Candidates Confused on Gun Ban

Fox News ^ | November 19, 2003 | John R. Lott Jr.

[mykdsmom]

A new career awaits Democratic presidential candidates: offering advice to hunters.

Tuesday, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean explained his support for extending the assault weapons ban next year because

[Phantom Lord]

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting!

[M1Tanker]

I love it how Shumer links banning these firearms makes us safer from terrorists. Hey Chuckie, how does ripping the right of self defense away from the citizens of the US and leaving them vulnerable to criminals and terrorists (who can get any weapon they want at any time) make us "safer" from terrorists.

Why, Leftists, do you not want the people to be able to defend themselves when the most promenant amongst you carry weapons concealed and are surrounded by armed bodyguards? And why is it ok to you that these "elites" among the Left carry and are guarded by the same firearms you call "assault weapons"?

For the Leftists, it's just another case of The Animal Farm: We are all equal, but the Leftist Elites are more equal than the "masses", and definatly more equal than conservatives.

Please President Bush, stop trying to coddle, get along with, and placate these leftists. You've tried to please Teddy Kennedy and where has that gotten you? Do the right thing and kill this "assault weapons" ban.

[BCR #226]

Yes, he is correct. To pass muster in the USA, a semi automatic rifle must not be able to use full auto parts without modification to the receiver. As an example, let's look at the AR-15. To conver this gun to full auto, you need to replace the bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, selector switch (safety) and you must mill the receiver to allow the auto sear to be installed.

A similar process is required for almost all semi auto rifles. It takes some time to do the conversion and it is illegal unless you are a class 2 manufacturer.

Mike

[RLK]

Well, I know on a lot of rifles all that's needed is to shave down the sheer pin.

----------------------

That's an old wives tale. What would happen is the firing pin would slide into the primer. The firing would be haphazard. In a nodern inertial firing pin system you would get nothing. To operate effectively, a fully automatic rifle employs a delay system in which the pin hits the cartrige after the breech is closed and locked.

[Oberon]

Now I want to go deer hunting with an ak-47.

I know a fellow who had to hunt his first year, starting out, with a borrowed SKS and suitable softpoint ammo. He got his limit that season (six deer).

Apparently the 7.62x39 (same cartridge as the AK series) will do the job quite thoroughly. It is, after all, ballistically very close to the .30-30, one of the most successful deer-hunting cartridges of all time.

[Still Thinking]

You and I had the same thought, word for word. See my post 4.

[MileHi]

Well, I know on a lot of rifles all that's needed is to shave down the sheer pin.

That might get you a rifle that fires until the magazine is empty. And I believe you mean the "sear"

[MD_Willington_1976]

How about a .308 based on a Kalishnakov design?

These are made in Utah, Robarm also makes pretty fancy AK-type rifles.

www.robarm.com

[July 4th]

I have a SAR in 5.45x39, and I shudder to think of what the deer would look like after getting hit with one of those rounds. Regardless, if I want a foot-wide exit hole in my trophy, that is my prerogative.

[Puppage]

Yep, on both accounts.

[Sender]

The old and oft-repeated saw about replacing or removing one part or filing down one part to turn semi-autos into full-autos was born back in the 70's and 80's when there were a few open-bolt semi-autos that were basically full-auto guns fitted with an added disconnector. This was true, and production and importation of open-bolt guns was halted in 1986 I believe. The existing open-bolt guns were grandfathered and now command ridiculously high prices when they are sold. Even though they were easy to convert, they were no less illegal to convert and no more dangerous to own in their unmodified form.

Contemporary semi-autos such as AK's and AR-15s do require replacement of several parts to be converted, and this is critical, also require irreversible and easily visible drilling and/or machining of the serial-numbered receiver. Anyone with rudimentary tool skills and some mechanical aptitude could create an illegal full-auto or select-fire weapon from available parts, but there has been no legal way to do this, even with BATF tax stamp, since 1986 when they froze the available supply of transferable machine guns. It's not easy and there is no turning back, once a gun has been so modified it will forever be illegal and can never be sold or openly displayed again.

Ultimately the question of whether a particular semi-auto can be 'readily converted' is a subjective one, as some people could never accomplish it and others might think milling an entire gun out of a block of metal is easy.

Whether or not a gun can or cannot be converted or manufactured illegally is not a relevant point. We cannot punish people for things they might do if they happened to be criminally inclined. This is dangerously bad law.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Well, I know on a lot of rifles all that's needed is to shave down the sheer pin. That's the quick & ILLEGAL way.Baring that, he's correct....you would have to replace the entire mechanism.

The illegal part would be the least of your worries. Altering only the sear would most likely cause the firearm to fire out of battery. It is doubtful you would survive the magazine with the types of rifles discussed in this thread. Due to a mechanical failure, I faced a similar situation with an out of battery round that resulted in a catastrophic case rupture (I am very lucky to still be able to count to twenty one!). Mechanically speaking, none of the rifles discussed are readily convertible without the parts specifically made for fully automatic applications. Given the number of machining operations necessary to make these parts, I'd rather build up a new firearm from scratch.

[Sender]

True, if the hammer or disconnector or springs wear out, a gun can 'double' or even run a whole clip of shells accidentally. This is a dangerous and very undesirable condition and which often results in blown-out cases and injuries. I don't consider worn-out, malfunctioning guns as any sort of 'conversion'. There's always some bubba who will try this kind of thing on purpose though...he's a Darwin candidate as well as everyone standing nearby at the range :)

[hopespringseternal]

On another thread, someone posted the fact that under the original rule proposal made by BATF, a Volvo would be illegal as convertible to a machine gun.

I had a .22 rifle go full auto on me once, its next stop was the gunsmith.

[going hot]

semi to auto depends on the working mech of the rifle. If it fires from an open bolt, where the bolt is usually open, and "slams" home to fire (like the Mac 10 and 11), then a simple adjustment to selectively hold back the seer renders the mech full auto.

If it fires from a closed bolt, ie, the bolt is locked to the barral, then the hammer strikes the back of the pin, these are more difficult to adjust to full auto. The seer usually holds the hammer back as the bolt is in recoil, then when the trigger is released, the back seer engages the hammer until the trigger is pulled once more. In a closed bolt full auto, the front seer grabs the hammer in recoil, then the back seer also grabs the hammer, but releases it through a lever or cam action, depending on the mechanism, a split second after the bolt rotates locked, allowing the hammer to strike the pin once again, repeating until the mag is dry.

If one simply files the back seer, as noted above, the hammer simply follows the bolt home. In some rifles, this will cause a slam fire (automatic as long as the trigger is held down), in others, like the M1 garand, it simply results in one round fired, then a chambered, but unfired round with a small dent in the primer, quite a dangerous situation. The harder the primer, the harder it is to get a slam fire.

There are rifles, which I will enumerate to you privately if desired, which can be "modified" quite functionally with a paper clip in the right location.

Some rifles, like the sks, will fire full auto when the bolt is dirty to the point that the pin is frozen in the bolt, thereby causing repeated slam fires. Very dangerous!!

Other rifles, indeed do need to be gutted, machined, then refitted with proper parts.

If one has some mechanical smarts, and access to some shop tools, many changes, mostly illegal, can be rendered to most weapons.

[El Gato]

I have a SAR in 5.45x39

Which has ballistics similar to the 5.56 NATO round, depending on which version of each basic type one is speaking of. The round probably wouldn't even exit, depending on shot placement of course. It could tear up a lot of meat though. Both the 5.45 and 5.56 (.223) are designed to yaw after striking flesh. (they become hydrodynamically unstable). They also often break up. The 5.56 is slightly heavier and slightly faster, but not enough to really matter much, at least until you go to the newer 62gr 5.56, which then are slighly slower than the 53gr 5.45 rounds. (All in their military loadings) See Wound Ballistics

Bottom line, your 5.45x39 is no more appropriate for larger sized deer than the 5.56, although both will do the job if you can do yours.

[El Gato]

If one has some mechanical smarts, and access to some shop tools, many changes, mostly illegal, can be rendered to most weapons.

But if you've got that, you can build at the very least, a submachine gun, from scratch. (Or use existing barrels and do the rest from scratch, which would make it even easier).

Bottom line, the prohibitions on full auto weaponry are just as unconstittutional as other gun control. Under the so called (and bogus) Supreme Court "Miller" test, they are probably even more so that those banning so called "Saturday Night Specials".

[cruiserman]

IMO he is exaggerating.

[Lurker]

Good one.

L

[Badray]

bttt