/k/ - Weapons

Wouldn't black powder foul the suppressor far quicker than smokeless? I can't imagine that it's easy to clean, especially since the suppressor is welded to the barrel. Either way, seems like a meme rifle. If I were a burger I'd just go through the hassle of getting a suppressor.

It's a meme rifle that's meant to be a middle-finger to both politicians and the ATF.

>>602605

Russian forces use gasoline to wash the nondetachable suppressor of the VSK-94, i suppose this would work for this thing.

>>602605

It comes apart for cleaning, it opens up.

>suppressed muzzleloader

>>602601

Can someone explain how do the NFA definitons work?

Is it purely asspulling or is there a logic to it?

>>602630

Mossberg 590

>shotgun needs to be fired from the shoulder or it's not a shotgun

t. ATF

>>602696

>how do the NFA definitons work?

american federal regulations are all talmudic pilpul

>>602734

The whole distinction between handguns and rifles is meaningless to start with. Handguns are smaller rifles that fire smaller rounds, you can design an intermediate model between them and between any intermediates on a continuous spectrum and at no point there will be some abrupt change that will mark transition from handgun to a long gun. In that regard, it makes no sense differentiating weapons by length, caliber, bore rifling, even type of propulsion. The only thing that ultimately matters is muzzle energy - the weapon's ability to BTFO its target. Hence russian gun laws classifying weapons by muzzle energy first and foremost, with all other features being tertiary. So on one hand it's stupid that you can't legally own a 3000 J railgun you made in your garage, since it's not a firearm, but on the other hand - as the spirit of the law goes - it makes perfect sense.

>>602740

Gotta add though that past the core laws about guns, these secondary features make all the difference. I.e. you can't own a rifle without owning a shotgun for 5 years, and the long arms must have total length not inferior of a certain arbitrary value. Handguns have a special law applied, they must employ any design feature that prevents using hard ammunition, thereby only allowing the use of rubber bullets. The rubber ammo situation is pretty moronic, originally the energy limit was set to 160 J but apparently the authorities misunderstood what "less lethal" means and cucked it down to 90J in hopes of reducing fatality rates, instead of logically ditching the energy limit as well as rubber requirement.

>>602740

Handguns were supposed to be banned under the original draft of NFA 1934, thus the barrel/overall length restrictions. Everything stemming from that is the result of FDR's cockbites not getting what they originally wanted and tipping the table over.

>>602740

>The whole distinction between handguns and rifles is meaningless to start with.

If you want to be anal retentive about it, the difference is that a long gun is meant primarily to be fired from the shoulder, and a handgun is not.

Yes I know about pistols with clip on stocks. That doesn't make it a long gun any more than firing a rifle from the hip makes it a handgun.

>The only thing that ultimately matters is muzzle energy

Except that can vary depending on your load data. Compare a blackpowder .45-70 load to something made by Buffalo Bore. So you either rate the firearm for the hottest cartridge it can take without going 'boom', or you make felons out of people for loading hotter than pissweak factory ammo. Or both.

Also, if you were super autistic, you'd include rate of fire to classify guns by Wattage. Except then you have the problem of eliminating operator skill from the equation for non-automatic firearms.

>>602746

Putting multiple rounds into the target doesn't makes it more deader. Throwing projectiles around quickly is useful in battle scenarios, not in one on one shootoffs or hunting.

Why haven't the gun companies work together to put in the effort to get rid of tax stamps for suppressors?

>>602750

Yeah, but then you'd end up with classification system that rates a large bore black powder muzzle loading elephant gun "higher" (more deadly, dangerous, scary, whwtever) than a 9mm SMG. Which is nonsensical.

>>602753

>sage because doublepost

Also there's the fact that pistol cartridges tend to optimize for momentum over energy, where rifle cartridges tend to optimize for energy over momentum. So your proposed scale doesn't really … scale.

>>602754

Well I think it does. A 5.56 NATO round produces 2000 J of muzzle energy with 3000 fps bullet, approximately. Now imagine a gun that fires 20 pound sledgehammer heads. A sledgehammer cartridge that produces 2000 J of muzzle energy, launches it at 45 mph. You think you'd be better off taking that sledgehammer than taking a rifle bullet?

>>602756

>You think you'd be better off taking that sledgehammer than taking a rifle bullet?

I'd rather take neither, to be honest. But given the choice, it'd probably be easier for the surgeon or coroner to patch up the sledgehammer (one singular, if sizeable hole) than the high velocity bullet (my flesh has been turned into meat jello).

Cue the 'stopping power' flamewar.

>>602758

That's going easily 2-3 times as fast as 45mph. A sledghammer going 45 mph would probably break your bones. Due to the size of it, it'd dissipate its impact over a larger area and therefore be less deadly (unless it hit the head, that'd probably kill you) than a bullet ripping through your organs.

>>602763

I suppose that's anywhere between 70 and 100 mph velocity, true. But also that brick is only about a third of the weight, so it's not even double the energy, plus the windshield bled off a little of it. Also of course you imagine a sledgehammer to be blunt, if it was shaped like a bullet that would make a different perception of impact deadliness.

That brick strike only grazed the passenger's right temple, and that was plenty to crack open her skull. Somehow she didn't die immediately, but she only made it for another 2 hours, ultimately dying in the hospital.

A 10 pound sledgehammer going 45 MPH would cave in your damned chest and fuck every organ and bone you had. How fast do you think a man could swing one? I am an average build and I don't think I would have any problems landing a crushing blow if the person were just lying there.

I like the idea

>>602758

I'm just now realizing you meant a literal not metaphorical sledgehammer.

My response remains unchanged. As long as you didn't get hit in the fragile bits, you'd probably have a better chance of surviving the flying brick.

>>602605

To be honest family, even if I were rich I would waste my money buying stupid bullshit designed to fuck with the batfe cucks instead of asking permission to exercise a constitutional right. I've had to ask permission to use the rights I was born with far too much in my life, much like you have.

>>602734

They have plenty of reason if you remember that the NFA was originally going to ban pistols but they pulled that because everyone carried back then and that would mean they would experience the consequences. They left SBRs and SBSs because they will use any opportunity to restrict anything they can.

No video?

What the fuck OP?

I'm genuinely interested, meme or not.

I mean…the 5.7 meme turned out…..uhhh…well nevermind

>>602689

This is a lie. Just watched some shit. You cant have discarded sabos or wads

It's just to say fuck you to the ATF. Though it probably has a good niche market to hunters who hunt with muzzleloaders, though I'm not sure if all game wardens would allow it.

>>602750

>Putting multiple rounds into the target doesn't makes it more deader.

Except when the first shot doesn't actually kill the target, or misses them entirely. Actual statistics show that a single shot from a .44 is less likely to down the target than two or three rounds of .22LR.

>>602702

That's not a meme. But the gun may be a meme gun.

>>602817

Ability to ultimately stop the target is the only metric that differentiates all guns. All varmint calibers fail to ultimately stop about 40% of the time, all pistol calibers have about 15% failure rate, all rifle rounds have 10% failure rate. There is no performance difference within each group. Another difference is that rifle round is more likely to produce a fatality, which you don't really care about. Otherwise all guns perform identical, only requiring to land 1 or 2 rounds to stop the target, and being able to stop it 30% of the time with the first bullet.

Source: some faggot who collected gunfight 1700 cases and made a gun efficiency breakdown.

>>602792

http://eachnow.com/watch?v=D_WfYFFK8uM

Also, it got on Tucker, becuz of retards, recently. I won't post the link, because all the libs are retarded, you know the drill!