just askin...is this an "assault" rifle??

originally posted by: edaced4

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: edaced4

According to the last Ban:

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon.

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow...so at least up intil 2004, this actually WAS an "assault rifle"! It actually has three of the additional attributes to being an "assault rifle":

It has a telescoping stock
It has a pistol grip
and....

I could mount a bayonet on it!!

hhhhmmmmmmmm....

I am actually much less concerned with the definition or prohibition of assault rifles than I am with the scrutiny applied during background checks when they are applied.

I own guns, but understand some people shouldn't.
Much of it cannot be prevented, but guys like this had no business having access to large quantities of weapons and ammo.

a reply to: Vasa Croea buddy of mine said nutria stew is one of his favorite dishes,and .22 longs will give you one hell of a headache i know from experience i was shot in forehead from about 30 yards away . mom always said i was thick headed and it game me a concussion and it was a jarring experience for the boy who shot me.

I'm not sure the distinction really matters, practically. It appears to be a .22 LR, and it looks closer to an SMG (without the M part) to me.

The anti-gunners appear to glance over one important fact: we know guns are efficient at killing, which is exactly why we insist on carrying them. If you're unlawfully attacked by a deadly and vicious predator, wouldn't you want only the best to defend your life with?

Lethal weapons are the most effective tool you can select for stopping a deadly threat. I carry an "assault rifle" in my trunk safe because if I need that kind of firepower, I want only the best. In fact, using these types of military offensive weapons allows law abiding citizens to always be several steps ahead of the opposition (criminals and terrorists).

I'll personally take any advantage over these cockroaches I can get. My firearms aren't for hunting or plinking (but they are for training), instead, they are there to put down any scumbag who wants to use deadly force against me (or anyone else). Stopping the threat can only be accomplished by physically removing their ability/option to continue the assault: by destroying the CNS or causing massive blood loss leading to shock.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Except that "assault rifle" has a fairly specific meaning, referring to a rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge and capable of firing in full auto.

But I agree with the principle of what you say, even if I disagree with the technicalities

a reply to: EvillerBob


So true. The accessories for semi-auto assault style weapons increase the comfort of the shooter and the rifle's controllability. They don't have a direct effect on its lethality (although lethality is a good thing for defense weapons). OTOH, something like an under-barrel 12 ga. Gatling gun turret would increase lethality.

On a totally unrelated side note, do they make a rail mounted 12 ga. Gatling gun turret and where can I get one?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: edaced4

Made it look like the mp5 with a silencer wonder if HK knows? Now is it assault rifle 30 min in my garage it would be. Its very essy to convertto full auto since its based on the ar15.

No. The MP5 is not based on the AR15 and they use very, very different internal mechanisms.

Further, the ease of conversion to "full auto" is not really driven by how similar to an AR15 it is. The AR15 uses a comparatively - compared to, say, a Sterling - complicated secondary sear system that times the hammer release so that it only fires when in battery.

Sure you can hack together something that will work, but don't equate that with a proper conversion to a functionally-sound true full-auto firearm.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: edaced4
...this thing serves no practical purpose.

Well, it's UK-legal, so it certainly serves a purpose for UK shooters.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: edaced4

In the UK you can still get semi-automatic firearms on a section 1 ticket as long as they are in a rimfire calibre of up to .22lr and are designed to be fired 2 handed (I.e. not a pistol). They have to be made as .22 and not a converted larger calibre.

Both of these statements are untrue, but I can see where that interpretation comes from.

There is nothing requiring it to be "two handed" which is why you can buy .22 semi-auto pistols and centrefire revolvers. You need to meet minimum barrel length and minimum overall length requirements, so UK-legal handguns tend to be unwieldy and ugly looking things which are often shot with two hands... but then again, most pistol shooters in the US tend to shoot with two hands anyway!

A firearm that is manufactured as a section 5 firearm (ie all the fun stuff like semi-auto centrefire) cannot be converted to a section 1 firearm (ie single-shot centrefire). There is nothing to stop a section 1 centrefire rifle being converted to .22 other than a bit of extra paperwork. Further, plenty of people own a single-shot AR15 in 5.56 with a second bolt for .22 semi-auto, so they can switch easily between calibres.

Yes, for a country that appears to be against many types of firearms, anything that can pewpew is very useful compared to a sharp stick or stern voice.

If a .22lr is all you can own, make the best of it

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: edaced4

In the UK you can still get semi-automatic firearms on a section 1 ticket as long as they are in a rimfire calibre of up to .22lr and are designed to be fired 2 handed (I.e. not a pistol). They have to be made as .22 and not a converted larger calibre.

Both of these statements are untrue, but I can see where that interpretation comes from.

There is nothing requiring it to be "two handed" which is why you can buy .22 semi-auto pistols and centrefire revolvers. You need to meet minimum barrel length and minimum overall length requirements, so UK-legal handguns tend to be unwieldy and ugly looking things which are often shot with two hands... but then again, most pistol shooters in the US tend to shoot with two hands anyway!

A firearm that is manufactured as a section 5 firearm (ie all the fun stuff like semi-auto centrefire) cannot be converted to a section 1 firearm (ie single-shot centrefire). There is nothing to stop a section 1 centrefire rifle being converted to .22 other than a bit of extra paperwork. Further, plenty of people own a single-shot AR15 in 5.56 with a second bolt for .22 semi-auto, so they can switch easily between calibres.

If it started as a semi automatic full bore then it was a Section 5, meaning that under current legislation it cannot legally be converted to a section 1. If you convert it to a .22 it still started as a section 5 so is prohibited. Firearms act 1988

a reply to: edaced4

If this weapon wasn't used in a crime then it's not an assault rifle

originally posted by: PaddyInf

originally posted by: EvillerBob

A firearm that is manufactured as a section 5 firearm (ie all the fun stuff like semi-auto centrefire) cannot be converted to a section 1 firearm (ie single-shot centrefire). There is nothing to stop a section 1 centrefire rifle being converted to .22 other than a bit of extra paperwork. Further, plenty of people own a single-shot AR15 in 5.56 with a second bolt for .22 semi-auto, so they can switch easily between calibres.

If it started as a semi automatic full bore then it was a Section 5, meaning that under current legislation it cannot legally be converted to a section 1. If you convert it to a .22 it still started as a section 5 so is prohibited. Firearms act 1988

Yes, that's what I said. Section 5 cannot become Section 1. However, if it is already Section 1, there's nothing to prevent it being converted to another calibre.

I suspect the confusion here arises from a technical matter. For some types of rifles, including the AR15, the UK-legal single shot version still contains most of the components necessary to function as semi-auto. Converting from legal centerfire single shot to legal semi-auto .22RF is as simple as switching out the bolt in that example. You don't have to start from a Section 5 semi-auto centrefire for the conversion to work, so you don't have face the legal issue of "once Section 5, always Section 5".

It resembles a Submachine Gun (MP-5) not an Assault Rifle, It's Semi-Auto so not an Assault Rifle or SMG, Assault Rifles are select fire, The politicians would consider it an "Assault Weapon" but since it's chambered in .22LR it may be exempt in ban states... I have a S&W M&P 15-22 which is similar, 25 round .22LR resembling an AR-15, It's pretty fun to shoot and very accurate, Shoot tighter groups with it than my actual AR-15.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: edaced4

That is a POS .22 man-barbie toy with little practical use.

Go with a rifle if you want to hit anything.

A .22 pistol for point blank range but this thing serves no practical purpose.

Point blank for a human sized target is 75+ yards.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: 727Sky

Aye I suppose its the convenience of not having to reload and miss the pigs running off to come back the next day and ruin your crops when you have to tend to another part of your farm.

This still doesnt really give any reason for the general public to own a semi automatic, farming , hunting sure thats reasonable.

I think that hunting is a good enough reason in this instance but urban dwellers owning a semi auto rifle , where is the justification in that.

I was genuinely asking the question , not hinting that I know better than say farmers using semi's for hunting.

Perhaps because sport shooting requires an accurate rifle and the AR platform is pretty accurate out of the box and happens to be semi-auto. It also has very little recoil for follow up shots depending on how things are scored.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: edaced4

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: edaced4

According to the last Ban:

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon.

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow...so at least up intil 2004, this actually WAS an "assault rifle"! It actually has three of the additional attributes to being an "assault rifle":

It has a telescoping stock
It has a pistol grip
and....

I could mount a bayonet on it!!

hhhhmmmmmmmm....

I am actually much less concerned with the definition or prohibition of assault rifles than I am with the scrutiny applied during background checks when they are applied.

I own guns, but understand some people shouldn't.
Much of it cannot be prevented, but guys like this had no business having access to large quantities of weapons and ammo.

Adam Lanza did not legally possess the firearm he used. He murdered the owner (his own mother) and stole the rifle. Just wanted to clarify that.

Not a bad rifle (link on the handle is nice).

a reply to: edaced4

It is SubmachineGun but not an assualt rifle it is mor close range then mid range i might be wrong.Assasult rifle is the AK-47 and the M4 or other longer barell weapons.

Agreed I'd pin it close to a pistol caliber carbine.

I wouldn't label any firearm that hasn't seen global conflict an assault rifle.

Both my brothers both have AR-15's & I am buying an AK47 in about a week.
(Didnt like my m16 when i was enlisted)

If the rifle has never been issued in combat then it's not an assault rifle

a reply to: edaced4

is this a loaded question ?