Sniper rifle v assault (weapon) rifle [View all]
Both of these rifle types have been the subject of ban campaigns by the pro-regulation tribes. I have a few questions for anyone that cares to offer an opinion.
Anything that can accurately be called a "sniper rifle" AFAIK is designed to hit targets (at a minimum) more than a third of a mile away. This is beyond the range of typical combat rifles like an M1 Garand or an M16. I've read things like .50 cals can be used to shoot down aircraft. I've never heard of any instance of this and doubt that the combination of skill and weapon capability actually exists. I live in a Philly suburb. The direction where a possible target could be placed further about 200 yards from my house is up. I don't understand why this rifle would be a cause for concern. At a cost of $6,000 - $12,000 each I don't see someone not securing them nor could a child lift or aim one.
An actual "assault rifle" fires full-auto at least 500 rounds per minute. This means the rifle would expend all the ammo in a 30 round mag in about 3 seconds or less. The principle use of rapid fire is suppression. It gains you the ability to keep enemy heads down. These rifles use smaller ammo like .223/5.56.
Is there a range of calibers that pro-regulation folks do not campaign against? I've the infamous "assault weapon" definitions be "adjusted" so often it's a joke. I invite anyone to explain to me why I should believe anything other than many pro-regulation folks want almost all guns banned or heavily regulated.
= new reply since forum marked as read