MidnightRider

For those of you whom support a ban on "assault weapons" please explain to me exactly what an assault weapon is. I asked this question last week and it was conveniently ignored. Here, I'll help you out. Explain to me, in progression, what the functional differences between these rifles are:

I have not fired one yet (not sure I'd want to, that's a big bastard) but did find a very informative article on it here: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/handgun_reviews_rgrrh/ The cool thing about the one in .454 is that it will also accept .45 ACP so your range time will be less expensive. Let us know if you decide to get this, that looks like a very cool (and potentially painful to whomever pulls the trigger) gun.

do you know if the specialty rounds are 9mm or 5.56 standard round for the AR? I'd love to have an AR myself and if I did it'd want the 5.56 as thats what i'm use to with being in the army. But if those rounds are 9mm only. That might make that version a little more interesting. As far as I know they come in 5.56 and 7.62 platform. The link below will give you all the info on their Hornady TAP line and the rifle rounds I'm talking about are the 40 grain Hornady TAP urban rounds. On page 52 of this link it shows you the x-rays of the bad guy who took one to the head from a 5.56 round and how that round stayed in his head and didn't go any further. Now this is a law enforcement and military line, but I'm sure just like anything they either offer a civilian version or it's possible you could get your hands on some, but I don't know that for sure. I kinda want some of our patrol officers to go to the urban rounds because of how they expand their energy so fast, which you can see in the ballistic testing in that link, so there is really no chance of a through and through and it hitting something else. There's always a chance of that, but it would be a lot smaller than with a 55 grain 5.56 federal round that is your "normal" 5.56 round as far as ballistics go. Sorry to nerd out on the ballistic stuff, but for some reason I find that really interesting. I'd rather know more about ballistics than all the different weapons out there. So for Hornady to come out with a round like this is impressive IMO. I took part in ballistic testing here in Iowa with them at our law enforcement academy. Really impressive stuff, but I couldn't get our Chief to agree to buy the stuff because it was a tad bit more expensive than what we currently use. The stuff we currently use is great stuff, but Hornady's line retained its weight better during testing which is huge. http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/site/files/hornady_tap_report.pdf Thank you for the info BIGREDIOWAN, I look forward to reading the report. I missed this release, completely. If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions; when you were testing the ammo, did you have any FTF due to the lighter weight of the projectile? Did you have to mod your mags in any way i.e. stiffer springs? I assume due to the lighter weight of the projectile that it would shed energy more quickly than a 55 gr round; what was the longest range at which you were you still shooting consistent 3 inch groups? Thanks, again. I did not have any FTF that I can remember with my rifle. I did not mod my mags, but then again I don't load to 30, I was trained 28 is the max you load due to less of a chance of a double-feed that way. The AR platform is already finicky from time to time so there's no reason to make it worse right? We were only firing at close range with this particular round, 25 yards or less into ballistic gelatin so we could see that even in CQB the projectile doesn't penetrate any further. The science and ballistics are there whether it's 15 feet or 300 meters. The testing I took part in basically took on the FBI ballistic testing that all law enforcement agencies go by when selecting their rounds. There's no way for a round to perform "better" or "above" those standards. They either meet them or they don't. Now the interesting part was how much weight their rounds kept after each stage of the test. It was better than the current "gold" standard of rounds that we carry on-duty which obviously effects the wound cavity which is only as important as shot placement. Thank you very much for the info. Fascinating stuff, indeed.

do you know if the specialty rounds are 9mm or 5.56 standard round for the AR? I'd love to have an AR myself and if I did it'd want the 5.56 as thats what i'm use to with being in the army. But if those rounds are 9mm only. That might make that version a little more interesting. As far as I know they come in 5.56 and 7.62 platform. The link below will give you all the info on their Hornady TAP line and the rifle rounds I'm talking about are the 40 grain Hornady TAP urban rounds. On page 52 of this link it shows you the x-rays of the bad guy who took one to the head from a 5.56 round and how that round stayed in his head and didn't go any further. Now this is a law enforcement and military line, but I'm sure just like anything they either offer a civilian version or it's possible you could get your hands on some, but I don't know that for sure. I kinda want some of our patrol officers to go to the urban rounds because of how they expand their energy so fast, which you can see in the ballistic testing in that link, so there is really no chance of a through and through and it hitting something else. There's always a chance of that, but it would be a lot smaller than with a 55 grain 5.56 federal round that is your "normal" 5.56 round as far as ballistics go. Sorry to nerd out on the ballistic stuff, but for some reason I find that really interesting. I'd rather know more about ballistics than all the different weapons out there. So for Hornady to come out with a round like this is impressive IMO. I took part in ballistic testing here in Iowa with them at our law enforcement academy. Really impressive stuff, but I couldn't get our Chief to agree to buy the stuff because it was a tad bit more expensive than what we currently use. The stuff we currently use is great stuff, but Hornady's line retained its weight better during testing which is huge. http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/site/files/hornady_tap_report.pdf Thank you for the info BIGREDIOWAN, I look forward to reading the report. I missed this release, completely. If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions; when you were testing the ammo, did you have any FTF due to the lighter weight of the projectile? Did you have to mod your mags in any way i.e. stiffer springs? I assume due to the lighter weight of the projectile that it would shed energy more quickly than a 55 gr round; what was the longest range at which you were you still shooting consistent 3 inch groups? Thanks, again.

Kilbeggan whisky, one rock. And a Stella, back.

I didn't tell you it was your job. Who ever said I wanted to have serious political, geopolitical, whatever debate on a freakin' NU football board? I am guilty of knowingly and deliberately digging my heels in (just because) when something or someone hits me sideways. Maybe that's what I'm doing here with you and Carl, I'm stupid stubborn like that. I offered somewhat of a mea culpa because I was being a bit dickish and you obvioulsy don't accept it so we'll just agree to disagree. I think I'm gonna stick around here though so I'll catch ya on the flip side.

1. Again: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens; some of the claims I have heard, others I've not. So... source your claims and I can begin to decide which ones have merit and which don't. I don't believe everything my father sends in me in chain emails about Obama and I don't believe everything some random dude posts on a message board without any links. 2. Google translate: "I don't have sources and I haven't bothered to look for any." 3. Who was it that had a problem with my links to Huffington Post and the Washington Post again? Oh, wait that was you whining that I linked to those "liberal rags". Right.... 4. My idol? I didn't realize Springsteen was POTUS. In reality, I actually quite dislike Obama and have quite a few bones to pick with him. However, that tends to get ignored amongst the "OBAMA IS A FECKLESS, TYRANNICAL, COMMUNIST, MUSLIM FROM KENYA" nonsense from the far right. However, you'll have to define "total failure" before I can agree to that. Obamacare actually seems to be working quite well. Now if the right had a brain in their collective head, they would claim their own healthcare plan as a success story for themselves. However, they don't and won't. 5. I voted Bush in 2000, unfortunately. Was never a Gore fan, though in retrospect I wish I had voted Gore. I would have voted for 2000 McCain in 2008, rather than 2008 McCain. But he had to pander to the base to win the primary and lost all of his marbles in picking Palin. Also, I actually quite like Jon Huntsman, and wish he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning his primary. 1. I have either read about it or heard it on the news or I would not have posted it. Some of it, some time ago. I see no need to provide a link for something that one could accomplish with a few simple key strokes in the browser of their choosing. 2. See above. I am not a conspiracy theorist, loon, chain mailer etc. I simply provided some info that was requested. Without links. 3. Whining? Please. I do recall the HuffPo thing last Friday. Although I claimed to be in a great mood (I was) I was working on a problem that I could not figure out and was a bit frustrated. I let some of that bleed over onto this forum and for that, I apoligize. Chalk it up to me being a dick. 4. We'll agree to disagree on the current POTUS and his track record thus far. I just don't want to come across as a Dem basher because it wouldn't matter to me, which party he/she were affiliated with. We're circling the drain as a country right now. I feel we are more divided than we have ever been and we are in danger of losing the America as we know it. I am stunned at what has transpired over the last 40ish years. FWIW, I'm not a birther. Nor do I buy into all the conspiract theory b.s. such as that. 5. I am truly sorry for pegging you as a Dem. I don't like labels applied to me and I was wrong in doing so with you. I will chalk it up to my dumbassedness and not learning more about you prior to leveling accusations. I really like this board and want to have fun here (and I do). Maybe my idea of "fun" is just a bit skewed, I don't know. A lot can be lost in translation from words to intent to bits.

The ground war ended after 100 hours. Did you expect them to want you to stick around and occupy their land? Of course not but I also didn't expect to be treated like a flaming a#shole after giving them back their damned country. Hell, a lot of that treatment came during the buildup and we hadn't even kicked off yet. I have no love lost on ANYONE in that region of the world.

No. That is not what we did in Gulf War I. I should have been more clear, my apologies. My point was that this round of "conflicts" in Iraq just seem like a continuation of the Gulf War to "finish the job that HW started."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/18/obama-caught-another-terrorist-and-the-right-cant-handle-it/ Meh, it's Fox. Did you expect anything different? No. It's indistinguishable from the GOP at this point. Yessir! Both parties have their respective mouthpieces and both disgust me beyond reason.

IIRC when Obama was first elected even reloading components were practically unavailable. That is correct. It pays to stay a few steps ahead of the Fed. Edit: And stockpile (that should make a few heads explode)! Except those panicked people were . . . well . . . totally wrong. Agree. There are more than a handful of manufacturers with whom I will never do business with again simply for trying to gouge the customer during the latest "scare." Having said that, I'm absolutely convinced that the Dems won't stop until they have disarmed us all. Now, am I going to lose my sh#t and run out into the streets screaming "from my cold dead hands?" No, I'm not one of those guys. I am, however, a realist and I believe in being prepared for any eventuality. I've got that pretty well covered.

Some of the other guys who have read more of the details on this particular issue are providing more reasonable (and evidentiary) content, I'm just providing snark right now. I'm not sure which is more entertaining though, my snark, or your loud, half-cocked alarmism. Very level-headed of you. I'm neither loud, nor an alarmist. Its funny how some folks form their impressions. This is an Internet forum. A football forum at that. Thanks for the label though. FWIW, you're pretty good at snark. So, you have that going for you... Edit: Help me out becuase I'm kinda slow (and new here), is the "level headed" comment more snark? See? You really good at it.

Carl, Too many quotes and it won't let me quote you anymore but in response to your "depose" question: Well, in the end that's what we did, right? Even though I don't agree with it, this conflict just seems like one big continuation of 1991. It's b.s. but that's how it feels to me.

Regarding your first line: no. Absolutely not. That implies that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in some way necessary. Regarding your second line: Your perspective might differ if you were a Kuwaiti. The Gulf War absolutely ended after 100 hours and I, like you, don't feel that this latest conflict was necessary. Every Kuwaiti that I dealt with while over there was a flaming assh#ole who wanted nothing more than for us to hand their country back over to them and GTFO!

Get ready for the next run on AR sales and ammunition hoarding . . . some people never learn. I seriously need to buy one before the next run on stuff. It's just hard to figure out what to get. What are you looking to do with it? Range plinker, hunting, home defense? What are you looking to spend?

IIRC when Obama was first elected even reloading components were practically unavailable. That is correct. It pays to stay a few steps ahead of the Fed. Edit: And stockpile (that should make a few heads explode)!

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/18/obama-caught-another-terrorist-and-the-right-cant-handle-it/ Meh, it's Fox. Did you expect anything different?

Yes, if I applied myself. Conversely, if one were so inclinded, they could Google all or some of that themselves. I'm really not interested in pulling up this admin's parade of failures (again) because, frankly, its too damned depressing. Help yourself though, I'm sure you could come up with more than what I listed. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens "The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not." -- Richard Dawkins That's funny, I can't seem to reference the emails because they're "lost." Irony much? You Progressives (I think that's the term this week) are a very unique lot, I'll give you that. Even when the ships burning and lifeboats are available, you'll cling to it to the bitter end. I was talking not simply about the "lost emails", I was referring to any and all of the 23 claims of "scandal" that you made above. How about addressing the 23 claims that I referenced above? I won't waste my time trying to document them (its already been, ad nauseam in the media) and you'll just poo poo them away, anyway. That's another tactic you Progessives use a lot but I ain't bitin'. Why don't you just admit that your idol is a total failure as POTUS and call it done? I'm curious, would you ever vote for anybody other than a Democrat?

Yes, if I applied myself. Conversely, if one were so inclinded, they could Google all or some of that themselves. I'm really not interested in pulling up this admin's parade of failures (again) because, frankly, its too damned depressing. Help yourself though, I'm sure you could come up with more than what I listed. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens "The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not." -- Richard Dawkins That's funny, I can't seem to reference the emails because they're "lost." Irony much? You Progressives (I think that's the term this week) are a very unique lot, I'll give you that. Even when the ships burning and lifeboats are available, you'll cling to it to the bitter end.

Gulf War I was pretty damn successful. Disagree. Gulf War I actually 100 years war or more thus never ended. Progress score ..... failure. Just like Afghanistan. Never learned (Hint: Vietnam war). I don't know what you're saying. I found it successful because we organized an international coalition with the limited goal of liberating a country that was just invaded and occupied by a foreign power and accomplished precisely that goal without losing many US lives. I got to play in that one and I still don't know why I was there. Should we be in the business of deposing anyone?

To what end, indeed. Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...

Get ready for the next run on AR sales and ammunition hoarding . . . some people never learn. And that's why it pays to build your own and reload your own.

Meh, I'm actually very chill. Anger clouds one perception. It takes much more than an Internet forum to get my ire up.

What do you think that you know about Fast and Furious? It's probably easiest to start from there. To what end? I was challenged, I look forward to the trove of info that Stigori is sure to provide. You seem to have a fixation with me, I'm flattered.

Let's start here. Could you explain what you mean when you say that "[t]he IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election"? Are you claiming that conservative groups were targeted disproportionally when compared to liberal groups? When compared to all groups? What's the context of your claim? If there is no politically motivated disproportionality what you're accusing the IRS of doing is enforcing the tax laws . . . or in other words . . . you're accusing the IRS of doing it's job. Oh, the scandal! Huh? That's what this whole thing is about.