A Fineman Fisk

Found this post from the NGVAC blog, and had to tear it apart!

There is no good argument for the use of assault-type weaponry from a sport shooter’s perspective. Those who use and enjoy firearms for hunting and target shooting, do not choose assault-style, semi-automatic weapons, due to their inherent inaccuracy.

Assault rifles are designed for shooting a high volume of rounds in a very short amount of time. This is true for both automatic military assault rifles, as well as semi-automatic assault rifles available to the public. High volume rapid shooting is inherently inaccurate based on the mechanics of these types of guns, the design of their cartridges and the physical abilities of shooters. Accuracy levels needed for target shooting and hunting are of no importance in military use. The military requires multiple bullets hitting a target in a short period of time. Where the bullets hit is less important than hitting and incapacitating an adversary. Hunters almost all the time fire only one bullet to down their prey.

WOW, so much in there! First up, let’s put the big point down first. The 2nd Amendment, and the reason we must protect our gun rights is NOT to shoot ducks and deer. Still there isn’t anything in that whole paragraph that is true. True Assault rifles aren’t designed to get the highest fire down range, they’re designed to shoot quickly, accurately, and be able to lay down covering fire for other troops. The semi-auto variants simply get rid of the full-auto or burst capability. The guns are still amazingly accurate, hence why you see so many AR-15s on the Camp Perry line shooting out to 1,000 Meters.

And hunters only fire one shot? Odd that there are very few popular single-shot hunting rifles out there. Just about everything carried in the field has 3-5 round magazines. Even the most skilled hunters miss, or need a second shot, And that’s assuming your hunting game that is solitary:

Also even if the “Where the bullets hit” nonsense was true, incapacitating the enemy is the core tenant in self-defense. If I break my opponent’s pelvis and they are taken out of the fight that’s a good shoot!

In combat stress conditions, achievement of accuracy by the shooter is greatly diminished. Quantity compensates for inaccuracy in stopping and killing the target, a human being. Military M16 rifles have a setting allowing only 3 shots to be shot automatically at a time. This was done by the military with the understanding of human capabilities. Rapid fire of 3 rounds and more, in as many seconds, has no purpose for a hunter or target shooter.

First If I remember correctly, the 3-round burst on M-16s and M4s in service have mostly been removed in recent years, so there go your facts again. But what the hell are you talking about? Are you claiming that full-auto rifles are being used for hunting? That’s how that reads to me.

Rapid fire physically disallows accurate shooting from both the perspective of the shooter and the gun. Only highly trained sharpshooters can shoot accurately one round every 2 seconds, and with no more than 10 rounds. This is done with non-assault style guns, which are designed for accuracy, shooting in a controlled environment. NRA sanctioned, high power rifle competition matches, using long barrels 22 to 24 inches in length, do not require more than 10 rounds be shot in 60 seconds, and only highly practiced shooters attain scores exceeding 90% in doing this on a repeated basis. Average human reflexes and body dynamics cannot exceed this skill level.

Your argument is invalid. According to this idiot, what you just saw was Hollywood trickery!

Design of the gun’s mechanism to accomplish this affects the accuracy of the gun. Guns designed for accuracy insure the placement of the cartridge in the breech of the gun (firing position at the beginning of the barrel) in the same place every time within tight tolerances. Semi-automatic, assault-style guns are incapable of doing this, otherwise reloading and discharging would be greatly impaired.

I wonder what else he’s an “Expert” in….

Assault style rifles also typically have shorter barrel lengths. This was done to make the gun lighter for infantry troops, and for maneuverability in jungle and similar contained conditions. The original military M16 assault rifles were first used in Vietnam. Here again simple physics apply to their accuracy. The longer the barrel the more accurate the gun. Longer barrel length better stabilizes the trajectory of the bullet. Typical hunting and target shooting rifles have barrel lengths of 20 to 24 inches. Again, hunters and target shooters look for accuracy.

Well first, yeah shorter, lighter, and more maneuverable guns are the name of the game for defensive arms as well as military weapons. Still love all the technical details that aren’t necessarily true. Yes, a longer barrel will give you more velocity and bullet stabilization….but longer barrels also are more prone to “barrel whip” which kills accuracy. A shorter barrel can indeed be MORE accurate.

It should also be noted that the 5.56x45mm cartridge cannot be effectively used for deer hunting, especially in a short-barreled, less-than-accurate weapon. The bullet is not as affective (ability to kill the animal humanely) as larger and heavier bullets and cartridges.


The 5.56x45mm is much too powerful when used on small animals, as there is too much destruction.

If you’re varminting, and you’re not collecting pelts, who cares? Killing pest animals to preserve your land, your crops, and your livestock, you don’t care how many pieces the end in.

After all, the 5.56x45mm was designed to kill humans. Here’s why.

It was designed for the bullet to impact a person at high velocity and on contact yaw (wobble) and fragment simultaneously. That is, do as much tissue destruction as possible combined with hydrostatic incapacitation to the nervous system.

The 5.56x45mm cartridge and the corresponding semi-automatic guns used to shoot it, are designed specifically for killing humans, and are inappropriate and ineffective for precision target shooting and humane hunting purposes.

Well good, KILLING PEOPLE IS LEGAL under the proper circumstances. It can be a criminal act…but so can killing deer out of season, so that’s moot as well. Also again, if 5.56 semi-autos are inappropriate for target shooting, why do so many nationally ranked target shooters use them?

There is therefore no need for high volume weapons in sport shooting. Anything more than 10 rounds shot from a semi-automatic gun is not needed. If a hunter cannot down his prey in 3 shots, it’s too late and the animal has gotten away. Hunters also never shoot multiple animals in very short periods of time. For personal protection purposes, if more than 10 rounds are needed to stop one or more assailants, it’s too late for the weapon to be any further affective.

So police shouldn’t use 10+ round magazines either? I mean if they can’t take down an assailant in 10 rounds, those 17 rounds in their Glock are pointless, as are the 30 rounds in their “Patrol Rifle”…let alone the spare magazines they carry!

As a further aside, it is interesting that shot guns used for shooting ducks and geese are federally mandated to hold no more than 3 shells. There has been no movement to repeal that.

This is the biggest head-scratcher for me. I know there are regulations where a magazine needs to be limited for hunting…but in shotguns this is usually limited with a removable plug. You can pull the plug and there is no law you’re breaking. WTF is he talking about?

Still, there is a LOT of talk about hunting and target shooting. Why? If you want to target shoot or hunt, do it with whatever gun you want that is legal for the hunt. Hunting is a game, and games have rules.

Self-defense isn’t a game, and the only rules you need to play with is the standard self-defense rules that apply as much to your fists as your rifle. Beyond that, better to have good guns and good magazines.

Funny that these fools are still beating this drum.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to A Fineman Fisk

  1. Bubblehead Les says:

    Yeah, keep beating that Hunting Drum. But don’t let Facts get in the Way of Propaganda. FWIW, the .223/5.56 Nato round came from the .222 Remington Varmint round. It just got stretched a bit for a little more “Oooomph.” Think .38 Special/.357 Magnum. So the Cartridge STARTED as a Hunting/Sporting Round, and Lord knows how many Varmint Rifles are out there.

    Oh, and as for “Accuracy?” True Story. During the early days of the Iraq War, someone from the MSM claimed that the Marines were “Executing” Terrorists in the Head, because they were looking like Dead Zombies. The Corps had to Investigate, of course. You know what they said? “Due to the Superior Marksmanship Training that the Marines receive, the Terrorists were Not, repeat Not ‘Executed.” They were just on the receiving end of the Marines taking 300-600 yard Shots with their Issued M16s, using IRON SIGHTS.”

    So whoever this Idjit is, he’s a LOUSY PROPAGANDIST!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Not sure how widespread it is, but I know at least one serviceman who before being deployed to Iraq was strongly encouraged to go for head shots, as it puts all the debate of the stopping power of 5.56 to bed.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      When these guys hear the word inaccurate they’re probably thinking the round goes off to the side somewhere at a 30 degree angle. When we talk about inaccurate we mean it’s not as close to the center as we’d like (like off by a few inches), and often at a range of hundreds of yards. Even ‘inaccurate’ guns like the AK-47 are often more accurate and consistant than the person is, unless the ammo is horrible.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Yep, Jay and I were shooting my SKS at 200 yards. When we pulled the paper there wasn’t anything that could be described as a “Group” on the target, but we were hitting that target with every shot. Now that’s “Inaccurate”, given that my FAL shooting fairly fast kept them all in the center. Tho for this guy I suspect I’d need to explain what “200 yards” means.

        • Pyrotek85 says:

          SKSs can do better than that , but like AKs their quality can vary widely. It’s one of the reasons one guy will say they suck and others will say it’s respectably accurate; it depends on who made it. ARs are machined in a much more consistent manner, so there tends to be less variance.

  2. D2k says:

    That’s the most technically detailed attempt at presenting an anti gun argument I’ve ever seen.
    Not surprising to see that most of it was wrong, but an interesting choice of tactic.

  3. Soap Box One says:

    Let me see if I got this straight.

    Semiautomatic AR-15s should be banned because they’re (a) not accurate, (b) their barrels are too short, (c) they accept 30-round magazines, and (d) they won’t humanely kill and animal with one shot.


    Long-barreled, accurate, low-capacity, bolt-action .50BMG rifles, capable of obliterating any living creature on Earth with just one shot, need to be banned because shut up.

    Got it.

  4. Cormac says:

    “Hunters also never shoot multiple animals in very short periods of time.”
    How fortunate for this guy that he doesn’t live in an area where feral hogs are a problem.

    To say nothing of feral humans…

  5. Old NFO says:

    Divide and conquer… again… still!

  6. Eck! says:

    heard that, made some of the same errors and then did my homework.

    Barrel length, twist and the bullet plus the powder must all play together if you doing .25MOA at 600yds. However, I’d never hunt that far away, rule 4 thing, and besides
    I was never in a place where was 600 yds uninterrupted by trees. Often 60 yards
    between trees was an event.

    I also shot ruger 10/22 in the lowly .22LR and at 100yds it was more accurate than I
    and back when that meant holes in holes. I was told back then .22LR was not so accurate either.

    I really have to try an AR sometime. Most of the stories I’d hard from nam were
    more about jams and other issues all corrected, never heard complaints on accuracy.

    Yes, most are as accurate as the shooter, often better.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      The first batch of M16s issued to soldiers in Viet Nam were also issued with a steaming pile of crap that said the rifles only needed minimal cleaning and lubrication.

      Just like the bean-head who said that 5.56 is a more effective military cartridge because it is better at wounding, and every man down will require two men to drag him from the field, somebody said the new materials in the XM16 lent it to never needing cleaning.

      Just like the gun banners, the gun issuers to our police and troops are most often people who know NOTHING about them.

  7. Eck! says:

    Dammit, Got sidetracked by it all… It isn’t about hunting or even black rifles.

    Who the hell is he, or any of the other idiots, to say what I need or don’t need?
    He’s already proven his expertise is in bullshit, lies and bad research.

    Its all a stinking smoke screen in the whole discussion of mandating how someone else should live their life, what they can own, and for that fact where, and its damn intrusive.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *