All of the records for fastest rate of fire of conventional firearms (as distinguished from high-tech "caseless" autofire weapons) are set with revolvers.
Yes. But that was by extremely proficient and well trained individuals.
Another strawman. Whudda thunk. I never stated anything about a semi-auto have faster rate of fire than a revolver. How about you keep the random shit out of the conversation.
"Semi-auto" doesn't refer to the number of rounds held in the firearm; it refers to the action of the firearm, and whether the weapon uses the recoil energy of the shot to cycle the action and load the next round. It's not a reference to how fast the weapon can be fired or how many rounds it can hold. You seemingly know nothing about guns.
No shit. But semi autos are fed by a clip. A clip can hold more rounds than a revolver. Logical extension of the term semi-auto. Show me a non-semi auto that can hold more rounds than a semi auto and you might have a point.
That's exactly wrong. The Bushmaster .223 is, of course, a variant of the AR-15 modular receiver concept; that design grew out of the AR-10, which was originally designed as a lightweight "survival rifle" - a modular weapon in a lightweight caliber that could be disassembled and stored as part of a survival kit. In other words it was a hunting weapon. The AR-15 variant adapted the technology to meet the requirements of the Army program to replace the M1 Garand, itself originally a hunting rifle chambered for .30-06.
Lets start at end and work our way back.
the M1 Garand, itself originally a hunting rifle chambered for .30-06.
No. Developed at United States Springfield Armory for
military use.AR-10, which was originally designed as a lightweight "survival rifle" - a modular weapon in a lightweight caliber that could be disassembled and stored as part of a survival kit.
This is incorrect and a regular myth presented by a lot of people. When Eugen Stoner first met the Armalite people they were testing a lightweight caliber survival rifle. That was not eh AR-10 that Stoner designed, it was a different weapon completely that never got very far. 7.62x51mm NATO is roughly the .308 Winchester. This would be a medium weight caliber. This is not a lightweight caliber. Compare the AR-10 to other survival rifles. Completely different animals. the AR-10 was developed to compete to replace the M1 Garand, not as a survival rifle.
In other words it was a hunting weapon.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
No AR-10's were sold as hunting rifles. This was a military rifle from beginning to end. You could do some basic research to know this.
quote:
The AR-10 was intended for the US Army trials for a newbattle rifle, to replace the venerable M1 Garand.AR-10, with the first prototype built in 1955, came too late for these trials,and was too unconventional for conservative minds in the US Army, and consequently lost the trials to the T44 rifle, which was adopted in the 1957 as the M14. The AR-10 was ready for mass production by the 1960, but very few were made in USA. A manufacturing license had been sold to the Dutch company Artillerie Inrichtingen. Only Sudan and the Portugal apparently bought some AR-10 rifles for their military, and the production of the AR-10 had been ceased in the early or mid-1960s, with only about 10 000 military AR-10 being ever made.
SourceAny civilian Ar-10's came from the military surplus market.
You seemingly know nothing about guns.
Is that irony?
The Bushmaster .223 is accurate to within 2" at 300 yards, using the right ammo, accessories, and barrel.
That would be a non-standard match quality Bushmaster. Not one rigged as a "hunting" rifle. I have gotten 5" groups at 200 yards with a match quality .556 rifle. I can shoot 3" groups with an off the shelf Ruger M77 Hawkeye in 7mm-08 at the same distance. Off the shelf Assault style rifle and it is typical to get about 8" group at 200 yards.
Semiauto rifles are more accurate than bolt-action ones because the recoil energy is absorbed and used. And it's worth pointing out that almost all of the accessories that increase accuracy - optical scopes, energy-absorbing stocks, balancing counterweights - are precisely the accessories that make these weapons look "military." One is left with the impression that gun foes think that weapons would be safer if they were made more inaccurate.
Strawman again. Though I discount your contention that a semi auto is "more" accurate than a bolt or single shot rifle. Have you shot a Thompson single shot rifle? It isn't whether the rifle is semi auto or bolt. It is what it is designed for. Hunting is different than throwing lead.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
™ Version 4.2
(1)