WA Post ban rifles?

[RX-79G]

The M1A is banned by name.

True. Which is why a model offered with no heat shield, lug or threaded barrel would have to be named something else. "M14" is not banned by name, nor is the Fulton Armory version thereof.

 

[User 1234]

True. Which is why a model offered with no heat shield, lug or threaded barrel would have to be named something else. "M14" is not banned by name, nor is the Fulton Armory version thereof.

Right, but the quote I was replying to focused only on eliminating the evil features:

"The M1A is screwed, removeable mag and comes with flash suppressor. BUT: This rifle can be made with a "New York" front sight, which eliminates the suppressor. And aftermarket front sights without a suppressor can be bought and fitted to existing rifles. So there is a very legal work-around for these, as I see it."

 

[Flopsweat]

Wrong thread.

It's the right thread. You can't see the post I'm quoting because you have that person blocked.

 

[Knobgoblin]

It's the right thread. You can't see the post I'm quoting because you have that person blocked.

 

[RX-79G]

It's the right thread. You can't see the post I'm quoting because you have that person blocked.

Or vice versa.

But this is a stuff thread, not a rights thread.

 

[sobo]

Or vice versa.

But this is a stuff thread, not a rights thread.

Hmmm... Stuff... Rights... They appear to be inextricably intertwined in the context of gun restrictions vs. gun rights...

 

[Flopsweat]

Hmmm... Stuff... Rights... They appear to be inextricably intertwined in the context of gun restrictions vs. gun rights...

You have the right to pace in your cage with your soon to be banned musket.

 

[gmerkt]

I meant the model 750, which is a semiauto with a detachable mag but no other "features".

Yes, my mistake. I'm well familiar with the Model 740 and 742. I missed the 750 which was made in the 2006-15. Those will be okay under 1240 but are restricted by 1639.

I may turn out to be wrong about barrel shrouds, but I don't think they mean upper handguards. The latter of which is a normal fitting on all kinds of rifles, not just "assault" rifles. Shrouds like this:

E&L Manufacturing e.Store - Barrel Shrouds

 

[gmerkt]

Of course, the Remington 750 and its progenitors have been around forever, and meet all the requirements. They also aren't expensive and have 10 round mags for some calipers. It will be interesting to see if anyone brings these back. They had decent reputations, as did the pump versions.

I will share my limited experiences with this basic Remington design. I've owned two 742's, one in .30-06, another in .308. I've also owned a couple of 760's and a 76 in .30-06, and two 760's in .35 Rem. I never had any issues with the 742's, but many people have had functional problems which has lead to them being called Jam-O-Matics. My 760 series slide actions in .30-06 could be fussy with handloads; the .35's not so much.

The thing is, these hunting rifles are made to closer operating tolerances than say, an M1 Rifle or an M1A. So they may work perfectly fine with factory loads. But they can be fussy with handloads, even with small base dies being used. At a time of ammo scarcity, they may not be the best choice to replace contraband rifles. They are a hunting rifle, not a blasting rifle. Most of them have seen maybe half a dozen shots taken a year and most hunters don't shoot hand loads. As you say, they can usually be bought at a reasonable price out West, where they aren't popular for hunting. It will be interesting to see if interest in them picks up simply because of changes in the law.

At one time, I was interested in the Model 7615 because of the caliber and AR magazine commonality. The time to buy these low is past, they are in hiding now. But I remember seeing new examples languishing on tables at the WAC Monroe gun show.

 

[ilostmypswrd]

Bud lite will be the " Brawndo" of our future.

`its what plants crave`, lolololol great movie, so f-ing funny. can we go family style on her hahahahahaha

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider here is.....Any firearm can end up on someone's "You can't own this" list.

I say the above because all of my life I have seen one firearm law , ban and requirement after another get passed.
And yet , even after the newest law , ban or requirement....there are always more to follow.

Anyone who thinks that a law , ban or requirement will keep criminals from committing crimes is foolish.
Anyone who thinks that our so-called representatives that are anti-gun will stop proposing and voting on anti-gun legislation is just as foolish.
Andy

 

[Flopsweat]

Something to consider here is.....Any firearm can end up on someone's "You can't own this" list.

I say the above because all of my life I have seen one firearm law , ban and requirement after another get passed.
And yet , even after the newest law , ban or requirement....there are always more to follow.

Anyone who thinks that a law , ban or requirement will keep criminals from committing crimes is foolish.
Anyone who thinks that our so-called representatives that are anti-gun will stop proposing and voting on anti-gun legislation is just as foolish.
Andy

If they worked, they'd lose their favorite excuse for enacting them.

 

[RX-79G]

Yes, my mistake. I'm well familiar with the Model 740 and 742. I missed the 750 which was made in the 2006-15. Those will be okay under 1240 but are restricted by 1639.

I may turn out to be wrong about barrel shrouds, but I don't think they mean upper handguards. The latter of which is a normal fitting on all kinds of rifles, not just "assault" rifles. Shrouds like this:

E&L Manufacturing e.Store - Barrel Shrouds

The point of upper handguards is to protext the hand from the barrel, snd they really are only found on military type designs, like an Enfield. I can't think of a purely traditional design that encloses the barrel like that. Most sporter versions of surplus rifles eliminate them.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The Nylon 66 series of rifles uses a "upper" handguard...so did the Hoban .22 rifle....
In any event...the idea that a upper handguard makes a rifle a so-called assault rifle is stupid beyond words.
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Another thing to consider.....

At one time you could mail order and receive at your own home , without an FFL ...
The actual government issued rifle of the US military ..as in the rifle currently in use by the Infantry.
And one did not see a rise in crime by those who did this.

Granted I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle.
However ...my point here is....
At one time folks could own the current issued military rifle without any undo fuss , or hardship.
And...there wasn't any excess violence committed by those who did so.

What has changed with America that makes the owning of certain firearms seem wrong to some people ?
( No need to answer...as that is beyond the scope of the OP )
Andy

 

[Flopsweat]

Another thing to consider.....

At one time you could mail order and receive at your own home , without an FFL ...
The actual government issued rifle of the US military ..as in the rifle currently in use by the Infantry.
And one did not see a rise in crime by those who did this.

Granted I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle.
However ...my point here is....
At one time folks could own the current issued military rifle without any undo fuss , or hardship.
And...there wasn't any excess violence committed by those who did so.

What has changed with America that makes the owning of certain firearms seem wrong to some people ?
( No need to answer...as that is beyond the scope of the OP )
Andy

Let's not forget the M1 Garand. You could order that through the CMP and have it delivered to your home. Many of us here did. I haven't been keeping track, but they may still have a few left. Also the M1911.

 

[Alexx1401]

Another thing to consider.....

At one time you could mail order and receive at your own home , without an FFL ...
The actual government issued rifle of the US military ..as in the rifle currently in use by the Infantry.
And one did not see a rise in crime by those who did this.

Granted I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle.
However ...my point here is....
At one time folks could own the current issued military rifle without any undo fuss , or hardship.
And...there wasn't any excess violence committed by those who did so.

What has changed with America that makes the owning of certain firearms seem wrong to some people ?
( No need to answer...as that is beyond the scope of the OP )
Andy

Many decades back I had an interaction with multiple LEO's at a place I managed. Had no idea one tenet was having a domestic with his partner. Police swoop in, I am carrying a pistol. One asks if they can take it while they find out who's who. Soon all is fine. The one LEO did not like that the pistol said UNITED STATES PROPERTY and called it in, then asked me where I got it. When I asked him how long he had been a Cop he seemed taken aback. I said you do know that until 68 you could order these by mail correct? He just handed me my pistol back and asked me not to load it until they left

 

[RX-79G]

Another thing to consider.....

At one time you could mail order and receive at your own home , without an FFL ...
The actual government issued rifle of the US military ..as in the rifle currently in use by the Infantry.
And one did not see a rise in crime by those who did this.

Granted I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle.
However ...my point here is....
At one time folks could own the current issued military rifle without any undo fuss , or hardship.
And...there wasn't any excess violence committed by those who did so.

What has changed with America that makes the owning of certain firearms seem wrong to some people ?
( No need to answer...as that is beyond the scope of the OP )
Andy

Do you mean what is wrong with the perception of military firearms that has changed, or what has changed in what a small number of people like to do with their military style firearms - like kill classrooms full of kids?


Both things have changed. People used to have a pretty casual relationship to guns, but also weren't all that invested in that relationship. Municipal "no guns in city limits" laws were common in the 19th century. "Gun rights" wasn't really much of thing until the late '70s.

And then violence has changed. Mass murders used to be things that groups of Americans did, now it is something individuals do. Mass murder used to have concrete 'sides' for the winners and losers, now the participants are arbitrary and not subject to the prejudice that excused the old mass murders.

 

[Alexx1401]

Do you mean what is wrong with the perception of military firearms that has changed, or what has changed in what a small number of people like to do with their military style firearms - like kill classrooms full of kids?


Both things have changed. People used to have a pretty casual relationship to guns, but also weren't all that invested in that relationship. Municipal "no guns in city limits" laws were common in the 19th century. "Gun rights" wasn't really much of thing until the late '70s.

And then violence has changed. Mass murders used to be things that groups of Americans did, now it is something individuals do. Mass murder used to have concrete 'sides' for the winners and losers, now the participants are arbitrary and not subject to the prejudice that excused the old mass murders.

Mass murders were happening in the US huh? I must have missed that. Damn fake news that hid it from me.
When I was in high school it was common for those of us with access to a car to also have a gun at school. New toy to show off, going hunting or shooting after school and such. For some amazing reason there were no mass murders going on. Or fake news was hiding them. Also amazing no one who had a gun at school shot anyone. I guess that must have been that fake news hiding that too. They were happening and they hid it from us right?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Do you mean what is wrong with the perception of military firearms that has changed, or what has changed in what a small number of people like to do with their military style firearms - like kill classrooms full of kids?


Both things have changed. People used to have a pretty casual relationship to guns, but also weren't all that invested in that relationship. Municipal "no guns in city limits" laws were common in the 19th century. "Gun rights" wasn't really much of thing until the late '70s.

And then violence has changed. Mass murders used to be things that groups of Americans did, now it is something individuals do. Mass murder used to have concrete 'sides' for the winners and losers, now the participants are arbitrary and not subject to the prejudice that excused the old mass murders.

Nope...I do not mean that at all.

Violence is violence...it hasn't changed.

What I was getting at in my post was...

At one time you could own the actual rifle that was currently issued to our military..
And folks didn't go around murdering others with it.

Please note that I am not saying that crime did not happen or that certain firearms were never used in the committing of crimes.

I am saying that people at one time could own the actual , current issued military rifle ...and a rise in crime with it , was not seen.
So my question is , what was different then than now...?
However that is a question , as I noted in my other post as a bit beyond the scope of your OP.....
Andy