Do you think the survivors give a shit about such distinctions ?  Dead is dead.

     Perhaps.  You're still left with 195,000 needless deaths.

     Why ?  I could have easily substituted any number of statistics that far exceed deaths by firearm.  I find it funny that you feel  the need to sound the alarm concerning gun related deaths but when it concerns a far greater number of deaths due to medical ineptitude you choose to equivocate.

            What ever.

Are you kidding me ?  The main appeal to potential purchasers of all the Kalashnikov type weapons is their mechanical reliability in even the most inhospitable conditions.  Jesus, why do you think the IDF based the Galil on that design.  So did the Valmet, South African R5, etc.    There's a reason that it's the most prolifically produced firearm in history ( over 50,000,000 in circulation world wide )  and even our elite fighting units in Viet Nam used them and they were given wide discretion as to what weapon systems they could choose.

  Even in modern Africa with it fratricidal wars there are "freedom fighters" who are wielding extremely mistreated, aging

  It is a design that was duplicated by Soviet client states and was even refined by distinctly non-communist designers because it continues to function when most other rifles in the same conditions are nothing more than a club.

  (PS, even in modern Africa with its many fratricidal wars there are "freedom fighters" who are wielding extremely aged and neglected examples of even first model AK's which would put those particular weapons ages at well over 50 years. )

The AK was intended to be used by fairly uneducated individuals, like Soviet conscripts.  It's a rifle whose simplicity was not by accident.  It is thoroughly GI proof.   

It was originally issued as a military weapon and if you are familiar with typical Soviet military designs superb function over rides all other concerns.  I seriously doubt the appearance of cheapness was ever a consideration to Mikhail Kalasnikov or his overseers. 

  True assault rifles are designed to function at intermediate distances, not long range.  That's why they were created in the first place, to fill the ballistic gap between submachine guns and full powered battle rifles ( ie, FN FAL, G3, M 14 ) .  The AK round is the ballistic equivalent of a 30 30 but can never match the performance of high powered rifle cartridges ( ie, 7.62x51, 30.06, 7.62x54 ) but it was never intended to.

Even in CQB scenarios the AK still delivers a 123 grain 30 caliber bullet at 2,300 fps.   That is more than enough energy to tear through any typical target one would possibly encounter in an up close and personel encounter.  With AP rounds it will easily defeat body armor and penetrate mild steel.  I dispute bullet tumbling within typical effective ranges. Sorry. Certainly not tumbling in flight if that's what you mean. 

Some bullets, even the .308, after impacting tissue will invert so that the base of the bullet is facing forward in the wound channel  The later Soviet round 5.45x39 was designed to tumble but only after it impacted in tissue.  The AK 74 exceeds 3,000 fps, has a fast barrel twist, and its bullet is stable in flight.

Well I have to admit, most of my knowledge of AK's is what I have been told by others. I have fired one once but never owned one or even really considered buying one. When I was talking about poor quality I wasn't thinking of the Russian AK's I was thinking of the many ripoffs created which anyone not familiar with an AK probably couldn't tell the difference. I have heard negative things about the WASR-10 for example. 

But all told, considering I was TRYING as hard as I could to come up with reasons not to buy an AK, I have to say the list is pretty short. And in all fairness, it takes comparing it to modern weapons like the FN mk-17 (which actually can fire AK-47 magazines) or the Tavor TAR-21 (I really want to play with a micro-Tavor) to find guns that I believe are unarguably superior. Compared to other guns from its era, it is certainly a competitive weapon and no doubt will continue to be seen on battlefields for years because they are cheap and basic compared to ultra-modern assault rifles, which are looking less and less like guns.

In a real combat situation I would take an M-16 over an AK-47, but that is because I have fired a lot more rounds through an M-16. Actually, when combat is concerned, I have always felt more comfortable with the idea of an M-40 from over 800 meters, it is good to shoot your target before they can see you. I'm a coward like that. CQC is for people who can't shoot straight, can't hide and can't run fast. 

All very well. However, it was a statement made by Vastet and I would like to hear specifically why he thinks an AK 47 is a weapon which should be banned.

As far as the Galil and the probably 120 odd other AK variants out there, I was kind of hoping to use them for follow up questions but now that that is out, it is a fact that the AK design is probably the most copied design in the world. They really are reliable in most environments. In fact, I have heard that there are cases on record where they were found rusted over and have been made fireable simply by kicking the charging handle loose again.

As far as the ammunition goes, it also bears noting that while specific production runs are intended for specific ammunition, the variants are often chambered to whatever the originating nation prefers and for many designs, conversion kits can be had easily enough.

If you want to hunt anything about the size of a wolf or smaller, then Warsaw Pact ammo is probably not a good choice. On the other hand, even at modest range, Warsaw Pact rounds will probably do just fine for deer and similar animals.

All that having been said:

Vastet, would you care to explain why you feel that an AK 47 is a problem for private owners?

These are some ballistics gelatin tests comparing the 7.62x39 to the 5.56. As you can see, the 5.56 creates a lot more havoc but does not have the same penetration. This is what I meant by the bullet tumbling- when the 7.62 tumbles it causes far more damage that is closer to the 5.56, but it takes a little distance to do that. At point blank range, the 7.62 will go right through a body without fragmenting and keep going. The disadvantage is that if the target survives the shock, they will have a hole, but will probably survive. Whereas, with the 5.56 they will have a large hole in their body to deal with. At point blank range, penetration can actually harm a bullets performance. But it sounds like you probably know more about ballistics than I do. I'm more of a "give me a target" guy. If you aim well enough, it doesn't really matter what kind of gun you use. 

I served in the late 90's early 2000's. I wanted to be a sniper and was going through scout sniper school when illness forced me to drop out , but at least I got to play with some great rifles first. I was in a force recon unit so we used the M249 SAW over the M240G because it is a bit lighter. Although now I hear they are replacing the M249 with the M27 made by H&K which is a mere 7.9 pounds. Lucky kids.... they won't even have to break a sweat. Why, back in my day we had to lug the SAW around, uphill, both ways..... Along the way, I got to play with the M-40, M-82, SR-25, M4, Mp5 and of course, the M-16 is everyones friend. 

Dead is dead, yea, and?

There are lots of things that can kill you besides guns. DUH.

Cars are involved in death of  people too, and I am not out to ban cars. Nor am I out to ban all guns.

I don't know what you are trying to get at here. Hospital deaths are not a result of someone trying to kill someone.

Saying that gun violence is a problem in this country is not a denial of other problems. The topic of this thread is what I was discussing. Cancer is also a problem. DUIs are a problem. So?

  Let me put the shoe on the other foot . Have you ever heard someone start out a discussion by stating " guns kill more people than...."     Do you still not get it ?

  Yes,  especially if you are fighting alone without back up it would probably be the only sensible way to deal with a quickly changing scenario. Just swap magazines according to need.  

  Perhaps ...speaking as an arm chair "warrior" ...if you were with a small entry team it would be prudent to arm one or two soldiers with a short .308 rifle ( eg, an FN FAL Paratrooper ) and instruct them that their primary function within the group is to immediately take over all targets at that range to relieve the 5.56mm operators from possibly wasting their less powerful ammo or even having to use 5.56mm AP except as a last resort.

  Hmmm, I've only read just a little about the 6.8 SPC but now that you bring it up I will have to check it out more thoroughly.  Funny, I do know there are civilian assault rifles on the market that chamber this round.   If the new caliber were to become widely embraced in the civilian world perhaps it could help influence the military to accept it as a more lethal replacement for the old 5.56mm. 

Well, I guess that Vastet is not going to get back to us on that matter. Pity that. I always wanted to get into a debate with an anti about the definition of assault weapons.

I certainly know what the definition is in the great state of Connecticut. Oddly enough, the AK 47 is banned by name but none of the derived variants are banned unless they fall under a different section of the law which provides several tests. For example, the Galil is only banned if it has both the flash suppressor and the folding stock. If I was all that interested in getting one modified to be legal, I would think that a barrel replacement would at least be an opportunity to think about ballistic performance and I could keep the folding stock (which I see no real use for).

Also, as far as stacking clips with different ammo goes, I just don't see that as the greatest idea. In all honesty, what comes out the front when you fire is what is in the chamber at that point. It is not like you can choose which round to fire in which situation.

I do know someone who stacks clips with light weight rounds on top and stronger stuff below. His idea is that if his attacker is a 90 pound drug addict, the lighter rounds are less likely to overpenetrate. Nice in theory I suppose but questionable in actual use. Again, the round fired is in no way sure to be the right one for the situation. If the attacker is the size of a linebacker, he would have to shoot several times before he gets to the right one.

Probably a better way to do something like that would be to sister to weapons together. I have only seen that done rarely (if you don't count real military weapons like an undermounted grenade launcher) but they have been done from time to time. If you are familiar with Red Jacket Firearms, they make one called the master key. It is a short barrel shotty mounted under a rifle. That was done specifically for HRT. The shotty is for breaching and then the rifle for once you get in. Separate magazines and triggers. I suppose that something like that could be done for the need to possibly switch between two different rifle rounds about as easily.

Ah no. I was talking about the CT specific assault weapons ban. It lack the special insanity of the Clinton ban but replaces it with our own insanity.

Basically, there is a “short list” of specifically banned guns (not very short, I think there are about 75 entries) and a list of specifics as a test. My read on that is that, like the Clinton era mods, it should be reasonable to come up with a gun which is functionally the same as a banned gun as long as it was not specifically listed and designed around the rules.

Here is what I see from my state's web site:

It must not be capable of burst or FA (no select fire lever).

A conversion kit “which may be rapidly assembled” is as bad as the above. No clue on what rapidly assembled means but probably if you need tools and an hour of work, then it is only subject to the relevant federal law on FA weapons (which happen to disallow kits unless you already have the paperwork to use them anyway).

Any two of the following:

1. A folding or telescoping stock.

2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

3. A bayonet mount.

4. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.

5.  

1. A grenade launcher.

There are also separate sets of rules for when a hand gun or shot gun may become an assault weapon but I will leave those alone for now. Suffice to say that my point remains. It should be not even hard to make a non assault weapons that is in function the same as the real deal, whatever that is.

Had Vastet showed up, I would have gone further into the matter of the definition. There are certain types of guns for which there is a fairly clear definition.

A revolver is what it is.

A semiauto hand gun is what it is.

A semiauto hand gun is often called a pistol apart from a revolver but I am not so sure on that one. Hell, a single handed wheel lock is called a pistol.

Long guns generally include anything you are likely to take into the woods. Basically, a standard shotty or a rifle with a barrel longer than a couple of feet that fires big bullets.

Carbines are in between the two. But how do you decide where to draw a clear line on that? There is no loss for hand guns with really long barrels. I guess that if the action is not “rifle like” (whatever that means) then a 12 inch barrel still counts as a hand gun. However, what of a rifle like gun with a 20, 24, 28 or 32 inch barrel? At some point, a carbine becomes a rifle but apart from laws that very from one place to another, is there a clear scientific line between the two?

Now, given the above, where do you fit the category of “assault weapon”?

I have my own set of ideas for what that means but they would probably be as debatable as any other definition. Regarding the list from my law:

1. A carbine designed for holding with two hands has uses. CQC/HRT being obvious. Then who cares about the stock?

2. A pistol grip that protrudes “significantly”? WTF does that mean? A clip that is a foot longer than the grip, well, that is fairly standard for gang bangers but the list specifies detachable clips apart from that. A “regular” grip with a lengthy magazine does not seem to be included.

3. What exactly is meant by a bayonet mount anyway? Early bayonets had a ring at the end that used friction to grab the barrel. I could do that and have the real deal without the mounting point.

4. A flash suppressor. Pardon? Is that even relevant if you are going into an HRT/CQC situation? If you are worried about a possible sniper, then sure. Also, while my law does not specify this, I would think that a silencer would have similar use/issue.

5. A grenade launcher? Huh? What? That is such a huge issue on the streets of Hartford/New Haven/various other cities in CT that we even need that specified. Um, is there not a federal law which is relevant there?

Well, if this gentleman's "regular rifle" is an AR 15 ( semi auto civilian version ) or an actual M 16 ( select fire military version ) the only currently fitted under barrel grenade launcher that I am aware of is an M203.  Did it look like this ?

  My understanding is that certain classes of weaponry ( Class 2 weaponry )  are not prohibited for sale to civilians( select fire, fully automatic only firearms, shotguns with barrels less than 18", the "Street Sweeper / Stryker " 12 round shotgun which is now classified as a "destructive device", sound suppressors, etc  but all such weaponry must be signed off on by your local chief law enforcement officer ( first step ) and then after a thorough screening process ( second step ) you must receive approval from the BATF.  It's a tightly regulated process but if you've got the cash for a pricey weapon system...class 2 weapons are highly expensive....and you satisfy legal scrutiny you can own one.

  PS, for civilians who own full auto weapons buying pistol and rifle ammunition is pretty straight forward.  It's easily obtained.  Even the .50 cal BMG rounds can be found without much hassle.    Where does one go to legally purchase large quantities of 40x46mm ?  

    I look forward to you actually expressing an opinion.

People should only use accurate weapons for terrorism and mass murder.

N B 4 next rampage by gun wielding maniac.

  An assault rifle is a weapon of mass destruction ?  So does that mean the US military invaded Iraq to take away their rifles because part of Bush jr's excuse for invading was the alleged presence of WMD's.   Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought WMD's were things like NBC weapons or at least attacks by things like ICBM's which can level cities.

 Wow, simply disagreeing with you makes me a smart ass ?    ...... for someone like you who repeatedly employs highly condescending and insulting language when responding you've got really thin skin.  Figures.  

  Here's some facts for you ( ie, real facts, not Vastet facts )   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weapon_of_mass_destruction

   Yes, I was aware of Powell later back pedalling on the issue ( 2007 Meet The Press ) but Powell never said looking for WMD's meant looking for assault rifles, which was my point.

 OK, you don't accept the definition on wikipedia. Got it. Here are a few other sources from presumably more reliable organizations:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/917314/weapon-of-mass-destruction-WMD

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/index.html

http://www.fas.org/terrorism/wmd/

Note that none of those authorities list and regular firearms as WMD. In fact, they are pretty much in agreement with wikipedia on the matter of just what the term WMD actually means. So just throwing it out there does not make an AK into WMD.

As far as the test that you are advocating, that would be a pretty specific configuration of an AK or any other type of weapon. If, as I noted before, the configuration of a weapon is not something that meets someone's arbitrary definition, then that is a different matter entirely.

There are plenty of AK variants out there which have been configured for hunting. Such features as small capacity magazines and no select fire option are fairly common and generally do not require the different paperwork that would come with an FA configured weapon.

Since your original statement was a blanket assumption which would apply to all AK-47s, do you have a problem with someone having a semiautomatic AK with a 5 round magazine? That would hardly meet even your definition of WMD.

Using that ridiculously broad definition, exactly what kind of weapon isn't a WMD? Pretty much any weapon is capable of killing a few dozen people, and certainly any firearm is if the shooter is accurate, including the hand guns and hunting rifles you said you couldn't argue against.