CDZ What is the difference between a Machine Gun and an AR-15?

[Andylusion]

Well, a machine gun is anything which is not a muzzle loader.

bwhaaaaah

And WHAT is a muzzle loader?

View attachment 273841

This is a muzzle loader. You load the round into the muzzle of the gun. (you could say barrel, you load the round directly in the barrel).

These are usually single shot.

Pretty much anything that has a mechanical actions that puts the round into place, is a machine gun.

The only one I'm not sure about is a revolver. You don't actually load the round into the muzzle by hand, but it also isn't exactly mechanically putting the round into place. It's moving a cylinder around, when you pull the trigger.

So I don't know.

But virtually all pistols and semi-auto rifles, are all machine guns.

A semi-auto rifle or pistol is NOT a machine gun. The definitions have been given. If you get one round fired per trigger pull, it is a semi-auto. If you get as many rounds fired as the magazine or belt have with one trigger pull, it is a machine gun.

Ok yes, was incorrect.

 

[Pete7469]

This is a muzzle loader. You load the round into the muzzle of the gun. (you could say barrel, you load the round directly in the barrel).

These are usually single shot.

Pretty much anything that has a mechanical actions that puts the round into place, is a machine gun.

The only one I'm not sure about is a revolver. You don't actually load the round into the muzzle by hand, but it also isn't exactly mechanically putting the round into place. It's moving a cylinder around, when you pull the trigger.

So I don't know.

But virtually all pistols and semi-auto rifles, are all machine guns.

Seriously....

Just don't comment on gun mechanics anymore.

You don't even seem to understand that the MUZZLE of the gun, is the end where the projectile comes out. I don't want you too look silly.


.

 

[Andylusion]

This is a muzzle loader. You load the round into the muzzle of the gun. (you could say barrel, you load the round directly in the barrel).

These are usually single shot.

Pretty much anything that has a mechanical actions that puts the round into place, is a machine gun.

The only one I'm not sure about is a revolver. You don't actually load the round into the muzzle by hand, but it also isn't exactly mechanically putting the round into place. It's moving a cylinder around, when you pull the trigger.

So I don't know.

But virtually all pistols and semi-auto rifles, are all machine guns.

Seriously....

Just don't comment on gun mechanics anymore.

You don't even seem to understand that the MUZZLE of the gun, is the end where the projectile comes out. I don't want you too look silly.


.

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

 

[Pete7469]

A semi-auto rifle or pistol is NOT a machine gun. The definitions have been given. If you get one round fired per trigger pull, it is a semi-auto. If you get as many rounds fired as the magazine or belt have with one trigger pull, it is a machine gun.

You're mostly right.

Except on the machine gun point.

Machine guns aren't just "full auto".

Machine Guns are generally "crew served", which means they're heavy, require more than a single individual to carry into battle with all of the ammo and accessories and are fielded in squads.

The M249 is slightly different, but it is compact and light weight, belt fed (with a back up magazine well) weapon that has a dual use. It fires from an open bolt and lays down a serious volume of fire. Even when deployed with small teams the ammo is distributed among other team members.

Terminology is very important.

M4A1's for example, which I posted a video of myself firing many years ago ARE NOT "Machine Guns".

.

 

[Pete7469]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

 

[Andylusion]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

 

[WinterBorn]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

 

[Blues Man]

There is a law called the National Firearms Act that was implemented in 1934 that "regulates" (read that mega-taxed) machine guns. It was brought into law basically as a response to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre where 7 guys were executed by 4 guys with machine guns. So not being a gun guy, I would like to know what the difference is between the original definition of a machine gun which means any weapon that can be fired more than once with a single trigger pull, at least the way I understand it. This to me begs the question why an AR-15 or equivalent isn't a machine gun and why isn't it heavily regulated the way machine guns are?

I'm not at all a gun control advocate, but if we already have a law that's been on the books for 90 years that already taxes the crap out of machine guns, wouldn't that same tax and regulation extend to modern semi-automatic weapons?

AR-15s are single pull single shot semi-auto assault riffles... unless of course you modify with something like a bump stock. Machine guns are fully automatic

I still don't get it?

So for each and every shot, they have to pull the trigger? What makes it semi-automatic then?

Can you fire a lot of shots in one round? Holy crap... and come to think of it, what the heck is a "round"? How does that work? And what the heck is a "magazine"? I know less than a kindergartner, so please be gentle with this dummy!

And what is the power of the bullets out of an AR15 vs just a rifle? Cuz I read an article once by a doctor who works the ER and gunshot wounds and the doc said that these semi automatic Rifles tear the victim apart, and there are slim to no chance of survival if they are hit in an organ by them but if just a regular gun, the Docs have a much better chance of saving the victim even with a direct hit to an organ....???

A round is a bullet

Semiautos fire one bullet per trigger pull. A semiauto is called that because it only does part of the firing cycle sequence that a fully auto weapon does.

A fully automatic weapon can fire as long as the trigger is held back/
In a semi you must fully release the trigger before firing the next round

The rate of fire for a full auto is determined by the speed of the firing mechanism
The rate of fire on a semi is constant at one round for every trigger pull and is limited by how fast a person can depress and release the trigger

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

It is very often not honest lack of knowledge.

Much of the movement to undermine the Second Amendment is based on knowing, willful, deliberate lies and deceptions. The entire “assault weapon” issue, for example. Those who brought this up know damn well that so-called “assault weapons” are not widely-used in crimes, and are not any more dangerous, nor any more or less suited to any particular purposes, legitimate or otherwise, than similar guns not classified as “assault weapons”.

I refer, once again, to the admission found on the VPC's web site.

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.​

 

[Andylusion]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

I have no problem with civilians owning machine guns. I actually know someone who does.

As always, the problem isn't the gun, but the people. Until we deal with criminals, and start putting murderers in the ground.... doesn't matter what the gun laws are.

 

[mudwhistle]

There is a law called the National Firearms Act that was implemented in 1934 that "regulates" (read that mega-taxed) machine guns. It was brought into law basically as a response to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre where 7 guys were executed by 4 guys with machine guns. So not being a gun guy, I would like to know what the difference is between the original definition of a machine gun which means any weapon that can be fired more than once with a single trigger pull, at least the way I understand it. This to me begs the question why an AR-15 or equivalent isn't a machine gun and why isn't it heavily regulated the way machine guns are?

I'm not at all a gun control advocate, but if we already have a law that's been on the books for 90 years that already taxes the crap out of machine guns, wouldn't that same tax and regulation extend to modern semi-automatic weapons?

AR-15s are single pull single shot semi-auto assault riffles... unless of course you modify with something like a bump stock. Machine guns are fully automatic

Not all fully automatic guns are classified as machine guns.
The M-4 fires a 3 round burst...as did the M16A2. You couldn't just hold the trigger down and expend the entire mag.

"A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm designed to fire rifle cartridges in rapid succession from an ammunition belt or magazine. Not all fully automatic firearms are machine guns. Submachine guns, rifles, assault rifles, battle rifles, shotguns, pistols or cannons may be capable of fully automatic fire, but are not designed for sustained fire. As a class of military rapid-fire guns, machine guns are fully automatic weapons designed to be used as support weapons and generally used when attached to a mount or fired from the ground on a bipod or tripod. Many machine guns also use belt feeding and open bolt operation, features not normally found on rifles." Machine gun - Wikipedia

 

[MarathonMike]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

You know way more than I do, but how I read the NFA is that the Feds could not take your machine gun (rifle or whatever) away. The worst that would happen is they could levy a big tax on you. Certainly not great but that is much different than gun confiscation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual

Cite that ruling.

He can not because ak-47 and AR-15 are protected by the IN COMMON USE ruling.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles, it has never held that such weapons are in common use.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

You know way more than I do, but how I read the NFA is that the Feds could not take your machine gun (rifle or whatever) away. The worst that would happen is they could levy a big tax on you. Certainly not great but that is much different than gun confiscation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are no laws - Federal, state, or local - that authorize confiscation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Good grief. I got the picture from a article on muzzle loaders too. Ok ok! I deleted the post, chill lol

I get carried away....

It's ok. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but man you landed on me like brick!

Gun owners get carried away because having their rifles called a "machinegun" is a blatant lie in order to take them. There have been numerous people crying out against the huge number of machineguns in private hands. A lack of general knowledge about firearms is dangerous in the hands of those who make policy.

You know way more than I do, but how I read the NFA is that the Feds could not take your machine gun (rifle or whatever) away. The worst that would happen is they could levy a big tax on you. Certainly not great but that is much different than gun confiscation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That was the way the NFA worked, as far as I know. The $200 tax has been the same since the NFA was passed. People complain about the high tax stamp now, but in 1934 it was a fortune.

 

[2aguy]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual

Cite that ruling.

He can not because ak-47 and AR-15 are protected by the IN COMMON USE ruling.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles, it has never held that such weapons are in common use.

And you know that isn't true....

Scalia wrote this in Friedman v Highland Park....


Keep in mind there are now over 18 million of these rifles in private hands...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This to me begs the question why an AR-15 or equivalent isn't a machine gun and why isn't it heavily regulated the way machine guns are?

See below.
The AR15 doesn't have the option at the 3:00 position.
Thus, its not a machine-gun and the NFA1934 does not apply.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that an M 16 and AR 15 are similar enough to render both weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession not entitled to Constitutional protections.

This is a lie.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There is a law called the National Firearms Act that was implemented in 1934 that "regulates" (read that mega-taxed) machine guns. It was brought into law basically as a response to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre where 7 guys were executed by 4 guys with machine guns. So not being a gun guy, I would like to know what the difference is between the original definition of a machine gun which means any weapon that can be fired more than once with a single trigger pull, at least the way I understand it. This to me begs the question why an AR-15 or equivalent isn't a machine gun and why isn't it heavily regulated the way machine guns are?

I'm not at all a gun control advocate, but if we already have a law that's been on the books for 90 years that already taxes the crap out of machine guns, wouldn't that same tax and regulation extend to modern semi-automatic weapons?

AR-15s are single pull single shot semi-auto assault riffles... unless of course you modify with something like a bump stock. Machine guns are fully automatic

I still don't get it?

So for each and every shot, they have to pull the trigger? What makes it semi-automatic then?

Can you fire a lot of shots in one round? Holy crap... and come to think of it, what the heck is a "round"? How does that work? And what the heck is a "magazine"? I know less than a kindergartner, so please be gentle with this dummy!

And what is the power of the bullets out of an AR15 vs just a rifle? Cuz I read an article once by a doctor who works the ER and gunshot wounds and the doc said that these semi automatic Rifles tear the victim apart, and there are slim to no chance of survival if they are hit in an organ by them but if just a regular gun, the Docs have a much better chance of saving the victim even with a direct hit to an organ....???

And what is the power of the bullets out of an AR15 vs just a rifle?

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle...with a small bullet compared to other rifles. That Doctor is lying. Any rifle or shotgun hit is going to do lots of damage.....

The AR-15 is a small bullet compared to a 30.06.....

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war or an "Assault Rifle." It is a civilian and police rifle....

it is just as deadly as a weapon of war
.....see my previous posts= it can be just as deadly--if not MORE--than fully auto/3 round burst rifles

Considering that the fully auto/3 round burst rifles in question can all be switched to semi auto, no, the AR15 is not MORE deadly than an M16 or an M4. Arguably equally deadly given the proper scenario. That said, even 3 round and fully auto have their lethal uses. Full auto against a single target is going to be less effective than semi, generally speaking, because semi auto allows relatively easy repetitive hits on that target. The full auto fires faster, but is hard to control, so will largely waste ammo. However, you get up close to a crowd of civilians and let loose 700 rpm out of an M4, a shooter can do a lot of damage before those people have time to scatter. Once they do, said shooter can simply hit the toggle to semi auto and aim carefully at the single targets. Full auto and 3 shot burst also offer a number of tactical options if a mass shooter decides to fight it out with the first police on the scene.

Ultimately, if the M16 and the M4 can do everything an AR15 can do, then no, the AR15 isn't MORE deadly. The added options of 3 shot and full auto, situationally specific though they may be, still makes actual assault rifles significantly more dangerous than rifles that are semi auto only.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

OK I get it, you need a bump stock to get the multiple shots per second out of an AR-15. But even an average shooter could fire at a rate of 2 rounds per second. So without a bump stock or other mod, the AR-15 is not a machine gun per the 1934 definition. But it also isn't much of a stretch to say that the AR-15 meets the "intent" of a machine gun which is to throw lots of lead in the air in a short period of time, yes?

Top result on a google search, took me roughly as long as it takes to type, "machine gun firing rate" into the search bar.

Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles, 1,000-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,500 RPM for machine guns.

2 rounds per second? No. If your average shooter, at the low end, can get 10 rounds per second out of that AR, then we might be talking.

If 2 rounds per second qualifies as serving the same intent as a machine gun, then all semi automatic weapons are machine guns.