Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[GravelRider]

Well, that’s just it. Sandy Hook did spark a vigorous debate about gun laws, and the Democrats made a very strong push for seeping gun control at the federal level. But it failed (for several reasons) and that effort drove a lot of voters away from their party.

Gun control advocates like to pretend that gun control efforts are failing because the country refuses to talk about it, that we refuse to have a debate. The truth is we talk about it and debate it all the time, bills are introduced all the time, and they fail all the time because the notion is foolish, unconstitutional, and the people don’t want it (and aren’t shy about telling their reps how they’ll vote in the next election).

They pretend that the NRA is some monstrous evil lobbying tool of callous death device manufacturers, thwarting noble gun control efforts through corrupt back door channels. The truth is that the NRA is its membership, millions of Americans, and we give them lots of money to work to stop those efforts.

Federal gun control efforts haven’t overwhelmingly failed over the last 20+ years because we won’t talk about it. It has failed because we do talk about it. They only areas where it has progressed are regions of concentrated Democratic power where the “vigorous debate” is an echo chamber. When we have the debate at the national level, these bad ideas fail.

Please stop pretending we’re not talking about it. We’re talking about it right now, again.

I guess we have different definitions of vigorous debate. Politicians should not be the only mediators of debate within our society. Where is the science? Where are the non-industry funded studies? You can't have a truly vigorous debate when science is left out of it. The conversation is so overly political and politicians know exactly how appeal to their voters' emotions that reason and rationality is completely left out. Sure, we talk about it, but we don't talk about it the right way.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

What is this? Is this something the Navy offers/pays for?

That was part of the US National Matches, which have been held there for 100+ years. Anyone can attend and enter.

National Matches - Civilian Marksmanship Program

It’s run by the Civilian Marksmanship Program over the course of about a month every year. The military teams attend, and the Army usually wins their fair share, but mostly it’s civilians. That year I could only be there for a few days. I went back in 2015 and 2016 for more, but missed this year since some inconsiderate person scheduled the echo boards the day of one of the more important matches.

The Army heavily funds their team - they actually have a marksmanship unit, where people are assigned full time for the purpose of practicing, competing around the country, and teaching other Army units. The Navy team is less formal; we’re not a specific unit, and our funding is pretty limited. Match ammunition is usually available, and sometimes entry fees are partially reimbursed. Travel is at our expense. We can usually get no-cost temporary duty orders issued so we don’t need to spend vacation time.

Most of the events revolve around service rifle and service pistol competition. CMP/NRA highpower positional shooting is at 200, 300, and 600 yards, and bullseye pistol shooting is one handed at 25 and 50 yards. Most people are shooting accurized AR15 rifles and 1911 pistols, but there are a number of options.

 

[pgg]

I guess we have different definitions of vigorous debate. Politicians should not be the only mediators of debate within our society. Where is the science? Where are the non-industry funded studies? You can't have a truly vigorous debate when science is left out of it. The conversation is so overly political and politicians know exactly how appeal to their voters' emotions that reason and rationality is completely left out. Sure, we talk about it, but we don't talk about it the right way.

Well I take your point, and don’t entirely disagree, but for lack of a better phrase, there’s some loser’s bias in that assessment. (I don’t mean that to be rude or offensive.)

It’s tempting to write off a lost debate by lamenting that the questions weren’t framed “correctly”, or that your evidence was excluded/ignored, or that the opponent appealed to base emotion, or was “irrational”.

When it’s two random people arguing on the internet , that can be a huge factor in determining the apparent “winner”. When it’s a national policy debate, it’s harder for me to believe that one side keeps losing because they were merely outmaneuvered by a clever opponent. Everyone in that arena is clever.


The simplest answer is that gun control efforts don’t fail because of lack of debate. They fail because of that debate.


Ask yourself this, where is the debate most open and complete, with input and data from both sides?

1) At the national level, where the legislature is nearly 50/50 split R vs D, and national media covers everything? (Where the last time there was significant gun control was the 1994 AWB.)

2) Or at the state level, where large supermajorities of one party exist? (California has passed a lot of restrictive gun laws in the last few years.)


It’s telling that the only places gun control has moved forward in the last 20 years have been states where debate has been unnecessary.

 

[periopdoc]

The possibility of banning, or even reclassifying, bump fire stocks seems almost farcical. Congress would have to modify the law for the ATF to reclassify them as machine guns. How many thousand of these are out there? Are you really going to make thousands of law abiding citizens into overnight felons with no remedy? Civilian registration of existing machine guns has been illegal since 1968. Congress could instruct the ATF to re-open the NFA registry to newly manufactured machine guns, and add bump fire stocks to the registry, but there is huge political pressure, from some very rich people, to keep the registry closed. They don't want the value of their machine gun collections being cut by 90% overnight.

If I were looking to do this, I would amend the NFA to add bump fire stocks as a new category of Title II weapon, with the definition narrowly tailored to ensure you weren't, inadvertently, prohibiting the sale of common repair and replacement parts (buffers, drop in triggers etc). They could then be treated in the same way as suppressors in regards to manufacture and transfer. There would be a grace period where existing bump fire stocks could be registered on a Form 1 for free.

The NRA is probably doing the right thing, tactically, by asking the ATF to re-examine the classification of these accessories. The ATF made the correct determination in 2010 that these are not machine guns, and when they review the initial application they will have to re-affirm their findings, which will take some time. This buys time to get good law written, rather than an emotional response with unintended consequences. I am betting that the SAFE act gets language added to register bump fire accessories, and the Dems are presented with a choice. Vote for the SAFE act to de-list suppressors, grant national reciprocity, and list bump fire accessories, or vote against it, and explain to your constituents why you voted against "banning" the tool that was used in Las Vegas.

 

[pgg]

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Bump stocks don’t work that way. The ATF can’t reclassify them.

The NRA has maneuvered well here, asking them to reassess bump stocks. There’s only one answer the ATF can give, and everyone knows it: bump stocks are not illegal and are not regulated by the NFA.



I wish the AMA was even a tenth as competent and half as interested in representing doctors as the NRA is in representing gun owners.

 

[Twiggidy]

Let me toss a grenade in this thread.....

any of you guys watch "Ozark"? How about that scene where the kid buys the rifle?

I mean it was obvious political pander but when I watched it, I was like, "Wow", and then I was curious if that could really happen

 

[Twiggidy]

I wish the AMA was even a tenth as competent and half as interested in representing doctors as the NRA is in representing gun owners.

Probably most true sentence on this entire Forum

 

[pgg]

Let me toss a grenade in this thread.....

any of you guys watch "Ozark"? How about that scene where the kid buys the rifle?

I mean it was obvious political pander but when I watched it, I was like, "Wow", and then I was curious if that could really happen

You have a link? I did a quick search on YouTube but just found one scene where a kid is shooting a fully automatic rifle in the woods. Where did the show have him buy it, a store? Haven't watched the show.

 

[periopdoc]

any of you guys watch "Ozark"? How about that scene where the kid buys the rifle?
...I was curious if that could really happen

Are you talking about the scene where Tuck buys the gun for Jonah?

If so, then no. That was a new, Mini-14 machine gun. I'm not even sure if anyone manufactures those anymore. Regardless, there is no sporting good store that sells newly manufactured machine guns to civilians (extremely few have them available for law enforcement purchase, and even then, cops aren't just going in and walking out with them, same day, on a whim.).

Since we are talking about bump-fire stocks, there isn't a manufacturer that sells a model with a bump fire stock pre-installed. I suppose some store somewhere might install them and sell as a package deal.

There are multiple other problems with the scene that make it impossible, not the least of which is when the dealer "coaches" Tuck on the form 4473 question 11(a).

No store-front dealer is going to risk his livelihood by coaching a straw purchase like that. He may ask some subtle questions to determine if it is just a purchaser misreading the form,and answering incorrectly, but he isn't going to risk losing his FFL over single gun sale.

 

[periopdoc]

If anyone wants to see the scene, it's the opening scene to episode 9, "Coffee, Black." Available on Netflicks

 

[chessknt]

I wish the AMA was even a tenth as competent and half as interested in representing doctors as the NRA is in representing gun owners.

Me too. The problem is since Medicare started reimbursing by rvus the importance of cpt and subsequently the ruc became their primary focus and comprises a large portion of their income. I view them as a private organization with a government sanctioned monopoly on coding language that exists to ensure its own survival. We have to look to our own specialty groups for real political support but then we are fragmented and harmless.

I imagine gun rights would be similar trampled if instead of the nra each firearm brand had it's own lobbying group.

 

[GravelRider]

Well I take your point, and don’t entirely disagree, but for lack of a better phrase, there’s some loser’s bias in that assessment. (I don’t mean that to be rude or offensive.)

It’s tempting to write off a lost debate by lamenting that the questions weren’t framed “correctly”, or that your evidence was excluded/ignored, or that the opponent appealed to base emotion, or was “irrational”.

When it’s two random people arguing on the internet , that can be a huge factor in determining the apparent “winner”. When it’s a national policy debate, it’s harder for me to believe that one side keeps losing because they were merely outmaneuvered by a clever opponent. Everyone in that arena is clever.


The simplest answer is that gun control efforts don’t fail because of lack of debate. They fail because of that debate.


Ask yourself this, where is the debate most open and complete, with input and data from both sides?

1) At the national level, where the legislature is nearly 50/50 split R vs D, and national media covers everything? (Where the last time there was significant gun control was the 1994 AWB.)

2) Or at the state level, where large supermajorities of one party exist? (California has passed a lot of restrictive gun laws in the last few years.)


It’s telling that the only places gun control has moved forward in the last 20 years have been states where debate has been unnecessary.

I don't know about loser's bias or whatever. I live in a blue state and I know many people with all sorts of guns. The Sandy Hook massacre happened in one of the "bluest" states. My point is I don't have a strong view either way about guns. I don't own a gun and I have "common sense" ideas about guns, but no opinions that are guided by research, evidence, and science. I think that is a problem. Whenever one of these massacres happens we have a bunch of emotional responses...on both sides (to quote DJT)...but no one really discusses how we can figure out how to prevent events like this. Legislation regarding guns is only one facet of possible solutions. However, the issue has become so politicized that we are completely paralyzed by our partisan bickering to figure this problem out and find solutions.

 

[deleted547339]

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain to me what a bump stock is? I'm fairly comfortable with handguns, but the only long guns I have are shotguns. Father in law has many rifles, and I've shot with some regularity, but I'm not firmiliar with how a bump stock works.

 

[vm26]

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain to me what a bump stock is? I'm fairly comfortable with handguns, but the only long guns I have are shotguns. Father in law has many rifles, and I've shot with some regularity, but I'm not firmiliar with how a bump stock works.

From google (Washington post):
A bump stock is a piece of plastic or metal molded to the lower end of a rifle. The device allows a shooter to fire dozens of rounds in seconds by harnessing the gun’s natural recoil. A rifle with this type of mechanism is optimal with a high-capacity magazine that can hold between 60 and 100 rounds and a hand grip that allows a shooter to push the rifle away from the body to bounce, or bump, the weapon into the trigger finger. When these are combined, the weapon can shoot large amounts of automatic-like fire without much concern for accuracy, as the recoil from simulated automatic fire would make it difficult to hit specific targets at a long range.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I have to admit, I follow the political and job posts you guys comment on and been a frequent lurker on you guy’s discussion.

I didn’t use to have strong feelings either way on gun control policies but can not understand why this happens so frequently in this country. Outside of politics and lobbyist, will there ever be a solution or are we all just screwed?

 

[aneftp]

I am not a gun owner...I don't even drink alcohol. So I love to play politics with my liberal anti guns friends. I tell them (and this is the truth). Drunk driving deaths occur more than firearms deaths each year. But the public has no issues with continued advertising of alcohol and selling of alcohol at entertainment venues.

Just the hypocrisy of people. Repeal the 2nd amendment. Bring back prohibition. .....wonder who far a politician gets if he/she runs on that platform.

I'm frankly scared seeing how many drunk drivers out at night than I'm at guns.

 

[periopdoc]

I didn’t use to have strong feelings either way on gun control policies but can not understand why this happens so frequently in this country.

When controlled for population, the frequency of mass shootings in the US is not so far out of the norm.

I love to play politics with my liberal anti guns friends. I tell them (and this is the truth). Drunk driving deaths occur more than firearms deaths each year. But the public has no issues with continued advertising of alcohol and selling of alcohol at entertainment venues. ...

Whenever someone tries to use the argument, "Nobody NEEDS an assault weapon," I love bringing up the fact that alcohol, a purely recreational substance that nobody NEEDS, is related to 80,000 deaths per year, compared to less than 300 homicides per year for all rifles, of which so-called assault weapons are only a part.

 

[Twiggidy]

I have to admit, I follow the political and job posts you guys comment on and been a frequent lurker on you guy’s discussion.

I didn’t use to have strong feelings either way on gun control policies but can not understand why this happens so frequently in this country. Outside of politics and lobbyist, will there ever be a solution or are we all just screwed?

You mean why are there more mass shootings in the United States than anywhere else? I can't answer why some decides to go and kill a bunch of random people. One thing about the US is that we have more guns than people, so one thing is ease and opportunity. If you're motivated to kill with a gun in the US, it's not hard to do so.

Other countries have found solutions to lower gun violence, but that solution will likely never happen here. Are those places violence-free, of course not.

 

[Chip N Sawbones]

I have to admit, I follow the political and job posts you guys comment on and been a frequent lurker on you guy’s discussion.

I didn’t use to have strong feelings either way on gun control policies but can not understand why this happens so frequently in this country. Outside of politics and lobbyist, will there ever be a solution or are we all just screwed?

The solution is fairly simple. Follow the route Canada and Australia did and impose strict bans on semiautomatic guns and high capacity magazines, +/- a mandatory buyback program. Set up a registration system for the remaining guns. Doing these things has essentially eliminated mass shootings in those countries The problem is that these measures have been proven time and again to be unpopular in the U.S. There are so many guns in the U.S. today, including so many in the hands of criminals, that people want to be able to shoot back. I live in a part of New Orleans that's usually either underwater or on fire, and if you aren't armed there you're a target. The other problem is that gun control has become an extremely polarized issue, with the loudest voices on each side being those who want to ban all firearms entirely and those who want every citizen to be able to own machine guns and bazookas. Anyone with a moderate view on either side of the argument won't want to give in to the extreme views the other side is shouting, and will have basically no choice but to join with the radicals on their side. For example, I own quite a few guns and I wouldn't really mind a system of mandatory registration and/or safety training, but not if that registration will lead to outright confiscation as a generation of anti-gun politicians have said they'd like to enact.

 

[periopdoc]

Here is a video on it. Watch it soon as Youtube is deleting these bump fire videos left and right

 

[Twiggidy]

When controlled for population, the frequency of mass shootings in the US is not so far out of the norm.



Whenever someone tries to use the argument, "Nobody NEEDS an assault weapon," I love bringing up the fact that alcohol, a purely recreational substance that nobody NEEDS, is related to 80,000 deaths per year, compared to less than 300 homicides per year for all rifles, of which so-called assault weapons are only a part.

Which is interesting because I use the alcohol to defend why marijuana should be legal

 

[periopdoc]

Doing these things has essentially eliminated mass shootings in those countries

Mass shootings were essentially non-existent in these countries prior to the bans. Try again.

I wouldn't really mind a system of mandatory registration and/or safety training, but not if that registration will lead to outright confiscation as a generation of anti-gun politicians have said they'd like to enact.

Narrator -"Registration would lead to outright confiscation."

 

[periopdoc]

Which is interesting because I use the alcohol to defend why marijuana should be legal

It should be, and it will be. I have stock positions in Canadian marijuana companies because they are going to skyrocket eventually. It's just a question of which one comes out on top and buys out the others

 

[periopdoc]

Other countries have found solutions to lower gun violence, but that solution will likely never happen here. Are those places violence-free, of course not.

If you eliminate, say, all 5,000 gun homicides in a country, but the homicide rate remains the same (substitution of other weapons) have you made any real progress? The substitution effect is real in these countries, and when guns have been confiscated, the slopes of violent crime rates have not seen significant deviations.

 

[Twiggidy]

If you eliminate, say, all 5,000 gun homicides in a country, but the homicide rate remains the same (substitution of other weapons) have you made any real progress? The substitution effect is real in these countries, and when guns have been confiscated, the slopes of violent crime rates have not seen significant deviations.

There may be more violent crime in some of these places but the homicide rate is less. I believe that's been shown, for instance, in the UK. Is that a win? I'm not sure.

 

[Twiggidy]

So there's this article by The Guardian, that is basically logging all the shootings in the US since 2013 and I've been Googling some of them at random just to get the story.....my only conclusion so far.....people are freaking crazy.

Just one example
Plano shooting: 8 killed after football party

So we're watching football, and an argument starts, and 8 people end up dead......I mean....

 

[periopdoc]

It's not a simple question of, "is the homicide rate more or less." The homicide rate, was falling before the bans, just like the homicide and violent crime rates are falling in the US despite no ban.

The question should be, did we see an acceleration in the rate of decline after the ban, or did the slope remain steady. If the slope remained steady or flattened out, then the decrease cannot be definitively attributed to the ban. The ban may have had no effect or it may have had an effect that can't be measured.

 

[periopdoc]

Just one example
Plano shooting: 8 killed after football party

So we're watching football, and an argument starts, and 8 people end up dead......I mean....

Domestic violence. Wife divorces a violent husband and hosts her first party as an independent woman. He finds out about it and shows up, uninvited, with a gun. They get into an argument on the front porch and he pulls the gun. F'd the hell up for sure.

 

[Machinery]

In my mind there are 2 types of gun owners.
1. Fake tough guys
2. People trying to protect themselves

 

[periopdoc]

3. People who shoot for sport (Olympic, benchrest, clays etc)
4. People who need a gun for work (Cops, contractors etc)
5. Collectors
6. Hunters (some of whom fall into the fake tough guy category too)

 

[pgg]

In my mind there are 2 types of gun owners.
1. Fake tough guys
2. People trying to protect themselves

You must not know many gun owners. No one I know fits into category 1, and I'm not sure any of the people I know fall exclusively into category 2 (though many would likely list self defense as one of the reasons they own guns).

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You must not know many gun owners. No one I know fits into category 1, and I'm not sure any of the people I know fall exclusively into category 2 (though many would likely list self defense as one of the reasons they own guns).

I'm definitely not either of those

 

[lobelsteve]

I'm a fake tough guy. 380 for walking, 45 for home defense.

 

[jwk]

The solution is fairly simple. Follow the route Canada and Australia did and impose strict bans on semiautomatic guns and high capacity magazines, +/- a mandatory buyback program. Set up a registration system for the remaining guns. Doing these things has essentially eliminated mass shootings in those countries The problem is that these measures have been proven time and again to be unpopular in the U.S. There are so many guns in the U.S. today, including so many in the hands of criminals, that people want to be able to shoot back. I live in a part of New Orleans that's usually either underwater or on fire, and if you aren't armed there you're a target. The other problem is that gun control has become an extremely polarized issue, with the loudest voices on each side being those who want to ban all firearms entirely and those who want every citizen to be able to own machine guns and bazookas. Anyone with a moderate view on either side of the argument won't want to give in to the extreme views the other side is shouting, and will have basically no choice but to join with the radicals on their side. For example, I own quite a few guns and I wouldn't really mind a system of mandatory registration and/or safety training, but not if that registration will lead to outright confiscation as a generation of anti-gun politicians have said they'd like to enact.

You need to read Article 5 of the US Constitution. The solution is NOT simple at all. Neither Canada nor Australia have anything like our 2nd amendment in their Constitution. Amending the US Constitution to do what Canada and Australia have done requires a 2/3 vote of BOTH houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. It simply is not going to happen.

 

[Chip N Sawbones]

You need to read Article 5 of the US Constitution. The solution is NOT simple at all. Neither Canada nor Australia have anything like our 2nd amendment in their Constitution. Amending the US Constitution to do what Canada and Australia have done requires a 2/3 vote of BOTH houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. It simply is not going to happen.

Well, the 1994 assault weapons ban was constitutional enough that it happened, so presumably a similar ban could happen again. Anyway, I'm not advocating such a ban, I'm just saying that it would in fact be a solution that would substantially reduce both the number of mass shootings and the average number of deaths per shooting.

 

[ZzzPlz]

Well, the 1994 assault weapons ban was constitutional enough that it happened, so presumably a similar ban could happen again. Anyway, I'm not advocating such a ban, I'm just saying that it would in fact be a solution that would substantially reduce both the number of mass shootings and the average number of deaths per shooting.

You sure about that? Crazy people will find a way to do crazy things...

 

[ZzzPlz]

I heard the Vegas shooter was a pilot. He could have done even more damage by crashing a plane into the concert attendants.

Would we restrict pilots' lisences if that were the case?

 

[psychbender]

Well, the 1994 assault weapons ban was constitutional enough that it happened, so presumably a similar ban could happen again. Anyway, I'm not advocating such a ban, I'm just saying that it would in fact be a solution that would substantially reduce both the number of mass shootings and the average number of deaths per shooting.

Except that the majority of mass shootings are with handguns, not "assault rifles" (a made up term, that covers cosmetic modifications). Also, there is no data to back up the idea that the 1994 ban decreased gun-related crime or fatalities. Rifles, of all types, are responsible for a very small minority of gun deaths each year. This shooting was an anomaly, not the norm.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[Chip N Sawbones]

Well, see, I'm not actually advocating reinstating the AWB, and such a ban would mean I couldn't get any more milsurp mags for my VZ-58, AK74 or Suomi, but... On second thought, forget it. It's not like someone with a moderate view on gun control is going to be able to convince anyone on either extreme side of the issue.

 

[GravelRider]

I heard the Vegas shooter was a pilot. He could have done even more damage by crashing a plane into the concert attendants.

Would we restrict pilots' lisences if that were the case?

Car accidents are deadly. Airplane crashes are deadly (rare). Alcohol is a source of death a disease. The difference is we dedicate fairly significant public funds to find ways to make these public health issues better. Seatbelts are improved. Airbags are added to cars. Pilot work hours are restricted. Drunk driving punishments are harsher. Public health campaigns warn people of the risks of alcohol.

Gun violence is responsible for a significant number of deaths every year and almost no research is done on the subject. In order to figure this problem out and come up with real solutions, we first need to have research done on the subject. Widespread gun bans are probably not the answer, but we will never know unless we do some actual science instead of the usual emotional partisan bickering.

 

[Machinery]

You must not know many gun owners. No one I know fits into category 1, and I'm not sure any of the people I know fall exclusively into category 2 (though many would likely list self defense as one of the reasons they own guns).

I do know a lot of gun owners. Most own guns for self defense or some practical reason. Then you have Mr "I will like to tell you about my 1000 guns" fake tough guy. I was sitting in the Dr's lounge the other day listening to these two clowns trying to out-gun each other with their gun talk. At the end of the session we knew all the guns they had and where they keep their guns. When you take into account the fact that you are more likely to get killed by someone you know than a stranger/intruder, you can see how telling everyone what you have and where you keep it is tactically senseless.

 

[CommonMan]

.308 is a good choice especially if you don't reload. Huge variety of ammo, and usually something is available. Even these days you can find the 168 or 175 gr Federal Gold Medal Match for $1/round or maybe a bit less if you're patient. Good out past 1000 yards (though maybe marginal past 800 with the 168 SMK bullets and/or the 18" barrel).

Just did some Googling about it, looks like a great rifle. It'll need a scope too.

If you are going to get into the long range game reloading is not optional. Look at the 260 rem or any round that shoots a 6.5 mm bullet. Great 1000 yard accuracy with very little recoil. Think twice about a 308. I have both and there is no comparison. I'm going to turn my 308 into a 260.

 

[pgg]

If you are going to get into the long range game reloading is not optional. Look at the 260 rem or any round that shoots a 6.5 mm bullet. Great 1000 yard accuracy with very little recoil. Think twice about a 308. I have both and there is no comparison. I'm going to turn my 308 into a 260.

Look at the date of that post ... Dec 2013, a year after Sandy Hook. Another shortage of everything was in full swing. The gun banners were out in force, talking about Australia and a suddenly enthusiastic president like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert. If you weren't already reloading, you weren't going to find components to start.

I don't disagree that there are other calibers better suited to long distance shooting. That said, .308 isn't timeless and popular for no reason. Lots of good commercial ammunition available (is there any .308 rifle that won't shoot 168 or 175 gr FGGM well?), great barrel life. Enormous variety of excellent rifles, from shelf to custom.

I made the mistake of taking my 338LM TRG-42 to the Interservice long range match in 2016, because hey, why not? Well, no brake, no suppressor permitted per the match rules ... with just a thread protector on the end of the barrel, 20 rounds later my shoulder was sore and I'd developed a bit of a flinch. I shot poorly. Most everyone else had better sense than I and were shooting AR10s in .308 ... they did just fine at 1000 y.

 

[deleted162650]

6.5 Creedmoor for the precision long range win

 

[ZzzPlz]

My next purchase will be a creedmoor. I'm between tikka and MPA bolt action rifles. I think either would be fantastic for the half mile range.

Thinking vortex razor gen 2 for a scope.

This isn't for self defense so I must be a fake tough guy

 

[pgg]

My next purchase will be a creedmoor. I'm between tikka and MPA bolt action rifles. I think either would be fantastic for the half mile range.

Thinking vortex razor gen 2 for a scope.

This isn't for self defense so I must be a fake tough guy

Tikkas are nice. I'm a sucker for anything from Sako (see the OP of this thread ).

 

[CommonMan]

don't disagree that there are other calibers better suited to long distance shooting. That said, .308 isn't timeless and popular for no reason. Lots of good commercial ammunition available (is there any .308 rifle that won't shoot 168 or 175 gr FGGM well?), great barrel life. Enormous variety of excellent rifles, from shelf to custom.

Take a look at the precision rifle blog, the 308 isnt even mentioned. Its kind of like ether.

 

[periopdoc]

If you are a good enough shooter to eke out the real performance improvements from a 6.5 vs a .308, then you wouldn't be on here asking about it.

.308 is a great intro to the sport. Cheap. Easy to shoot well with factory ammo. Super easy to reload for. If you outgrow your .308 (does anybody ever truly outgrow the venerable .308), you can easily rebarrel it for a short action 6.5 soup du jour.

Personally, I love my 6.5 RSAUM. (GAP4S), although the 26 Nosler barrel burner sounds intriguing for a hunting rifle, and the BC on some of the 7mm bullets makes me drool

 

[periopdoc]

Well, the 1994 assault weapons ban was constitutional enough that it happened, so presumably a similar ban could happen again.

The constitutionality of the 1994 AWB was never challenged, so we simply don't know if it would have survived a 2nd amendment challenge or not.

Recent decisions by the split court suggest that strict scrutiny should be applied to 2nd amendment issues, but that isn't settled yet.

Now, we are 1 retirement away from a massive renaissance in gun rights, and it is entirely possible that there will be two retirements. Once the court is stacked, I expect them to move quickly on the question of the applicable standards of scrutiny. We already have a circuit split that can be taken up.

Once that is settled, I would expect them to agree to take on the issue of state level AWBs. While they would likely survive if intermediate scrutiny becomes the standard, I don't see how they survive if strict scrutiny is applied.

Anyway, I'm not advocating such a ban, I'm just saying that it would in fact be a solution that would substantially reduce both the number of mass shootings and the average number of deaths per shooting.

How do you come to that conclusion? It would do nothing if the sort. It would be the equivalent of addressing aviation accidents and deaths by banning commercial jet traffic. In terms of the number of accidents, and the body count, the number of commercial jets crashing is essentially statistical noise. The only area where it might make a noticeable impact is in the outlier maximum number killed in a single incident.

 

[pgg]

Now, we are 1 retirement away from a massive renaissance in gun rights, and it is entirely possible that there will be two retirements. Once the court is stacked, I expect them to move quickly on the question of the applicable standards of scrutiny. We already have a circuit split that can be taken up.

I expect the same, if President Trump appoints another. But I sort of doubt any voluntary retirements from the left side of the bench will be forthcoming during this administration. Might get better odds from the Social Security Actuarial Tables ... and doing the math, another appointment this term is far from a sure thing.