What the heck is a "modern" sporting rifle? - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Firearms General Discussion Rifles, pistols, shotguns, scopes, grips and everything in between.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2019, 07:54 PM
Snyper708's Avatar
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 2,666
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4,243 Times in 1,618 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK6 View Post
Except your knowledge isn't relevant. GCA was aimed at imports, which can be relevant, but the majority of "MSR" focus is on AR15's. Of course, it does bring up the irrelevance of the GCA using that terminology (despite, only for imports) that is irrelevant to the 2A. I'll assume your comment is sarcasm and you're not purposely being a pretentious prick...

ROCK6
That's just your misconception.

You asked questions, ignored all the answers, and just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric that means very little.

Then you resorted to name calling, and you still don't know any more than you did when you started the thread.

I'll assume it's pointless to give you any information because you just want to rant.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 11:15 PM
Herd Sniper Herd Sniper is offline
American fearmaker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,204
Thanks: 17,597
Thanked 27,659 Times in 8,879 Posts
Default

Many years ago there was a committee ran by Ted "The Lifeguard" Kennedy into various rifles used to commit crimes. One day, before the committee met, Ted told his media devotees to be present because "there would be some fascinating information released that day in reference to rifles."

In comes this 4 eyed pencil neck geek to testify "as an expert on military weapons," i.e., the Sturmgewher. During his "testimony" the geek referred to the MP-44 as being an assault rifle because that's what the combination of the German words "sturm" and "gewher" supposedly meant to him. In his opinion, sturm meant to storm or attack and gehwer meant rifle, machine or device in this case. Then he summarized the whole family of military rifles as all of them are "assault rifles." The phrase stuck because the media latched on to it.

Those of us who have been in the military understand that nobody in ANY army carries a rifle designed just for attacking purposes. There's no such critter. When you're an infantryman you use what you're issued. The MP-44 makes one of the lousiest firearms for attacking or assaulting a position. If I am at an elevated position and dug in, when somebody attacks me with a MP-44 rifle, I am going to use the range and elevation differences to my advantage. At best the MP-44 has about a 350 meter range of use on a good day. My rifle of choice would let me reach out a lot further and engage out to 800 meters or more without a problem. After all, a scoped M-21 with Match Grade Ammo is nothing to toy with at all.

So the media starts up with the assault weapon hype. Originally it, the hype, was aimed at semi-auto fire foreign military type rifle clones. Later on the media moved the assault rifle phrase over to American military rifle clones like the AR-15 and M-4 rifles.

In an effort to counter the assault rifle phrase different shooters have come up with the phrases of different kinds for their own reference purposes. One phrase is "sport utility rifle." Another phrase is "sport shooting rifle." You also have phrases like, "civilian defense rifle" and "civilian sporting rifle." There's any number of phrases used to inject a positive reference for the AR type rifles. All the phrases you're asking about are meant to counter the lies from the left again.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Herd Sniper For This Useful Post:
Old 08-29-2019, 05:57 AM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,176
Thanks: 7,326
Thanked 14,325 Times in 4,599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
That's just your misconception.

You asked questions, ignored all the answers, and just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric that means very little.

Then you resorted to name calling, and you still don't know any more than you did when you started the thread.

I'll assume it's pointless to give you any information because you just want to rant.
@Snyper708
Yes I was ranting, but appreciated all the perspectives. If your comment was a sarcastic reply that didn't go over well, no harm...if it was, the pretentious application sticks. I do appreciate your efforts in the discussion, it's just how your response comes across; yes, that's my perception, but I also have a couple decades of evaluating online personas for whatever that is worth (likely not much). Being genuinely helpful can easily be perceived as pretentious or condescending within forums and I personally strive to avoid it myself but won't hesitate to point it out when I see it.

Again, I appreciate your efforts and my attack wasn't personal unless you simply enjoy being antagonistic...if that's your purpose your value is diminished even if the information is helpful. My apologies if I've mischaracterized you...

You did bring up a good point about the import-ban and that the "sporting" definition applied to them. I recall a BATFE opinion memo from c.1998 that explicitly stated that IDPA/USPSA/"police combat matches" are NOT "sporting purposes" under the import ban.

Not sure how much progress or how much impact this recent BATFE 2017 White Paper has created, but I do find this at least somewhat promising:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...egulations.pdf

Quote:
6. Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study: Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as “modern sporting rifles” has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its almost 20-year- old study to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also drastically expanded in recent years. Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States. Low cost foreign made firearms are also still imported and converted into “non-sporting” configurations. These restrictions have placed many limitations on importers, while at the same time imposing a heavy workload on ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division. ATF’s Imports Branch also possesses a list of firearms approved for import but has not made this list public. Lists such as this can be made available to the public so that the importing community does not have to guess as to what the standard for importation is. Many concerns from the firearms industry could be re-examined through the publication of a new Sporting Purpose Study along with an updated Imports Branch Guide.
So, while I think the term "modern" is ironic, it can at least be applied to modern production even if the design remains the same from when first introduced 40+years ago, the term "Sporting" (as Snyper708 highlighted from the GCA68 law) still seems quite controversial and not just for imports.

While I can disagree with the "sporting" term as an import restriction, I think the issue is in how one defines "sporting". I don't think "sporting" has any application or relevance to the 2A, but the value of "modern sporting rifles" has been exploding on the 3-gun scene and competitions which I think has generated attention at the ATF...not necessarily a bad thing even if you're like me and don't care for their history of contradictory and asinine "opinions".

Modern Sporting Rifles. I still think the term Modern is not accurate, I'll buy that the popularity has exponentially increased their modern production and use in 3-gun-type competitions. I guess a good example is the reintroduction of the Sig P210; a modern production from an original design (and of course, highly scrutinized by purists).

Sporting is still a misnomer to me. I understand the relevance to get public acceptance, but it has zero relevance to the 2A. Does the market define "sporting" or does the government? The GCA68 didn't define "sporting purpose" for imports, but even the ATF admitted that they were legally modified (back to original "looks") and are just as popular in several shooting sports as domestically produced firearms.

Last is Rifle. This is a term that is getting cloudy with pistol variants and arm braces. At some point I hope to see certain parts of the NFA eliminated. I have now seen a braced-pistol (pseudo SBR) in every class I've taken recently (including me). They are bridging the gap of legal rifle and SBRs with a very "sporting" application that matches other "modern sporting rifles".

I just hope we don't lose ground with "uncommon" and "senseless" gun safety or gun violence (both stupid terms abused for political posturing) legislation.

ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ROCK6 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-29-2019, 10:51 AM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 419
Thanks: 240
Thanked 646 Times in 283 Posts
Default

To play devil's advocate:

"Modern" is a relative term. Outside of experiments into bullpup configurations, the mechanics and effects of firearms haven't change considerably from the days of Stoner and Kalashnikov. Yes, the Tavor may be brand new, but what is it doing that isn't already decades old?

Is a Tavor really that much more modern than an AR in terms of it's capacity to hunt and defend? I think many on this board would prefer an AR for those tasks. Seems "modern" enough.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 08-29-2019, 12:35 PM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,176
Thanks: 7,326
Thanked 14,325 Times in 4,599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodka Wizard View Post
To play devil's advocate:

"Modern" is a relative term. Outside of experiments into bullpup configurations, the mechanics and effects of firearms haven't change considerably from the days of Stoner and Kalashnikov. Yes, the Tavor may be brand new, but what is it doing that isn't already decades old?

Is a Tavor really that much more modern than an AR in terms of it's capacity to hunt and defend? I think many on this board would prefer an AR for those tasks. Seems "modern" enough.
That's a valid argument but using a the vehicle analogy, cars today are still combustion engines like the cars from 100 years ago, but are the differences in technology similar? I don't think so, but in the gun industry there's relatively little innovation to consider them vastly different.

I think the bullpup is a great example, and while the first design is well over 100 years old (actually 1901), the most prolific and still available AUG is still over 40 years old as a design. Many still look at that design as revolutionary only because it's a radical design when compared to more conventional rifles. The mechanical features of firearms, even the ammunition hasn't really changed radically in over 100+years. Maybe @Snyper708 is right and I'm just ranting to rant, but when I think of a product on the market as "modern" I just don't think many of them will have the same level of similarities to like-product made over 40-50 years ago.

Show me a 1911 made today and one made from the 40's and then show me put a Smartphone beside a phone from the 40's. Technology is vastly different the term "modern" is extremely relative.









What are the modern differences? Mostly metallurgy, replacing wood with polymers, slight variations in mechanical operations...there's really not that much different from 50-100 years ago with firearms. I guess I should just quit my ranting because "modern" is often cyclical and we'll likely have some craze about putting rotary dials back on Smartphones



ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ROCK6 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-29-2019, 12:43 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 419
Thanks: 240
Thanked 646 Times in 283 Posts
Default

Ha, I liked the end of that post.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 09-01-2019, 08:08 PM
rjsixgun's Avatar
rjsixgun rjsixgun is offline
Mad Trapper
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,146
Thanks: 71
Thanked 1,024 Times in 549 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
So before the “modern” sporting rifle....was there anything actually called a “sporting rifle”?

To me it’s like saying hey, look at my shooting pistol, my cutting knife, or my driving car.

It’s just silly word games to mess with the left, using their own stupid definitions and rationalizations against their efforts to limit my 2A rights.
Sporting Guns where hunting rifles, trap guns, skeet guns, brush guns, bush guns, plinkers, rat guns, mouse guns and a few others terms...… but I believe punt guns where "commercial guns" LOL

Oh and please don't confuse them with rectal and anal guns! LOL those look like they could really "bust a cap" in yer a$$
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to rjsixgun For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2019, 08:03 PM
Buck91 Buck91 is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 263
Thanks: 41
Thanked 165 Times in 103 Posts
Default

I'll be the dissenter. Assault rifle is a real term. It qualifies a rifle which fires a round with batter ballistics than a handgun cartridge but yet is more compact that a "full size" rifle cabiler such as .30-06. You would expect to see a detachable magazine of sufficient capacity and possibly a shorter barrel that a "battle rifle" like the BAR or M14 (to use American references).

Certainly not a legal term but in a historic context its fairly concise.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2019, 08:28 PM
Chuckleberry Chuckleberry is offline
I love this Forum.
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NoDak
Posts: 4,841
Thanks: 6,223
Thanked 13,553 Times in 3,852 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck91 View Post
I'll be the dissenter. Assault rifle is a real term. It qualifies a rifle which fires a round with batter ballistics than a handgun cartridge but yet is more compact that a "full size" rifle cabiler such as .30-06. You would expect to see a detachable magazine of sufficient capacity and possibly a shorter barrel that a "battle rifle" like the BAR or M14 (to use American references).

Certainly not a legal term but in a historic context its fairly concise.

The definition of an assault rife is that it 1 - chambered in an intermediate cartridge. 2. Is select fire. 3. Has a detachable magazine. Assault weapon is a term made up by the left. They've been so successful with it even pro gun people are starting to think it's either a real term unto itself or that assault rifle is also a made up term.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2019, 08:34 PM
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
I love this forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 6,384
Thanks: 22,873
Thanked 10,084 Times in 4,308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckleberry View Post
The definition of an assault rife is that it 1 - chambered in an intermediate cartridge. 2. Is select fire. 3. Has a detachable magazine. Assault weapon is a term made up by the left. They've been so successful with it even pro gun people are starting to think it's either a real term unto itself or that assault rifle is also a made up term.
Cute definition. In reality, there is no such thing. It lives only in the imagination of leftists and fudds.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2019, 10:18 PM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is online now
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,917
Thanks: 813
Thanked 10,982 Times in 4,157 Posts
Default

Assault rifle is a valid term. It is derived from from the name of the grandfather of them all the German Sturmgewehr 44.

Assault weapon is not.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to JDH For This Useful Post:
Old 09-06-2019, 06:46 PM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,176
Thanks: 7,326
Thanked 14,325 Times in 4,599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Assault rifle is a valid term. It is derived from from the name of the grandfather of them all the German Sturmgewehr 44.

Assault weapon is not.

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44")

Yeah, the term "Assault Rifle" has been around since WWII, but that's like referring to all vehicles as Panzerbefehlswagen (armored) and they should be banned because who needs armored vehicles (whether they meet the definition or not) because they use too much gas, cause more fatalities to pedestrians, and they look dangerous?

ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-07-2019, 12:11 AM
FirstToken FirstToken is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 736
Thanks: 3
Thanked 826 Times in 426 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Assault rifle is a valid term. It is derived from from the name of the grandfather of them all the German Sturmgewehr 44.

Assault weapon is not.
In your opinion Assault Weapon is not a valid term. I do not agree.

Just to set things straight, I think that Assault Weapon is a term developed by anti firearms media, people, and groups, and that it is different from Assault Rifle, both technically and in the way it is used. Assault Weapon is an intentionally negative connotation to discredit whatever "class" of rifle can be described as fitting it. That definition itself is as loose and unstructured as it needs to be to include as many "bad" guns as possible. Recently it has been slowly shifting to "weapons of war", I think this is so they can eventually sidestep the 2A issue as weapons of war might be more palatable to courts and uniformed people to restrict and confiscate.


Below is why I think that Assault Weapon is a valid term, like it or not.

English is a living language. As such it evolves over time. The meanings of existing words change over time. More importantly, new terms and words are periodically added, especially in regards to technology.

Whether I agree with it (a new term or word in the language) or not does not matter.

Like the facts that the most common use of the word "hybrid" has come to represent a type of vehicle combining multiple drive technologies, and "desktop" has come to represent what is presented to you on a computer screen, neither words or meanings in use or that would have been readily understood or had the same common meaning 35+ years ago. Today we have a term, Assault Weapon, that has, in fact, been added to the English language. It is in wide use. It has been legally defined, although there is no one universal definition that agrees in all minor detail.

To the mass majority of English speaking Americans the term "assault weapon" defines a military looking weapon with evil features, such as large magazines and black coloring. The other technicalities of what it might be are just that, technicalities that many people do not care about. If you show them a picture of an AR-15 they (assuming they are not shooters themselves) will almost certainly identify it as an assault weapon, and that is roughly in line with the "accepted" (and in some cases legally defined) meaning. If you show them a picture of a wood furniture Mini-14 they quite possibly will not call it an "assault weapon", despite the fact it has essentially the same performance capabilities as the AR-15. It fires the same cartridge, does the same "damage", can take the same size magazines, and can sustain roughly the same rate of fire. But it (in stock form) does not have readily identifiable evil features, so they might call it a "hunting" weapon instead. Or a rifle like the Remington 740 or similar, unlikely to be called an assault rifle, despite being semi-auto, removable magazine fed, and center fire.

The issue of whether such a term should exist or not is besides the point at this time, unfortunately we are past that and it does. The term does exist, it is defined (in some cases roughly, in other cases technically and legally), it is in widespread and common use, and it is generally understood. Like it or not, agree with its use or not, it is indeed a valid term in todays English language.

T!
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-07-2019, 01:41 AM
Collector63 Collector63 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Southern MO
Posts: 191
Thanks: 440
Thanked 225 Times in 132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
So before the “modern” sporting rifle....was there anything actually called a “sporting rifle”?

To me it’s like saying hey, look at my shooting pistol, my cutting knife, or my driving car.

It’s just silly word games to mess with the left, using their own stupid definitions and rationalizations against their efforts to limit my 2A rights.
Lever action Winchester 92, 86 with the short tube magazine was called a sporting rifle. Sharps made 1 or 2, called that also
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-07-2019, 10:14 AM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is online now
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,917
Thanks: 813
Thanked 10,982 Times in 4,157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstToken View Post
In your opinion Assault Weapon is not a valid term. I do not agree.

Just to set things straight, I think that Assault Weapon is a term developed by anti firearms media, people, and groups, and that it is different from Assault Rifle, both technically and in the way it is used. Assault Weapon is an intentionally negative connotation to discredit whatever "class" of rifle can be described as fitting it.
T!
Okay, Substitute class of military arms for the word term in my statement.

(I am seriously beginning to doubt the sanity of the person who said "Brevity is the soul of wit.")
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JDH For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net