New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/28/2020 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it
might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed
limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far
outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

We've been through this before. I'm not talking about firing rates in
terms of how quickly you can pull a trigger six or eight times.

I'm talking about how many rounds can you fire within one
minute. Start a stopwatch, shoot away, and if you can fire more than
ten times (or hell, more than five times), there is no practical use
for that capability except to kill other human beings.

You persist in not understanding my point. You're a reasonably
intelligent guy, so your misunderstanding must be deliberate.

John's point is that a hypothetical firearms inspector armed with your
proposed law could fire *any* repeating firearm at an illegal rate, and
quite possibly some single shots as well. If your intent is to outlaw
all repeating firearms you should just say so, instead of beating around
the bush.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/26/2020 10:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/25/2020 8:25 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.


Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles away, some dude
barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2 AM and blasted
away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy. The boy died in
his mother's arms.

Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder.

I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that the police,
"stressed that it was not a random act of violence but rather a
targeted attack."

And I later read that "A suspect connected to a shooting that killed a
4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including the boy's
mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told Fox News.
and
Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service around 8
p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said.


I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged weapons control
or ban:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices


Follow the UK news and you'll see lots of calls for knife control.

Here's a story on the CoE calling for a ban on pointy assault knives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rn-world-says/

I gather that carrying a folding knife with a locking blade is
considered a serious offense in Blighty, sort of like a "gravity knife"
in NYC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/n...knife-law.html

Seems that particular misbegotten law has been repealed, sometimes there
is progress.

Rest assured that if knives are banned the powers that be will move on
to rocks and sharp sticks.

Let's compare knives vs. fast acting firearms.

There's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

vs. this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States

The totals seem to be a bit different.

I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal to my statement. The UK has made
non-police civilian firearms ownership close to impossible, but the
movers and shakers are not satisfied. They have moved on to trying to
ban pointy knives.

You might also ponder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

There are hundreds of slippery slopes, and there are countless
attempts to lobby for laws that are senseless. Most of those efforts
fail, with good reason, so I don't worry about most of them.

Somewhere in my technical education I was trained to compare benefits
with detriments; and when feasible, to attack the worst problems
first. I also tend to wonder "What do other countries do?" and
consider successful strategies they've discovered.

In my technical education I learned the danger of the positive feedback
loop. If the proposed solution does not actually mitigate the problem,
and those in charge refuse to recognize that fact, then that's where we
wind up.

If banning weapons doesn't really make us more peaceable, then
eventually nerf bats will carry jail time.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:44:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/27/2020 10:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski


Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian
sporting arm, always and only, and so they remain down to
today. That it shares features with other models is true
but that doesn't change the facts at all. Hell your bicycle
shares some materials and technology with an AR-15 which
also proves nothing.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in that Eugene Stoner worked for
ArmaLite which was a company that, as far as I can find out, never
designed or manufactured a firearm for civilian use. The first two
that the company produced, the AR-45 and AR-7, were designed as
"survival guns" for the USAF .


Mr Slocumb and I both noted that on any given morning we
could, with a few nonprecision file strokes, make our M1911
fully automatic. But we haven't and likely never will, just
as you could, like Mr Beattie, turn your bicycle frame into
a planter stand for the garden. But you don't.


:-) In fact a Colt 1911 can, and has turned into a full automatic
weapon through normal wear. And it wasn't unheard of at pistol matches
to hear a 1911 rip off 5 rounds in one burst.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:49:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/27/2020 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

And I can go on and on, I can fire a pump action Remington shotgun
faster then a rate of 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a Colt 1911
pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute and I can fire a High standard
.22 cal pistol faster then 10 rounds per minute.

In fact when you talk about rounds per minute firing rate I'm fairly
sure that I can equal or maybe surpass that with a standard bolt
action rifle.

Yup, here is a guy that fires 48 rounds in one minute, with 5 round
clips, with a bolt action rifle
https://tinyurl.com/y5mtvrk2

In short just about every repeating firearm that has been built can
fire faster then your bench mark.


It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.
But not legally modified.

Many guns were legally modified to fire fast automatically. And AFAIK high capacity magazines are still legal in
most states.

Which ones are legally modified to fire automatically?

But why would a civilian want such a thing? Hint: It's not for deer hunting.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."
And "this guy" is wrong, at least according to, well lets see, The
German Army, the Russian Army and... well I can do on listing armies,
but why bother.

The "show" was narrated by a bloke called "Manny Mansfield" who
apparently never served in any military service, so his opinions are
probably just his own and it certainly wasn't the opinion of any
service man that had to lug that bloody great "Garand". I might add
that I was around the U.S. Army "Special Forces" for a while in
Vietnam and while they could carry about anything that they wanted I
never saw a single one with a "Garand" although I did see one or two
with French made weapons and one with an AK-47.

You're making my point, John. The AR geometry is based on jungle combat, killing opposing soldiers quickly
in difficult conditions. Now Walter Mitty buys that style because it lets him pretend to be manly.

- Frank Krygowski

Have it your own way. But you are wrong.
The AR geometry isn't "based on jungle combat" unless, of course you
believe that every army in the world is planning on fighting in a
jungle, see
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...the-world.html
for examples.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle
for an extremely detailed presentation.

The AR configuration, more commonly refereed to as an "Assault Rifle"
apparently began with the StG 44 developed by the Germans and first
used in 1943... in the jungles of Europe?


Yikes! That's completely wrong.

AR-14 stands for Armalite Rifle model 15.
Eugene Stoner designed it as a semi (sporting rifle) and so
it remains.

The popular press in the US of A began conflating
sturmgewehr with semis some time in the 1980s but that
doesn't make it true.


Nope, I stand behind my statement, that the AR "configuration", i.e.
the "assault rifle" type began with the German StG 44. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
Note the abbreviated stock, pistol grip, the large magazine,
perforated barrel protector.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:49:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

We've been through this before. I'm not talking about firing rates in
terms of how quickly you can pull a trigger six or eight times.

I'm talking about how many rounds can you fire within one minute. Start
a stopwatch, shoot away, and if you can fire more than ten times (or
hell, more than five times), there is no practical use for that
capability except to kill other human beings.

You persist in not understanding my point. You're a reasonably
intelligent guy, so your misunderstanding must be deliberate.

Yes, I persist in listening to what you say and replying to it.

Above you state that "have no real need of a gun that fires more than
five to ten rounds in a minute" and I am replying to that statement.
Are you now claiming that you didn't say it? Or are you saying that
yes, you said it but you didn't really mean it?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:52:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian sporting arm,
always and only, and so they remain down to today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its defining
features, and why are they different from (say) a classic hunting rifle?

But Frank, over the ages a "sporting arm" has changed radically in
form and function. If you wish I can illustrate this, in great detail.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/28/2020 11:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2020 9:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian
sporting arm, always and only, and so they remain down to
today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its
defining features, and why are they different from (say) a
classic hunting rifle?



A 'classic' hunting rifle would be 'not the latest thing'

A good example of 'classic' would be Eugene Stoner's AR-15 from the
1950s for example.

You're avoiding the question.

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/28/2020 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:52:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian sporting arm,
always and only, and so they remain down to today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its defining
features, and why are they different from (say) a classic hunting rifle?


But what is "classic"? Here is a number of photos of what were
considered as "classic" in years gone by.
http://micksguns.com/antique-muzzle-loading-long-guns/

And yes, you are going to say, "That's not what I meant" but they were
all "classic" in their time. The point is that "classic" is not a
specific ideal, it changes with the times.

Actually, I have two friends who hunt using similar guns. They somehow
take deer, coyotes etc. without having to blast off a dozen shots within
a minute.

Who _does_ need to fire more than a couple shots within a minute? Why?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/28/2020 5:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/28/2020 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it
might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed
limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far
outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

We've been through this before. I'm not talking about firing rates in
terms of how quickly you can pull a trigger six or eight times.

I'm talking about how many rounds can you fire within one
minute. Start a stopwatch, shoot away, and if you can fire more than
ten times (or hell, more than five times), there is no practical use
for that capability except to kill other human beings.

You persist in not understanding my point. You're a reasonably
intelligent guy, so your misunderstanding must be deliberate.

John's point is that a hypothetical firearms inspector armed with your
proposed law could fire *any* repeating firearm at an illegal rate, and
quite possibly some single shots as well. If your intent is to outlaw
all repeating firearms you should just say so, instead of beating around
the bush.

I know that's John's point. I'm introducing what I think is a new point
to the gun debates: More than (say) five or ten shots within one minute
is not really useful. On balance, that capability is detrimental to
society.

I know many if not most guns can exceed that. I've shot handguns and
rifles that could, although I don't recall doing that myself. The best I
can say in favor of the capability is it could let you get a bit more
practice when target shooting.

Balance that against people bursting into a living room, church or
school and firing round after round at innocent people. Balance it
against rival groups of thugs shooting at each other in the night and
hitting other residents with stray shots, because they have so many
shots it doesn't matter to them if most go astray.

Should we ban such guns? How about only shooting rounds more deadly than
a garden variety 22LR? I think it would be a good idea, but politically
impossible.

But I think people should think realistically about the real benefits
and detriments of certain common firearm capabilities.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2020 9:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian
sporting arm, always and only, and so they remain down to
today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its
defining features, and why are they different from (say) a
classic hunting rifle?



A 'classic' hunting rifle would be 'not the latest thing'

A good example of 'classic' would be Eugene Stoner's AR-15 from the
1950s for example.

You're avoiding the question.

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Is it really better to shoot at living creatures then to shoot at
inanimate paper targets?
--
Cheers,

John B.