HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Instead of banning guns, ...

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:22 AM

Instead of banning guns, how about banning the ammo for certain guns?

To the regulars here who have a great knowledge on the subject of guns and ammo, if your were tasked to provide a list of ammo cartridges that would affect all semi-auto handguns and long guns like variants of the AR-15, semi-auto AK-47s, AK-74Ms and other guns one may say is an assault weapon?

And also, what would need to be done to prevent those who reload from making their own such cartridges?

69 replies, 5650 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Instead of banning guns, how about banning the ammo for certain guns? (Original post)
Kaleva Dec 2012 OP
Loudly Dec 2012 #1
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #2
Kaleva Dec 2012 #4
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #6
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #8
Kaleva Dec 2012 #9
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #11
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #15
PavePusher Dec 2012 #16
ileus Dec 2012 #18
PavePusher Dec 2012 #30
krispos42 Dec 2012 #31
PavePusher Dec 2012 #32
sir pball Dec 2012 #34
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #12
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #51
petronius Dec 2012 #3
Kaleva Dec 2012 #7
petronius Dec 2012 #10
Clames Dec 2012 #28
Kaleva Dec 2012 #67
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #58
Kaleva Dec 2012 #68
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #5
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #13
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #14
Kaleva Dec 2012 #20
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #23
Kaleva Dec 2012 #25
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #27
PavePusher Dec 2012 #17
Kaleva Dec 2012 #19
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #21
Kaleva Dec 2012 #22
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #24
Kaleva Dec 2012 #26
Clames Dec 2012 #29
Kaleva Dec 2012 #33
Clames Dec 2012 #36
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #35
Kaleva Dec 2012 #37
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #39
Kaleva Dec 2012 #41
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #42
Kaleva Dec 2012 #44
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #46
Kaleva Dec 2012 #49
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #56
Kaleva Dec 2012 #69
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #53
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #54
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #55
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #57
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #59
gejohnston Dec 2012 #60
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #61
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #66
Kaleva Dec 2012 #62
Howzit Dec 2012 #38
Kennah Dec 2012 #40
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #43
Kaleva Dec 2012 #45
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #47
Kaleva Dec 2012 #48
Kaleva Dec 2012 #50
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #52
Kaleva Dec 2012 #63
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #64
Kaleva Dec 2012 #65

Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:24 AM

1. Reloading equipment smacked down too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:25 AM

2. One of the strengths of the AR platform

is that there are barrels for virtually every cartridge produced today. Reloading in general would be significantly hampered by restrictions on the sale of powder, primers, and factory ammunition (for casings), but as I said, such rifles are available in a very wide range of calibers. We had such an issue come up here where the GA tried to place restrictions on the sale of "handgun ammunition," and were thwarted by the fact that no such thing exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 AM

4. True but would one have to do major work to change the caliber of a rifle?

If someone had a .223 caliber Bushmaster and couldn't get the ammo for it anymore, would it be very hard (expensive) to modify the gun so that it fire a different round?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:34 AM

6. Yes, wouldn't be worth it.

It would be easier to just build a gun from scratch than to re-tool a .223, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:36 AM

8. With ARs, it can be as simple as pressing two pins.

I don't own an AR so I'm not familiar with the process, but what I've read indicates that the caliber of an AR can be changed in under a minute with almost no tools. The modularity of the gun allows you to drop in a new barrel and receiver with very little effort. That said, bolt-action rifles often have removable barrels, as well. Their receivers are significantly more difficult to alter, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:40 AM

9. So one could change a .223 AR into a .308 AR in no time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:57 AM

11. I believe so, but I'm not sure.

You'd have to ask an AR enthusiast on that one -- all I've got for rifles is a bolt-action .22LR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:00 AM

15. If you have a complete upper assembly in .308

then the switch of the two uppers would be well under one minute.

This assumes that the same lower would serve both rounds since there is a major size difference in the rounds, which PavePusher points out is not the case. See below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:09 AM

16. Not quite.

 

There are two basic AR rifles, the -15 and the -10.

The AR15 originally came in 5.56x45mm Nato/.223 Remington. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO) The ammo OAL (Over-All Length) is limited by the size (length) of the action. The AR15 action is limited to the OAL of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, but can be chambered/barreled in many different calibers (diameter) of bullet/cartridge, as long as the OAL does not exceed that of the 5.56 round, and the maximum diameter does not exceed a size that will fit in an AR15 magazine. (I'm not able to recall what max diameter is at the moment, but, IIRC, there are .50 caliber rounds available. Being limited length, they are, of course, much lower in power than the famous .50 BMG round.) Due to limited case length, and thus propellent quantity limits, there are some 7.62mm/.308 caliber rounds for it, but they are not at all ballistically equivalent to their bigger brother:

The AR10 was designed with a longer action to accept the 7.62x51mm NATO round. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO) It has a rather longer OAL than the 5.56, and was actually the original design. The scale-down to 5.56 was done at US Army demand, and still hotly contested 60 years later.

That said, to change the caliber of either weapon, you need merely remove the upper receiver (chamber/barrel/receiver assembly) by action of two push-pins, and install a properly constructed upper in the caliber of your choice. Some may require changing the bolt and recoil spring assembly as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:21 AM

18. Here's a list for standard AR lowers.

AR-15, without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

Found this on a google search for "AR standard calibers"

Just because it's in the list doesn't mean there's barrels, bolts or magazines for your upper build.

I have a 6.5 lower and want a 6.8 upper (the 300 just doesn't have enough punch for deer IMHO) to hunt with. For now I have to settle for just having 3 223's one of them I just keep a CMMG conversion kit in. My goal once parts become available again is to complete my hunting build and have a 6.8

I was hoping to have something cheaper to plink as well as hunt with but that's not going to happen. Wish I'd pulled the trigger on a 6.8 back in the summer like I intended. I'd be sitting here with a great hunting AR and no worried of finding parts and magazines. Eh such is life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:18 PM

30. Ummm, don't you mean standard AR 'uppers'?

 

Or am I pre-coffee self-confused this morning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:29 PM

31. I think he means...

That the standard AR-15 lower can shoot the first list of round s just by changing the upper. That the cartridge length and head diameter are comparable with the.223 bolt.

Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:28 PM

32. Ah, got it. Yeah, caffeine levels low. Mea Culpa. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

34. No

Magazine well is too small and action is too short. AR-10s are 308, different (larger) lower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:13 AM

12. Not really

2 pins if the cartridges are the same basic length. Quite easy really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:18 AM

51. No.

An AR can shoot .22 with a new bolt, and magazine, so the cost is about 150.

To shoot something like 9mm, or any other caliber, you would need to change the barrel and bolt. The total cost would be 300 or so.

Also, there are tons of bolt action rifles that are chambered in .223, so you can't just ban certain calibers of ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:30 AM

3. If it's not allowable to ban certain guns, then it won't be allowable to institute

an 'end-around' or de facto ban through ammo restrictions, taxes, or anything else. The ammunition is protected to the same degree as the firearm itself...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:35 AM

7. The old AWB did ban certain guns by name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:41 AM

10. Right, so go with that. Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but it sounds like you

were looking for a back-door way to create bans that otherwise wouldn't be tenable - sort of like the old '$5000 per bullet' gag. My point is that the back-door is just as locked as the front-door in this regard.

Personally, I don't think caliber (or muzzle energy, or similar measure) is a useful place for regulation - there are a wide range of calibers that are useful and they're pretty much all lethal when they hit the wrong place. If you want to make it difficult to use a firearm for multi-shot/multi-casualty criminal purposes, it's pretty much just capacity and reloading speed that matters. And the question is how effective limitations in those areas can be, and how far they can go before unlawfully infringing on legitimate uses...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:07 PM

28. Right, and you understand how ineffective that was I hope.

 

California banned rifles that fired .50 BMG. Makers simply made very slight changes to the overall cartridge dimensions (which did not affect performance) and called it something else. Then it was perfectly legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:40 AM

67. I don't support renewing the old AWB because I believe it had too many loopholes...

to be effective. In order to get it passed the first time, many compromises had to be made and these compromises watered it down so much it was pretty much useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:26 PM

58. Only new ones, not existing ones or existing magazines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:41 AM

68. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 AM

5. Not an expert but...

We could ban the types of ammo most commonly used in these rifles, the 7.62 and 5.56 and .223, but there are still many more cartridges the fit both pistols and sporting rifles, like the 9mm or .45.

Much as the gun control crowd would love to just lump everything into the restricted or banned category, it would be difficult to know where to draw the line, IMHO.

As to reloading, I don't know how you can stop that for people who keep their brass and know how to reload and who are willing to be well stocked with powder, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:14 AM

13. All of the cartridges you mention have a significant following outside of AR and AK format

rifles. Its even worse when it comes to pistols and shotguns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:21 AM

14. The problem with attempting to ban the ammo for those weapons...

The problem with attempting to ban the ammo for those weapons is that the most common chamberings for both the AR and the AK are in internationally widespread use in military rifles. The .223 and 7.62.39 are manufactured in multiple countries...in the billions of rounds. Leaving aside any problems that would arise with banning the cartridge our own military uses in two of its most commonly-issued weapons, you'd have an enormous black market problem.

I don't think creating such a market, similar to the one that exists for illegal drugs but with a potential distribution network even more likely to be heavily armed, is likely to result in a net reduction in violent crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:33 AM

20. I highly doubt Adam's mother would have been involved in the international black market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:52 AM

23. If she was that fervent a collector and shooter...

...and had plenty of money, you don't think she'd have looked into "alternative sourcing" for ammunition? Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:57 AM

25. As far as i can tell, she was the type that followed the law.

Connecticut is a state with some of the more stricter gun control laws and I haven't read anything that says she violated any of that states gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:28 AM

27. That's a fair point.

I do think, however, that a law like that might well have caused her to make an exception to that rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:12 AM

17. Added to all the above, all the calibers used in semi-autos....

 

are also used in "traditional" bolt-action rifles.

In other words, there is no difference between semi-auto ammo and bolt-action ammo and pump-action or lever-action ammo.

So ammo bans are kind of a no-go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:32 AM

19. Semi-auto handgun ammo is used in bolt action rifles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:05 AM

21. Pretty rare, but entirely possible.

There are two reasons I can think of for why any cartridge is associated with a particular type of firearm.

1) Rimmed cartridges tend to jam badly when placed in a spring-loaded magazine, and rimless cartridges don't seat properly in revolvers,

and more importantly,

2) Certain guns in certain chambers are more commercially-available than others. What's commercially available can change at the drop of a hat, and many hobbyists enjoy altering their guns to accept unusual cartridges, or even producing their own "wildcat" cartridges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:25 AM

22. How about this for rifle cartridges?

Ban the manufacure or importing of any round greater then .22mm in diameter and less then 6.5mm in diameter. Also specifially ban the manufacture or importing of the 7.62X39mm round. This would also apply to brass and bullets intended for sale to self loaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:53 AM

24. Unconstitutional, but the effect would be significant.

I suspect there would be an enormous black market to supply guns already in circulation, but the availability and cost of ammunition would definitely decrease. Hunters (and other gun owners, wary of further bans) would be outraged over the ban on .223 and .243, but I doubt that a large percentage of them would actually violate the law. Expect an unprecedented run on ammunition and reloading equipment in the weeks before such a ban -- every manufacturer would be scrambling to manufacture as much as possible, even if it meant completely suspending other production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:05 AM

26. To get around the constitutional issue, they could be regulated as destructive devices currently are

Or the govt. could require those who wish to buy such ammo go thru the same procedures one has to go thru in many states to get a CPL license.

A person would have to attend a safety class, go thru a background check, have a passport quality photo taken and be finger printed to get a permit. Internet sales would have to be conducted thru a FFL dealer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:12 PM

29. That doesn't solve the unconstitutional issue.

 

Research the criteria for what is considered a destructive device under a legally established definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:39 PM

33. Congress has the power to amend the definition to whaever it decides it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:14 PM

36. You can think that.

 

Reality says otherwise. Like I said, your legal understanding of this issue is wanting. Arbitrary and poorly framed laws aren't going to do anything...just pure fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:13 PM

35. Please do not take this as an attack. It is not

But, what do you hope to accomplish with such a proposal, and what was the rationale for you diameter criteria? The reason I ask is because I believe you have either made a typo or are woefully uninformed on the subject matter. I am not suggesting that one must be a firearms expert to put forth ideas, only that a lack of information is not a desirable trait for such a person.

As an example based on your previous post, I think what you may have intended to say was "any round greater then .22 inches in diameter and less then 6.5mm in diameter."

using your provided numbers in millimeters would place a restriction on any bullet larger than .008 inches in diameter. This is only slightly larger than the thickness of a typical piece of printer paper. This is an example of why people become frustrated when proponents of stricter laws insist that a technical knowledge is not important in formulating legislation. The idea of trying to regulate firearms by banning any cartridge that fires a a bullet smaller in diameter than roughly .25 inches borders on ludicrous.

I understand that you and many others are frustrated and emotional about this issue, and truly want to find a viable solution. Please do not make the mistake that those of us of different opinion do not share those same emotions and desires to find a solution. Please also consider that while your ideas may be with the best intentions, this is not the same as being effective.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:17 PM

37. You are correct and I've revised my post. Please check below for technical accuracy.

Regulate for sale to civilians rimless, semi-rimmed, and rebated center fire cartridges with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm in diameter and a case length of less then 50.8mm. Cases intended for sale to self loaders would also be covered by this.

I believe the above would affect almost all semi-automatic handguns but not revolvers. A number of common hunting rounds use rimless cartridges but the bullet diameter is 6.5mm or greater and their case length is 50.8mm (2 inches) or longer. The 7.62X39mm used in
semi-auto AK-47s and the SKS carbine has a case length of less then 50.8mm so it would be affected.

By regulate I mean that any civilian who wishes to purchase such would have to first go thru similiar procedures one does in many states in acquiring a CPL.

Here is a link to a site listing the requirements to get a CPL in Michigan:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:05 AM

39. I think you are still missing your mark

You wold indeed impact the 5.56x45 cartridge commonly used in AR pattern rifles, but would leave the 7.62x39 untouched as the bullet diameter is larger the 6.5mm. And it still fails to address other cartridges that are or can easily be incorporated into AR or AK pattern rifles. You are also mistaken in the idea that it would impact any significant number of cartridges commonly used in semi-auto handguns, as most of these use 9mm or larger diameter bullets and would thus be outside the confines of what you have printed above. Even if you could get such legislation passed, which I think is highly unlikely, it would affect almost nothing, would probably get challenged on constitutionality (and, IMHO, get struck down), cost a lot of political capital, and be so full of technical loopholes that it would be easily worked around simply by changing cartridge and bullet dimensions.

This is the primary reason that I think bans of any sort are unlikely to be effective. My opinion is that the solution is found in other directions. Registration is one such direction that I think is worth looking at. There are, however, some real obstacles to creating a registration system. The first and, I think, the most important is distrust of government.

Proponents of registration often claim that "nobody wants to take your guns". Unfortunately, a brief look just on this site will show a very different desire by a significant number of people. Add to that recent actions of elected officials over the past several years, and it all equals very good reasons not to trust our government. So, if nobody wants to take anyone's guns, why not put a poison pill in any legislation that holds severe repercussions for any party violating that trust.

For instance, include wording barring anyone from publishing the contents of the registry or using the registry to confiscate or take possession of any arms from any person or group without first exercising due process for violation of current laws regarding possession or transfer of firearms. Any suspicion of violating this trust would be investigated by five state attorneys general selected by the party leveling the charges. If sufficient evidence is discovered to warrant charges, this same team of AGs would head up the prosecution. If found guilty, minimum sentencing of 20 years in prison, 10 million dollar fine, forfeiture of all government benefits from the office(s) held. Any elected official that truly has no desire to use a registry for future actions against lawful gun owners should have no problem accepting this condition. Any one that would take issue with it, obviously does not deserve the trust of the people.

Thoughts?

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:16 AM

41. You missed what I said about the minimum case length.

This is what i said:

"Regulate for sale to civilians rimless, semi-rimmed, and rebated center fire cartridges with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm in diameter and a case length of less then 50.8mm."

I also do not see a constitutional problem with this as I said "regulate" and not "ban" in the post you just responded to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:31 AM

42. I didn't miss it at all

But I believe you are the victim of a typo. I think what you should have said was:

"Regulate for sale to civilians rimless, semi-rimmed, and rebated center fire cartridges with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm."

As you have written it, a cartridge would have to have both a bullet diameter of less than 6.5mm and a case length of less than 50.8mm. If there is an English/grammar expert among us, please correct me if I am wrong. Regardless, your proposal still ignores the fact that it is easily worked around simply by changing the cartridge that a gun is chambered for. Not to mention that in rifles at least, this would simply lead to them being chambered in cartridges that are potentially far more powerful than either the 5.56 or the 7.62 that are currently popular. I still see it as a lot of effort for zero gain.


JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:48 AM

44. Thanks for the correction. I didn't spot that.

In the original OP, I asked for input from those here who have the knowledge and expertise and I do appreciate getting it.

Your comment:

" Regardless, your proposal still ignores the fact that it is easily worked around simply by changing the cartridge that a gun is chambered for."

I don't believe it would be easy for someone to rechamber their semi-automatic handgun into something that can fire a rimless, semi rimmed or rebated center fire cartridge that has a casing greater then 2" long. Just holding a pistol loaded with rifle size cartridges would be a task and I imagine shooting one would be a very unpleasant experience for the shooter.

There are guns based on the AR and AK platforms chambered to fire cartridges outside of the restrictions I propose. These are rather large sized guns. Great for hunting but less practical for home defense or use by bad guys. For home defense IMO, a lever or pump action carbine chambered to fire a rimmed handgun cartridge would be a better choice then a AR or AK "battle rifle". And I think bad guys would go that route too. From what I read, rimmed cartridges don't work well when loaded into a detachable box magazine as they tend to jam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:40 PM

46. I think it is perhaps I that was not clear this time.

While it would be possible for some guns to be easily reconfigured for other cartridges by their owners, I was speaking more to the reaction of gun and ammo manufacturers. If such a law were to be passed, manufacturers would have redesigned models and re-fit kits for older guns out to the public before the law even went into effect. Pistols that use rimmed cartridges, while not the common design, have been in production for many years. By imply redesigning many common rimless cartridges to incorporate a rim, and then slightly enlarging the breech face, the law becomes useless. I will be just like the '94 AWB. Legislation that does nothing.

All of the above assumes that the law wold be found to be constitutional. I have no confidence what so ever that it would. Our supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, and that any regulation of that right must be narrowly tailored for a specific purpose and that it may not restrict the right to own weapons commonly in use. Any productive solution, IMHO, will be found through other means.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:45 PM

49. The feeding issue seems to be the biggest problem to overcome

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Rimmed cartridges don't stack well in a box magazine and I don't see how one can easily get around that.

Edit: Been doing some reading about semi-automatic handguns that fire rimmed cartridges and and below is an example which is a review of the Coonan .357 semi-auto handgun:

"This gun is needs to be handled firmly to prevent misfeeds. I intentionally loosened my grip on a couple occasions and it immediately caused the slide to jam the very next round into the front of the ejection port....Much depends upon how well it functions after the break-in period with the proper ammunition and some practice clearing malfunctions..."

http://ingunowners.com/forums/ingo_real_world_reviews/148999-review_coonan_357_magnum_automatic.html

At other sites where people talked about the gun, it was often mentioned that it did jam once in awhile. Probably a great gun for shooting or hunting but not one I'd want for home/self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:51 PM

56. I have never had one of the Coonan Arms guns in my hand...

So cannot comment specifically on that gun, but there are some general things to consider that could account for some of the reliability issues. First is the dimensions of the cartridge. The .357 magnum is a relatively small diameter in relation to its length. This sounds trivial at first, but the bullet must feed out of the magazine at an upward angle, then transition back to horizontal to feed into the chamber. This has to happen in a distance only slightly longer that the cartridge itself. This is a difficult task with a straight walled cartridge, as they can easily get "high centered" much like loading a long, low slung car into a trailer. Typical semi auto cartridges are much shorter, so the ratio of length to diameter is much smaller, alleviating much of this. Add to this that the bullets commonly used in revolvers are not shaped with smooth feeding in an auto loader in mind. Bullet profile can play a huge role in feed reliability, just ask any avid shooter that uses cast semi wadcutter bullets in their pistols.

Also consider that the rim on a typical revolver cartridge is quite pronounced, causing the said stacking problem. However, if you were to simply take a typical pistol cartridge and simply enlarge the casehead so that it was a tiny bit larger than the body of the case, you would now have a rimmed case that would likely stack and feed quite well. The .38 Super is a good example of this. It's rim is about .010 of an inch larger than its body, and it works quite well.

Regardless of all that, I think the odds of getting such legislation passed and deemed constitutional are somewhere between not gonna happen and highly unlikely. I applaud your efforts at trying to be both proactive and technically accurate, but I just don't see any benefit to what you are proposing. Too easily complied with, without really changing anything of substance.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:48 AM

69. As semi-automatics have been around for a long time...

I imagine that the feed problem could have been resolved by someone quite awhile ago already. The .38 Super is a semi-rimmed cartridge and it would be regulated by my proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:01 PM

53. Please check your dimensions.

.22mm = about 1/100 inch. 6.5mm = about 1/4 inch

Bullets for 7.62X39 will fit any .30 caliber round, such as 300 Weatherby Magnum, 30-06, .30-30, .308 etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:21 PM

54. My dimensions are correct

To convert mm to inches multiply by .0394.

.22mm x .0394=.00867inches

And as a correction to your comment about bullet diameter, 7.62x39 ammo uses a .312 diameter bullet, not a .308. For whatever reason, the Russians call it a 7.62 but it is actually 7.92mm. Go figure

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

55. Then your sentence doesn't make sense.

You said not greater than .22mm, nor less than 6.5mm. Nobody makes bullets that are less than .01 caliber, but plenty do make then that are bigger than .30 caliber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

57. Hmm...

Either you're not expressing yourself clearly or my reading and comprehension skills are lacking today (completely possible). Regardless of the cause, I'm not sure what statement of mine you are referring to. Could you please cut and paste a quote so that I may try to answer in an informed manner?

Thanks

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:22 PM

59. Here is the sentence that has me confused;

Ban the manufacure or importing of any round greater then .22mm in diameter and less then 6.5mm in diameter.

Such a ban would ban everything from .01 caliber to .25 caliber, but would allow everything larger. That would be a very odd ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:36 PM

60. some countries do that

usually it is specific military rounds. That is why .38 Super is or was popular in Latin America. .45s and 9mms are "military rounds." Italy does the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:58 PM

61. Now I understand the confusion

That is indeed a quote, but it is a quote of a quote so to speak. That is the language from the OP of this thread. If you review what I have written in previous posts, you will see that I simply pointed out technical and grammatical errors that significantly changed what the OP intended to say.

I do not support the idea presented by the OP in any way. Perhaps a review of all my posts in this thread will shed some light on the confusion at hand.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:23 AM

66. Sorry. I made a mistake in who I was responding to. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:55 PM

62. I revised the deminsions in a later post.

Also added a minimum case length to account for such rounds as the 7.62mmX39

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:08 AM

38. Banning guns will increase their street value - Banning ammo will have the same result.


Mexico bans guns and the US bans drugs - what do we have as a result?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:06 AM

40. I doubt the constitutional issues would be different

SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled on whether certain types or classes of firearms could be banned or restricted through licensure. I suspect licensure will be the most viable route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:40 AM

43. Impossible to differentiate.

You'd be removing ammo that impacts 'normal' guns as well. However you define assault weapons.

And no matter, you face precisely the same issue banning the ammo as you do the rifles, as ammo is inclusive of 'arms', in the eyes of the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:53 AM

45. I modified my proposal to regulate and not outright ban such cartridges.

One can still buy such cartridges or casings for the self loader if one goes thru the same procedures one does in many states in acquiring a CPL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:31 PM

47. So you can have it if you can build it yourself?

Strange logic, hope no one applies it to firearms in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:38 PM

48. One can just buy it too.

Nothing will be banned outright. Just more regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:54 AM

50. A rough draft. Will revise later

A. Federal Requirements


Applicants for a Federal Controlled Ammunition License must:

1. Be at least 21 years of age

2. Be a citizen of the United States or an immigrant alien lawfully admitted into the United States

3. Have successfully completed a firearm safety training course

4. Not be subject to any of the following:

An order requiring involuntary hospitalization or alternative treatment
An order finding legal incapacitation
A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity

5. Not be subject to a conditional bond release prohibiting purchase or possession of a firearm

6. Not be subject to a personal protection order

7. Not be prohibited from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm.

8. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (i.e. felony, or any misdemeanor punishable by more than 2 years)

9. Have not been dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces

10. Have not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity

11. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness

12. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment

13. Not be under a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere

14. Not be detrimental to the safety of his or her self or any other person if issued a Controlled Ammunition License

15. Not be a fugitive of justice

16. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) nor reside in a household where resides any person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)

17. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

18. Not have renounced his or her citizenship

19. Not be subject to a court order prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

20. Not be convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence nor reside in a household where resides any person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

21. Not reside in a household where resides any person who has been diagnosed as having a mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether that person is receiving treatment

22. Not reside in a household where resides any person who has been under a court order of legal incapacity

B. Federal controlled ammunition license Application and Instructions

Federal controlled ammunition license application kits are provided during normal business hours by the following:

County sheriffs
Local police agencies
County clerks

Federal controlled ammunition license application kits are free of charge to individuals who wish to apply for a license to posses or purchase controlled ammunition.

Federal controlled ammunition license application kit includes the following:

Written procedure to obtain a Federal controlled ammunition license
Application form
Written procedure to appeal and the appeal process form if denied a Federal controlled ammunition license
Reference numbers for current firearm safety training entities

Processing Application

Applicant files their application with the county clerk in the county in which the individual resides. This must include: (1) a certificate of completion of the firearm safety training course, and (2) a passport quality photograph.
Applicant pays a fee of $105 to the county clerk at time of filing.
Applicant receives a receipt for payment.
Applicant provides receipt and has fingerprints taken by sheriff department or a local law enforcement agency. However, the local agency may charge an additional $15 for the taking of the fingerprints. Some sheriff departments participate with a vendor to provide applicant finger printing. There is no additional charge for this service.
Sheriff department or local police agency forwards fingerprints to the applicant's State Police for processing.
Once county gun board receives the fingerprint comparison report, they will issue or deny the license within 45 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:30 AM

52. Not a chance in hell of that passing.

A law like that would piss off so many hunters that the backlash would be so large. I agree with taking more steps to keep guns out of the hands somebody who couldn't own one, but if they take steps get a gun they shouldn't have, why do you think they couldn't find ammo for their gun.

Also, if an 18 year old is allowed to buy a rifle, why are they not allowed to buy ammo?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

63. Why would an 18 year buy a rifle he couldn't get ammo for till he was 21?

That seems like a darn foolish thing to do. I wouldn't feel sorry for him or her if they did such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:25 PM

64. An 18 year old is allowed to buy rifle ammo.

The OP wants to change the law, to make the legal age 21.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:49 AM

65. An 18 year old could still buy certain rifle ammo with what I propose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread