A Final Reason To Repeal the NFA

So we all know the National Firearms Act, its a load of crap. First up its about 90% Numbers Game, Feds picked a number out of the sky and applied it to law. They had to edit it a bit on, say, barrel length, because they had just sold a bunch of re-arsenaled M1 Carbines who’s barrels had be recrowned to shorter than 18″, so suddenly the law went saying that if you had a 17″ barrel on your rifle you were a federal felon and needed to go to prison if you didn’t pay a $200 tax stamp (on a gun you maybe spent $20 on) to suddenly 17″ is actually an overly cautious length to shorten a barrel to.

Barrel diameter they just picked a nice round number. 0.50″ Anything smaller is perfectly ok, anything bigger is a Destructive Device. Well except for guns the feds think are “Sporting Cartridges”, like say .600 Nitro Express. Because you know that the Shot heard ’round the world was actually aimed at a sizable deer, and accidentally hit a British Soldier in full dress uniform. “Sporting Purposes” is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Don’t believe me, ask any “Progressive” lawyer!

Now Sound Suppressors are interesting things. They do actually accomplish something. But they accomplish the same something that the muffler on your car does, and those are mandated for public roads because loud cars make people unhappy. Loud guns can make people deaf, especially if you fire them off in an enclosed space, like inside your car, or inside your home. You know, situations where people are often attacked. Suppressors just make good sense and good manners, and the NFA not only makes them a pain in the ass to buy, but it makes them prohibitedly expensive. You can buy suppressors in Europe for what amounts to less than $100 US Dollars. I’ve seen listings under $50. Now these might not be as nice as the $600-$1000 units we have around here, but with the $200 Tax stamp and the massive waiting period people don’t look at cheap suppressors the same way they look at cheap magazines. If a magazine wears out, just throw it away and buy another. If a suppressor wears out you’re out a lot of money, and its going to take you a long time to get another. That just needs to end.

The last one that isn’t bullshit is full-auto guns. There is a VERY distinct difference between full-auto guns that are restricted under the NFA and their semi-auto cousins that a kosher for civilian sales without tax stamps and national registries. But have a look here:

Not that’s a 5.56x45mm M4 Carbine. The 5.56 Round came into favor because the 7.62x51mm M14 was difficult to control on full-auto. Many of the 7.62x51mm FALs had their full-auto sears removed before issuing to troops. The solution was to take a proven cartridge and replace it with a much weaker one that was easier to control on full-auto.

I frankly don’t see why full-auto fire was so necessary. Why not just teach the troops to quickly aim and fire in semi-auto, and give them a full-power cartridge so more of those hits count for keeps?

I dunno about my full-auto friends, but even if I could buy full-auto guns, I wouldn’t be very interested in them. Maybe I’d buy a Full-auto FAL just because, but frankly I don’t think it would spend much time on full-auto, as I just think semi-auto precisely aimed shot. Hell Even VPC agrees that full-auto isn’t all that big a deal.

most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.

When you’re using lethal force to defend your life, that’s the whole damn point!

So yeah, I don’t see anything on the NFA that’s a problem. I’m not 100% familiar with the paperwork and tax stamps, but I’d imagine the explosives can simply be handled by the ATF the same way they handle industrial explosives which appears to be working about as well as anybody can expect.

The rest of the stuff. Set it FREE! Even if the worst happens and some of them fall into criminal hands, I don’t see how its any worse than anything else.

Repeal the NFA!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to A Final Reason To Repeal the NFA

  1. Tam says:

    Rifles are 16″, shotguns are 18″.

    I believe the carbine snafu was related to OAL requirements, not bbl length requirements, but I could be wrong.

    Anyway, the OAL and BBL length requirements are inane and nonsensical, because they make no sense without handguns being NFA weapons as well (like they were originally supposed to be.)

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yep +1 on handgun NFA which does make regulating OAL and BBL minimum length, which was the original intent.

      Never read a concrete story on the Rifles being 16″, but the clearest story was the 18″ BBL M1 Carbines being sold by CMP after they had had worn barrels re-crowned before sale so the OAL was 17.XX.

      Maybe with your wealth of firearms history you could dig something up? Most of my knowledge comes from blog comments and forum threads which of course make wikipedia look like the word of God. 🙂

  2. Sailorcurt says:

    Full auto is very useful in war where you’re not worried so much about stray rounds and collateral damage and you’re working with a squad, platoon, or company.

    The idea isn’t necessarily to actually hit anything when shooting full auto, the idea is to keep the enemies’ heads down by raining a curtain of lead in their general direction while other elements of your unit flank them to defeat their cover and concealment.

    In your typical self-defense situation, where throwing rounds all over the city/countryside would be a bad idea and you have no supporting elements to cover while maneuvering, full auto is…um…less useful.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I can see that, still full auto on the M4 and even on full-size M16s is down right lousy and better suited for short bursts. Certainly there have been stories of guns eating themselves in extended firefights over in Afghanistan.

      Not being a soldier and never having to pull a gun in anger or fear, this is only my pure amature speculation, but wouldn’t the desire for full-auto fire be best served for SAWs and other crew-served weapons. Otherwise you’re just “keeping their heads down” for a very short period of time before you run out of Magazines, or in the case of a fire-base siege your gun blows up.

      Maybe I’m just a chairborne ranger, but I think having your buddy’s head blow up from a 7.62x51mm from a semi-auto, well-aimed shot from say an FN SCAR-17, or its grand-pappy the FAL, or even the oft forgotten M14, or an AR-10 etc, has a damn good effect of keeping one’s head down.

    • McThag says:

      What my drill sargeant told me when I asked, “If we’re never supposed to put it on ‘auto’ why is it there?” He replied, “You so rarely need it you can almost do without it; but if you need it, it’s all that will do.”

      Of course, we only had the one M16 per tank. Except for the main gun, everything else was full-auto only.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        But those other guns were machine guns, not Assault Rifles.

        I still would prefer a Semi-auto in a major caliber for an infantry rifle, and leave the rock-n-roll for the dude with the SAW or the guys with the mounted LMG or HMG.

        Machine guns do full-auto, and they do it VERY well. I can’t argue with that. Just the more I shoot Assault Rifles, and read about their performance in the field, I see them as a half-baked idea that has been pushed beyond its bounds.

        • Sid says:

          Thank you for honestly asking the questions and being open to responses.

          I participated in the Invasion of Panama as a light infantryman, was recalled to active duty for Desert Storm, mobilized as an MP to support the Bosnia mission, and have been back one year from my last deployment training Iraqi police.

          In a manuever situation, assault rifles are the queen of the board. The king always has the most fire power, but the most utility is the queen. An assault rifle can be used for pinpoint accuracy or suppression. Burst is useless and not an alternative to full-auto fire. It is beeter to have it and not need it than need it to and not have it.

          But that is not the actual whole story. Full-auto fire did not kill the M-14 or FN FAL. Manuever did. In manuever, you need to use volume of fire. Also, you need a smaller (shorter) rifle that allows you to climb under bush and over walls. Big bullets weight more so you can carry smaller bullets. Most rifleman cannot take advantage of the accuracy of the 7.62mm round without optics. You have to be close enough to see the enemy to shoot and most engagements are much closer than the 7.62mm had an advantage in ballistics.

          Summary – 7.62mm guns have signficant recoil. They weigh more and the bullets weigh more. The accuracy gained with the caliber is not used by most riflemen.

          In a designated marksmen or sniper role, 7.62mm has a place. But what is need in manuever is a lighter rifle with more ammo, less recoil, and the ability to fire on full-auto when needed.

          • Weerd Beard says:

            Very interesting observations, I appreciate your insight, as well as your service.

            Also I totally agree that burst-fire is useless, it adds very little to Semi-auto fire, but uses up ammo 3-4X as fast, and can be accomplished by simple trigger control by the user, without the benefit to hold down the trigger longer as needed.

            I guess I’ll always retreat to where I usually do. I’m not in the army, and I’m not at war. If I ever need to use my go-to rifle I’ll be on my own, and every shot is going to count, so make mine a 7.62x51mm, and semi-auto only.

  3. alcade says:

    My father in law still talks about using dynamite to clear ditches and trees on the farm. Ah… the good ol’ days.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      My Great Uncle used to clear rocks from Potato fields with dynamite that he simply would buy at the hardware store and carry home. In one of his story he was just a teenager. Different times, and in these cases, better times IMHO.

  4. McThag says:

    And no matter what he says, that pencil barreled full-auto carbine is not an M4. Or M4A1.

    Wrong upper, wrong lower, wrong handguards, wrong stock, wrong barrel, wrong flash-hider.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      Love it when you geek out on AR-15 variants!

      Yeah I noticed the barrel, nothing else because I really don’t go nuts about the ARs.

      you know, I’ve never field stripped one! That’s something I should remedy!

      • alcade says:

        I’ll let you know the next time mine gets really dirty and needs a good cleaning!

        • Weerd Beard says:

          Oddly enough I’d totally take you up on that! Like Jay, I really enjoy cleaning. Of course one just needs to look at my cleaning bench (with the attached TV and DVD player…and the computer I blog and do VC from at the other end of the Armory) I can make quite the day of cleaning and reloading.

          So yeah, bring it over when its good and filthy! I’ll put the M-Pro7 Bore gel to it, and then work it over until it gleams like a sugared asshole! 😉

  5. Bubblehead Les says:

    When I was in the Navy, on my first command, all our M-14’s were locked into Semi-Auto, except one. Officially, it was in the Armory in case a Mob tried to storm the Ship while we were tied up at the Pier. However, we used to break it out on the Fourth of July and fire Tracers through it at the Night Time Fireworks Display (amazing what one can buy overseas). Trust me, we had a hard time hitting the Atlantic Ocean when we went Full Auto with it!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Bet they got there eventually! 😉

      Did you have mostly M14s or did you have a lot of 16s at the time? And what time was this, if you don’t mind me asking.

      I’m always interested at the progression of arms available to soldiers. I knew a guy who did all his shooting on Garands when he was in the Navy and IIRC this was post Viet Nam.

  6. Braden Lynch says:

    I’m a newbie, but I think we should have the main battle rifle(s) of the armed forces. We should all train to be a part of the defense of this country and this includes against domestic terrorism. The police, armed forces, and citizens should all be familiar with our small arms weapons with no restrictions (i.e. full auto, suppressors, no length or magazine capacity limits). Note: I’m not talking about access to grenade launchers and flamethrowers here, and we should save some of the goodies for our wonderful armed forces.

    Basically, does the government trust its citizens or not? It should, and it needs to do so, or it will treat us like serfs. Well, regrettably, the later attitude is prevalent.

    I’m thinking of the Switzerland example here. Armed to the teeth with a very polite and civilized society that nobody messes with. Street crime and the rare terrorism or spree shootings would be virtually eliminated.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I 100% agree. Of course Flame throwers are not considered firearms by ATF standards, and unless I’m mistaken on the law, you can buy and build them to your heart’s content. Napalm is also fairly easy to make as well.

      Certainly I would say that the police exemptions from civilian firearms laws is patent bullshit. While troops may be expected to do things that are uncommon or unreasonable for an untrained civilian, police have arms for the EXACT same reasons we do. Defense of life.

      I’d be willing to argue exemptions for the military…but my whole point above is full-auto is overall kinda silly, and any restrictions on it should be lifted, as well as the NFA wholesale.

  7. Wally says:

    The numbers game is complete BS. Even the various firearm classifications are not consistent in their legal definitions, and even more inconsistent in ATF’s policy and enforcement.

    But if full auto were commercially available, they sure would sell. With manufacturing costs about $5-10 higher than their semi variants…. There is a big difference between needing it and having it just in case.

    brass rainbows 4-eva

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I wouldn’t mind having a gun with an extra safety position, or a separate fire selector, so long as it was VERY easy and positive to quickly take the gun from safe to Semi…that is if its a go-to rifle. If its a range toy, who cares? 😉

      I really like how the FAL safety work, and I certainly wouldn’t mind having one with the auto-sear in-tact, tho I suspect a lightweight FAL on rock-and-roll would be quite the handfull, as well as a wallet destroyer, so I doubt I’d be doing it much.

  8. Braden Lynch says:

    I just got the “brass rainbows 4-eva” image and still laughing at that.

    I would probably never, ever, ever, need full-auto, but it would be fun to have on a range (if they would ever allow it).

    Oh, on the flamethrower issue, you are quite right, Weerd Beard. I was just trying to make sure that people realized I was not crazy and advocating for civilians like me to have tactical nukes and such. Just parity with our soldiers and police with small arms with the bonus of cross training our citizens, just in case.

    Currently, I’m in a rage over the “Sporting Purpose” clause which is BS. Just a means to prohibit scary looking firearms. My shotgun has a bayonet mount so clearly I am a crazed killer or a terrorist who will go on a shooting and stabbing spree. Well, that is the level of stupidity these restrictions impose.

Leave a Reply

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