
like-share-if-you-agree-rights-dont-change-just-26516809-1.png

Get the point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,820 Posts
Here's a good definition: The semi-automatic rifles xxxx used Sunday night to blow away roughly 558 people, 58 with such massive wounds the blow-away was total.

Whatever you want to call these they were described as firing a 9mm bullet three times faster than a handgun could with such power that a ballooning shockwave was created in the victim, tearing blood vessels and organs, literally shredding Grandma's or little Stevie's insides.

I call them "war guns" for short. The 2nd A., and I'm a firm believer, was authored by folks surrounded by quite different weapons. I don't think if they were around Sunday night watching the videos they would have cried with one voice, "Everybody's got to have one of those." Likely the opposite.

Many guns and laws support safety for the innocent while allowing the usual THREE: Self-Defense, Sport, or Target use. These are fine, the guns and the laws. But these guns I saw in action Sunday are not supported in use for any of the THREE. They are not NEEDED for Self Defense because there are hundreds of other gun choices (or if they are needed then everybody should have a tank too), they are not needed for hunting, in fact the thought makes me queasy of what that would like in action, and they are not needed for target practice unless the object is to shred as much paper as possible.

You all know much more of weapon nomenclature, their internals, rounds etc, especially in long guns, than I do.
I just know what I see.

Please get them out of my country, or sell them to the military, "used specials".

Your points are well taken but certainly arguable. Your take on the authors of the Second Amendment, while genuine and defensible is a moot point as we will never know for sure. We can only go by their reasons behind such an amendment and can do so through the writings on it in the Federalist Papers. The framers had lived through an oppressive government and included the Second Amendment to make sure the citizenry can defend itself from another oppressive government...one of our own making. The Militia Act of 1792 specified that the Militia consists of all men between certain ages, with the exceptions of certain public figures whose duties required them to stay in place. The Act also requires all members of the unorganized militia to provide their own firearms of the common type in use for service. While the Militia has been superseded by the National Guard for all intents and purposes, to my knowledge the Militia Act, while amended, has never actually been repealed.

Your responses to what was described as "firing a 9mm bullet three times faster than a handgun could" is kind of stating the obvious...any semi-automatic long gun can usually do that taking into account any modicum of skill on the part of the shooter. Without knowing what design bullet was used, the statement about what a bullet does to a person's insides, it's pretty obvious that's what a projectile of any kind does to a body...young, old, man, woman...it doesn't differentiate. If an explosive device was used, just as many bodies would be violated in much the same way.

Anyone who decides to own a firearms makes decisions which type of firearm to buy...whether it's for sport, plinking, defense...whatever. Because one person may choose something different than I would for similar purposes doesn't make them wrong or dangerous in and of itself.

Basically...we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
 

·
Forum Friend
Joined
·
5,858 Posts
Earliest assault weapon still in my family, but with its history --


A Civil War bring-back with legend taken from a Zouave soldier & known for butchering hogs for decades thereafter ----->
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top