[internetworkers] Marry A Canadian
glcox at pobox.com
Tue Nov 9 15:10:11 EST 2004
> My understanding of the difference is single-fire vs. burst fire.
Not really. That's semi-automatic vs. burst vs. full auto.
The latter two are banned under the NFA of 1934, though you can jump through
hoops and own them as a citizen, if you get a Class III permit.
Really, Michael, we've got to get you educated before the zombie invasion. :)
> A hunting/self-defense weapon is generally one that can fire one round at a
> time. An "assault" weapon is one that can fire multiple without any user
> interaction other than a single pull of the trigger.
It comes down to range and accuracy. The main battle rifle of the WW1/trench
warfare era had tons of range and accuracy, but was unweildy in close-quarters.
The assault rifle came about to address a need: lots of fire over a wide,
close, area, such as when the trenches are infiltrated.
General terms, from high-end down:
Military sniper rifles used to be main battle rifles. Now, with specialization,
they're extremely accurate, long-range weapons. Police sniper rifles are less
focused on range, as they usually don't need it since they're called in to sit
cover on a situation, rather than look for targets.
A sporting rifle is closer to a main battle rifle: high power, very good range.
An assault rifle won't hit at the same distance as the above, but it was never
designed to. In a military configuration, it'll have burst or full-auto
capabilities; in civilian hands, it'll lack that. Most have a best-effective-
when-used-under range of about 200m, but that's still plenty for most things.
The next size down is an SMG (not a Sarah Michelle Gellar), which was the
precursor to the assault rifle. It's a repeating firearm chambered in a pistol
cartridge. The Tommy Gun, the Uzi, the HK MP5. They're lower powered, shorter
range, but, again, they make up for it with a high rate of fire in military
More information about the InterNetWorkers