3 ms·

I never understood why people get so hung up on cyclic rate when it comes to firearms. There will never be a cyclic rate limitation imposed on firearms by fede

by 15155 12y ago

I never understood why people get so hung up on cyclic rate when it comes to firearms. There will never be a cyclic rate limitation imposed on firearms by federal legislature. It's a meaningless, fear-mongering number that doesn't actually measure lethality. Semi-automatic handguns are here to stay. Period, end of story. For the scenarios most people are concerned about, semi-automatic handguns are of the same relative lethality as an AR-15 (in rifle configuration). Perhaps even more so, as they're easily concealed. If we want to get hung up on cyclic rate: the (unobtainable) Glock 18 (fully-automatic handgun) has a cyclic rate of 1300 rounds per minute. Ooh!!! Scary! The Glock 17 (semi-automatic variant, a mainstay in many police departments), which is mechanically almost the exact same is completely capable of the same ROF (if you could actually move your fingers that fast). It's legal, here to stay. Find a different stat to try and scare uninformed people with.

nkurz 12y ago
Your account is new to this site, and you seem to have a useful perspective and information that most people here do not. But your tone is unwelcome, and suggesting that my goal is to "scare uniformed people" is offensive. Stick around, but please be more considerate. The numbers are just numbers, but it's better that people start with accurate numbers rather than false ones. The "45 per minute" figure comes from a misleading Time Magazine graphic, and should be corrected regardless of the direction of the correction: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/01/21/time-magazine-attempts-to-scare-with-ar-15-fact/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/01/21/time-magazine-at... Rate of fire and lethality have limited correlation, but perhaps more interesting for this discussion, legality and lethality have even less. I posted the article on the Slide Fire stock because I was not aware of it, because it's legal, and because it actually does turn an AR-15 into what is functionally a fully automatic rifle. But add a simple spring into it and suddenly it's illegal: http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf The lethality is the same (and yes, arguably no different than an unmodified AR-15, although you should watch the videos if you haven't) but the functionally fully-automatic version with the spring is illegal, and the one without is currently legal (except for California). I find this an interesting point of discussion.

by 15155 12y ago

nkurz 12y ago

Your account is new to this site, and you seem to have a useful perspective and information that most people here do not. But your tone is unwelcome, and suggesting that my goal is to "scare uniformed people" is offensive. Stick around, but please be more considerate. The numbers are just numbers, but it's better that people start with accurate numbers rather than false ones. The "45 per minute" figure comes from a misleading Time Magazine graphic, and should be corrected regardless of the direction of the correction: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/01/21/time-magazine-attempts-to-scare-with-ar-15-fact/ http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/01/21/time-magazine-at... Rate of fire and lethality have limited correlation, but perhaps more interesting for this discussion, legality and lethality have even less. I posted the article on the Slide Fire stock because I was not aware of it, because it's legal, and because it actually does turn an AR-15 into what is functionally a fully automatic rifle. But add a simple spring into it and suddenly it's illegal: http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf The lethality is the same (and yes, arguably no different than an unmodified AR-15, although you should watch the videos if you haven't) but the functionally fully-automatic version with the spring is illegal, and the one without is currently legal (except for California). I find this an interesting point of discussion.