Thread: Military style semi automatics, and not-so-automatics, over the years.

I'm preparing a submission to you know who and thought I'd have a cool look at relative gun dangerousness. I welcome any informed criticism of the below facts - as far as I could ascertain them.

Historical Firearms Comparison.


Enfield Pattern 1853 muzzle loading rifle musket, of Maori Wars (.577" calibre Minie bullets and gunpowder)
Rate of fire: 2 shots / min.
550 yards practical range, 1200 yards safety zone. At 1000yds Minie rifles can pierce 4x4" plank.


Martini Henry, single shot breech loading rifle (.577 calibre black powder brass cartridge)
Rate of fire: 12 shots / min.
400 yards practical range, hazard to 1900 yards.


Double barrel 12G (.725" calibre) shotgun.
Rate of fire 24 shots / min. (About twice that of Martini breech loader as two barrels, less aiming required).
Range: 30-100 yards depending on shot size used.


Short Magazine Lee Enfield, five-round clip loading bolt action(.303" calibre).
Rate of fire 20-30 aimed shots / min.
550 yards practical range, Hazard to 3-4000 yards.


L1A1 Self Loading Rifle, 20-round detachable magazines (.308" calibre)
Rate of fire: 20 aimed shots a minute
700 yards practical range, hazard to 5600 yards.


AR-15 self-loading rifle. 30-round detachable magazines (.223 calibre).
Rate of fire: 40-60 aimed shots a minute.
600 yards practical range, hazard to 3600 yards.


AR-15 self-loading rifle. 7-round detachable magazines (.223 calibre)
Rate of fire ??? aimed shots a minute. -- I could not find estimates or studies of this, help appreciated.
600 yards practical range, hazard to 3600 yards.


Conclusions so far:

I don't want to stand in the firing line of ANY gun listed below.

The sawn-off double barrel shotgun, the criminals' choice, and a good choice it is for them. In police stats figure as pistols.

The Minie, scary that it accounted for 90% of deaths on civil war battlefields. 4" of soft pine at 1000 yards is scary too.

Practical range of firearms has not changed substantially since the Minie ball of the US Civil War.

Rate of fire jumped most dramatically from muzzle to breech loaders (6x), bolt actions to semis less marked difference, at least for roughly equal power cartridges (SMLE to SLR). For the majority of mass shootings, going by shot count and duration, high rates of fire were not essential, a Martini Henry could have done most.

No one ever got up from playing possum and went for a mass shooter as he was changing magazines.

Rate of fire is not the sole measure of a gun's mass-destruction potential but if we go that way, you could make a coherent argument for banning all except for muzzle loading rifles and shotguns. Once that is achieved someone may then pop up and argue that LH Oswald could have done it with an iron sighted 1853 Enfield, and those will get banned too. We would all be safe and stick to SoftAir, and as for pests they are managed by 1080 (dropped by drones for sake of elf'nsafety).

dangerousness.

I think your grammar is a bit off. Aside from that, the Martini-Henry is a .45 calibre service rifle.

Originally Posted by JWB

I think your grammar is a bit off. Aside from that, the Martini-Henry is a .45 calibre service rifle.

Hi, Yes, English is my 2nd language, thanks for your patience.

Kicking myself for the last example with a 7 rd magazine AR15 when we all know an out-of-the-box classic example:


US .30 Cal M1 Garand, semi-automatic clip loaded fixed magazine rifle (.30" calibre).
Rate of fire: 40-50 aimed shots / min.
Practical range: 500 yards. Hazard range: 5600 yards.
NB, example actually shown is an MSSA since it has a bayonet lug. This has no influence on the shooting of the gun. Simply grinding off the lug will render it A-category but also reduce the value of the antique firearm.

Originally Posted by JWB

I think your grammar is a bit off. Aside from that, the Martini-Henry is a .45 calibre service rifle.

577/450 Cartridge, point each way

I think you understate the rate of fire for the L1A1. This was the dominant issued firearm when I was in the NZ Army and I was a marksman class shooter with it. Apart from the fact that the magazine only holds 20 rounds compared with the 30 round magazine of the AR15, in the hands of a proficient shooter it is every bit as capable of cycling equally as quickly as an AR15.

Originally Posted by Rushy

I think you understate the rate of fire for the L1A1. This was the dominant issued firearm when I was in the NZ Army and I was a marksman class shooter with it. Apart from the fact that the magazine only holds 20 rounds compared with the 30 round magazine of the AR15, in the hands of a proficient shooter it is every bit as capable of cycling equally as quickly as an AR15.

Hi @Rushy

Yes I agree, far too pessimistic. That said this is not cyclic rate of fire, but practical, aimed, suppressive fire as per british army doctrine defining suppressive aimed fire as 20/min. Rate is over a minute, to take account of mag changes. One guy on youtube at the Bruce Rifle Club fires 24 shots in a minute at 200m, starting with a full 20 rd mag.

My source of that was Self Loading Rifle L1A1: The European “Black Rifle”

I thought that 20/min was especially disappointing, compared to the Garand's 40-50/min -- which is definitely the case. The SLR has less barrel climb, but 20-round mags of the SLR are a bit slower to both remove and insert than the Garand clips - what with the bolt also not staying open once last round fired and the SLR not auto-ejecting spent mags.

Not to mention as well the SLR is a full power battle rifle, the AR is not.

I understand and agree with what I assume is the broad sweep of your idea:
That Firearms have become more dangerous, not in terms of killing power, but of immediate repeatability.

What I'm interested in is the overall context that this idea fits into. It seems to be part of a supporting argument.

Your submission is your submission, you may not be interested in developing the entire premise of it here.

If you are, pray elucidate, sir.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

I understand and agree with what I assume is the broad sweep of your idea:
That Firearms have become more dangerous, not in terms of killing power, but of immediate repeatability.

What I'm interested in is the overall context that this idea fits into. It seems to be part of a supporting argument.

Your submission is your submission, you may not be interested in developing the entire premise of it here.

If you are, pray elucidate, sir.

@Max Headroom

Yes, but the argument has to follow establishing facts. Thanks for criticisms above all of you.


MSSA definition applied to autoloaders which have any of either:
folding stocks - cosmetic, already addressed by legislation defining as a pistol any rifle or shotgun <762mm length.
free standing handle - cosmetic, just the style gone for after manufacturers ditched full length wooden stocks.
mags >7 capacity - some reduction in rate of fire from this, but not a significant reduction. Most mass killings theoretically repeatable with bolt action firearm.
bayonet lug. Cosmetic, addresses no known problem, bayonettings not a known NZ problem.
flash hider - cosmetic (same achievable, arguably better, by small suppressor, muzzle brake or choice of powder)

@mikee and @Shelley have a point - it is about cosmetics, the look of the gun.

The MSSA legislation in essence imposes a cosmetic standard which has little real bearing on how destructive a gun can be. In essence, black guns are a threat to the public but pink guns are not a threat. Well, there is an element of truth to it as pink guns DO look less threatening.. but it is simply a legislation aimed at gun nuts who love war and its paraphernalia - such being the perception of potential mass shooters.

Faster rate of fire - to a point relevant to mass shootings. But with fast firing rate comes lower accuracy, so hence referring to AIMED fire. NO type of cartridge firearm has a slow rate of fire. Muzzle loaders are slow. And the practical gap between bolt actions and autoloaders is in practical terms ... insignificant. They are both fast.

Actually in all reality it has nothing to do with the above as far as police , journalists and public are concerned. Its all about what they "look" like.

Originally Posted by mikee

Actually in all reality it has nothing to do with the above as far as police , journalists and public are concerned. Its all about what they "look" like.

What if we painted ‘em pink and put pom-poms on them?

Originally Posted by Shelley

What if we painted ‘em pink and put pom-poms on them?

It's too late for that! The media's already told the good people about the 8,000 rounds a minute of explosive assault bullets they fire.

Originally Posted by Steve123

It's too late for that! The media's already told the good people about the 8,000 rounds a minute of explosive assault bullets they fire.

We have movies like the Expendables 1, 2, 3 (and soon to be 4) to thanks for that

Also blame The Fast and the Furious for the way young Millennials and the next generation drive and try to outrun police

Originally Posted by sako75

We have movies like the Expendables 1, 2, 3 (and soon to be 4) to thanks for that

Also blame The Fast and the Furious for the way young Millennials and the next generation drive and try to outrun police

you forgot Die hard 6 : natural causes

Originally Posted by sako75

We have movies like the Expendables 1, 2, 3 (and soon to be 4) to thanks for that

Also blame The Fast and the Furious for the way young Millennials and the next generation drive and try to outrun police

Fuck millienials, Soft cock generation "Y bother" IMHO. The whiny mattress stains were born in the '80s to mid 90's not the 2000's and can't even name themselves properly let alone figure out if there male or female.
My generation was raised on the Dukes of Hazard, Gone in 60 seconds and Cannon Ball run. Real cars, real stunts, 70's mo's and moonshine
And the A team never ran out of ammo.
Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk