The firearm thread

**wbks** · 9th October 2009, 18:57

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Well look military is maybe a better term.

The move from wood to metal and polymers for stocks, and the modularity of modern assault rifles has led to stocks and grips that attach to and hang off receivers etc

Also the moving of the receiver rearwards in a lot of bull pup designs means the hand has to sit below the receiver instead of behind.

Yea, but how many SA80's do you see people hunting with...

**jono035** · 9th October 2009, 18:59

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Well look military is maybe a better term.

The move from wood to metal and polymers for stocks, and the modularity of modern assault rifles has led to stocks and grips that attach to and hang off receivers etc

Also the moving of the receiver rearwards in a lot of bull pup designs means the hand has to sit below the receiver instead of behind.

Good point, even in non-bullpup designs the receiver is further back with the grip below the receiver so mass is more centered and the weapon is shorter overall... I guess if you're trying to make a weapon more suitable for close-quarters combat then centering as much of the mass and making it shorter is enough an advantage. There we go, that sounds like an answer to your question, wbks.

**jono035** · 9th October 2009, 19:00

Originally Posted by wbks

Yea, but how many SA80's do you see people hunting with...

There are a few bullpup hunting designs out and about that I've seen... Makes a lot of sense having the shortest possible weapon when you're bush-bashing...

**sAsLEX** · 9th October 2009, 19:00

Originally Posted by wbks

Yea, but how many SA80's do you see people hunting with...

Your point?

Look where the grip is here:

Compared to say these here:

And you can see the later all have there rear hand behind the receiver, not fwd and under it like in a modern assault rifle.

**wbks** · 9th October 2009, 19:01

Originally Posted by jono035

Good point, even in non-bullpup designs the receiver is further back with the grip below the receiver so mass is more centered and the weapon is shorter overall... I guess if you're trying to make a weapon more suitable for close-quarters combat then centering as much of the mass and making it shorter is enough an advantage. There we go, that sounds like an answer to your question, wbks.

Does! So in conclusion, it does nothing to deter jan molenar style shooters, and does nothing to improve or decrease their accuracy... Thats worth a law change!

**sAsLEX** · 9th October 2009, 19:03

Originally Posted by jono035

There are a few bullpup hunting designs out and about that I've seen... Makes a lot of sense having the shortest possible weapon when you're bush-bashing...

Not all hunting needs bush bashing and getting close.....

Example of shorted overall weapon by moving receiver rearwards in a bolt action.

**wbks** · 9th October 2009, 19:03

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Your point?

Look where the grip is here:

Compared to say these here:

And you can see the later all have there rear hand behind the receiver, not fwd and under it like in a modern assault rifle.

Point was that because you have to move the grip forward of the reciever in a bullpup, you don't really see any of them out hunting NZ so it doesn't really effect the problem of SKS rifles and similar being restricted.

**jono035** · 9th October 2009, 19:05

Walther G22, there ya go.

No, it's a really shitty way of categorizing guns as 'scarier looking' or just 'moderately scary'. There is no advantage to even a fully free standing pistol grip if you are going to go on a rampage.

That said, the bayonet lug and flash suppressor arguably isn't going to do a whole lot for you either...

And how long does it really take to load a fresh magazine...

It's all a gigantic crap shoot in summary.

**sAsLEX** · 9th October 2009, 19:06

Originally Posted by wbks

Point was that because you have to move the grip forward of the reciever in a bullpup, you don't really see any of them out hunting NZ so it doesn't really effect the problem of SKS rifles and similar being restricted.

So if it does nothing to add to the threat of the weapon to the public in any way, why are the Police trying so hard to ban them? Would it be because they need to appear to do something to cover up their fuck up in Napier?

Yes they shorten the weapon. There is a minimum length to a rifle in law to stop glorified pistols being used by A cat license holders.

**jono035** · 9th October 2009, 19:07

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Not all hunting needs bush bashing and getting close.....

Yeah, certainly, just used the first legitimate example of why a short weapon is good for hunting that sprang to mind.

Also, if you're using glass optics then your sight radius doesn't matter either so there isn't necessarily a downside.

**sAsLEX** · 9th October 2009, 19:09

Originally Posted by jono035

Walther G22, there ya go.

No, it's a really shitty way of categorizing guns as 'scarier looking' or just 'moderately scary'. There is no advantage to even a fully free standing pistol grip if you are going to go on a rampage.

That said, the bayonet lug and flash suppressor arguably isn't going to do a whole lot for you either...

And how long does it really take to load a fresh magazine...

It's all a gigantic crap shoot in summary.

Flash suppressor could hide your location from the police if you were shooting away..... to an extent...... but then so would following simple doctrine available online such as Field Manual 23-10......

Bayonet lug is as knives are way more dangerous than semi automatic weapons!

**wbks** · 9th October 2009, 19:09

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

So if it does nothing to add to the threat of the weapon to the public in any way, why are the Police trying so hard to ban them? Would it be because they need to appear to do something to cover up their fuck up in Napier?

I'd go with this one, like I said about 5 mins ago...

**jono035** · 9th October 2009, 19:13

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Flash suppressor could hide your location from the police if you were shooting away..... to an extent...... but then so would following simple doctrine available online such as Field Manual 23-10.....

And wouldn't explain why suppressors are still legal...

I'd really like to ask Mr Mcleod what he honestly thinks would happen if they were to completely remove the E category endorsement and the silly MSSA classification system.

My guess is nothing other than a few shifts in market price points...

**wbks** · 9th October 2009, 19:16

Originally Posted by jono035

And wouldn't explain why suppressors are still legal...

I'd really like to ask Mr Mcleod what he honestly thinks would happen if they were to completely remove the E category endorsement and the silly MSSA classification system.

My guess is nothing other than a few shifts in market price points...

a rambo on every block, of course