Shannon Watts Beclowns Herself Over Scary-Looking Gun

By now, we get it. We know that Shannon Watts doesn’t like guns. In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with that. Lots of people don’t like or care about firearms in any way, shape, or form. Kind of like how some don’t care about sports.

What sets Shannon apart from so many others, however, is that while she doesn’t like guns, she’s convinced people should listen to her opinion on the topic. This despite not understanding the first thing about them except they give her the vapors.

Now, if you don’t know anything about firearms, that’s a scary looking assault rifle…only, it’s not. It’s a Ruger Precision Rimfire .22 bolt action. It’s literally the least scary firearm anyone could own.

But what’s really important here isn’t what people said to Shannon. It’s really not. What’s important is that this illustrates so much of the problem with gun grabbers and their perpetual attempts to regulate guns. Their issue isn’t so much about the function of a firearm, but its looks.

For example, when was the last time you saw a politician standing there with a Mini-14 or an M1A using that as an example of a firearm we need to tightly regulate?

They don’t do it. After all, those rifles look an awful lot like your traditional hunting rifles, and they’re not nearly as scared of those guns as they are the proverbial “ghost gun with a .30 caliber magazine clip,” or something like that. More importantly, however, is they don’t think you will be as scared of those guns.

Shannon picked that particular gun because it’s scary looking. It has an M-Lok rail system like a so-called assault rifle, and it has a Picatinny scope base like many evil black rifles, and it has a magazine that’s a little too long for her tastes, so it must be an evil rifle.

It doesn’t matter. Most of the Moms Demand Action crowd, like Shannon, don’t really understand the items they are pushing to regulate. They don’t feel like they need to understand them. They figure they know all they need to know via talking points and Salon articles. What more do they need to know, right?

Meanwhile, we understand what a barrel shroud does. We understand that a phrase like “.30 caliber magazine clip” makes no blasted sense. We understand the items being discussed and we have a working knowledge of what they can and can’t do.

As such, this particular rifle doesn’t look scary to us. It’s got some tactical-like features on a precision rifle chambered in a caliber that’s really too small to use for anything but punching holes in paper or taking on small game like squirrels or rabbits. That’s it.

We don’t get worked up over the looks of a rifle because we understand the basic reality that the looks don’t mean jack.

From there, we understand a lot more about guns such as how laws–particularly laws over “scary looking” rifles–accomplish nothing at all.

In a way, though, I’m glad Shannon doesn’t know this. Her ineptitude is always good for a laugh if nothing else.

“Flu medicine Groggy mind
... Infantry rifles from WW1 & ww2 fire a more powerful cartridge in terms of range, and knockdown power than those used today. The advantage of an M-16 is that it can fire much faster, is easier to handle and lighter.
A semiautomatic AR-15 does not fire any faster than an M1 ... 7.62X63 bullets have far more stopping power. You can make an argument that the M1 is a more powerful rifle than the AR-15 ...”

Under the effect of flu remedies, and the flu itself, I’m lucky if I can find the keyboard. May your recovery be swift and complete.

Military rifles of the World Wars fired those large, powerful cartridges because those were adopted in the period 1886-1906: superior long-range performance and great penetration against massed native warriors in the colonies was important. Several nations were planning to rearm with different rounds, but the First World War negated all that. Similar plans went down for similar reasons in the late 1930s.

“Knockdown power” and “stopping power” are tossed about frequently, and widely believed in by the gun-owning public in the USA, but no rigorous definition exists and they defy quantification. They are by law not allowed to be used by most national military establishments (including US Dept of Defense) in determining the relative effectiveness of small arms.

The optimum cyclic rate for full-auto arms is about 600 rds/min, according to most US ordnance authorities. Full-auto small arms in US service have fired at various rates, from 350-400 (rds/min BAR M1918AR, Submachine Gun M3), to 600 rds/min (M60 Machine Gun) to 700 rds min (Thompson Submachine Gun) to 650 rds/min (M14) to 900 ds/min (original M16) to over 1000 rds/min (M240 Machine Gun, some variants). Practical, in-action rates of fire are much lower: 40-60 rds/min maximum, chiefly to conserve service life and avoid compromising functional reliability.

“Power” is also a term of little precision, though it can be quantified better. Kinetic energy developed at the muzzle is a more common quantity used in comparisons. 5.56x45mm NATO thus develops about half the energy that 7.62x51mm NATO does.

The tiny 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge - tiny by World War standards - was adopted as the best compromise, between effective range and full-auto controllability. In sum, the average soldier cannot control a standard-size rifle in hand-held full auto mode, firing 7.62 NATO; 5.56 NATO (at first merely the US-only 5.56x45 M193) can be controlled. By the 1950s, most US Army field-forces leaders were convinced every soldier required a rifle capable of full-auto fire. Army Ordnance Corps officers and a few other senior people did not accept that, insisting that 7.62 NATO was necessary. Eventually, Ordnance got overruled. Firepower was redefined as shots per minute.

Given the treaty limits on bullet construction, it’s been argued (by Peter G Kokalis, no less) that 5.56 NATO is actually more effective than 7.62 NATO and the earlier 30M2 (7.62x63) - under ranges of 100m. Inside that distance, the larger, heavier 7.62mm bullets punch right through a human target and continue downrange. But the 5.56mm M193 goes unstable on entering human tissue and fragments, expending all energy inside the target. Beyond that distance, effectiveness is reversed.

The advent of “intermediate” cartridges for military use cannot be considered without acknowledging the changing nature of the battlefield, from 1900 through 1918, to 1945 and later. The prior mission of an infantryman was to pick out and individual enemy soldier and hit him with aimed fire; shot-for-shot effectiveness and long effective range were key attributes. By 1945, long-range fire from infantry was less important in the killing role: the infantryman was no longer considered in isolation, but had become part of a combined-arms team, each element of which had to operate in coordination with each other element to get the best results. A heavy rifle firing a substantial bullet to effective ranges of 2000m or more was found to be overkill - in a literal sense. Bullets of 2/3 the weight fired to only 75 percent the velocity of the earlier, large rounds were found to be “good enough.” Thus the assault rifle came to be.

As the late Jeff Cooper put it, “The infantry was no longer expected to kill enemy soldiers, it was expected to find enemy soldiers, then call for supporting fire from heavier weapons. No longer did the infantry need a heavy rifle nor skill at marksmanship; what it needed was aggressiveness, mobility, and a good telephone.”

“Good synopsis...
M1A is a Fine piece!”

Thanks.

After performing repairs on the M1A and a number of contemporary rifles, I’m inclined to rate it not so highly as I used to.

To meet weight constraints, many parts on the M14 had to be made lighter than on the Garand. The overall result is a rifle that seems underbuilt, flimsy, not durable. All of this is copied exactly, in the M1A.

By contrast, the parts of the FAL and the G3 are larger, thicker, heavier, stouter. In some cases, springs are so stiff they defy compression by hand. Either rifle is more compact and their inner workings are better protected. FAL has the reputation of being less particular about the cartridges it will digest; G3 is famous for swallowing anything, with never a burp. But it is very, very hard on empty cases. The M1A is a better proposition for a reloader.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.