The NRA is 0n Fire!

Article in today’s (May 1) Huff Post US. Seems the National Rifle association is suffering from falling membership and falling income. Do I care? Not even a little bit. Should the NRA disappear overnight, imo it would make little if any difference to the US’ loopy gun culture.

Perhaps over time ,as the more extreme gun owners die off and after some sensible gun control laws are passed. However, I doubt there will be significant change to US gun laws anytime soon.

The reason I don’t care is that the US gun problem is a US problem, which does not effect my country.

Australia had a mass shooting in April 1996, at Pt Arthur Tasmania. A mentally limited young man killed 35 people and wounded 23.

As a direct result of the shooting, our government passed strong gun control laws, and had a massive buy-back and amnesty for any guns people wanted to surrender Since that time it has been very difficult to legally own a hand gun in Australia, let alone rifles of any kind. A whole range of bladed and martial arts weapons and bows are also banned.

Since 1996, there have been NO mass shootings in Australia. Firearms are now rarely used in armed robberies. These days, weapons include ;screw drivers, knives, hammers, the odd samurai sword, and on a couple of occasions, a syringe allegedly containing HIV. One reason is the cost of firearms on the black market. EG the rifle used in the recent New Zealand shootings costs around $30K on the Australian black market.

I like guns . Handled several kinds of rifles and machine guns in the army. Rated marksman with 7.62 SLR. The Australian army has very strict gun safety rules, EG off the range ,the breeches from weapons are kept in a locked box in the armory. BUT, civilians with firearms scar the bejasus out of me. That’s because, as a group, they are so fracking STOOPID!

I have seen Americans around guns at times, and more than once, I have had to strongly confront one for lackadaisically holding a gun in a manner that it was pointed at a person.

NO! You can’t do that, even if you are convinced that it is not loaded! It is a tool for killing. You don’t take chances with such a tool. So fracking stoopid would apply, I think. I don’t know where the NRA has been re: teaching gun safety, if that ever really was their mission.

AFAIK their real mission has been to have as many guns sold in the USA as possible, period. Recently, their mission included getting Trump elected, as they donated 31 million to his campaign. (where those millions came from is not yet determined)

I like guns . Handled several kinds of rifles and machine guns in the army. Rated marksman with 7.62 SLR. The Australian army has very strict gun safety rules, EG off the range ,the breeches from weapons are kept in a locked box in the armory.
That was a nice rifle, better in most ways than our old M-16.

Pretty much the same rules in the US military except I don’t think rifles are disassembled while in the armory.

That was a nice rifle, better in most ways than our old M-16.

 

Yeah, I also really liked the Bren Gun. However, I carried an armalite because it was lighter. This was on exercise you understand. If in harms way I would have kept the SLR.

Had to have a think; this WAS 50 years ago! In basic and corps training, you kept your rifle in your locker. Under those circumstances the breech was removed and kept in the armory. In a posted unit, weapons were kept in the armory. In an active combat unit, you kept your weapon with you at all times.

I need to make it clear thatI did not serve in war zone so am not a veteran. I have too much respect for veterans to let anyone think I was one when that is untrue.

Yeah, I also really liked the Bren Gun. However, I carried an armalite because it was lighter. This was on exercise you understand. If in harms way I would have kept the SLR.
Bren Gun! I'm in awe hearing from somebody who fired that. And I didn't know Australia used the M-16 back in the day.
Had to have a think; this WAS 50 years ago! In basic and corps training, you kept your rifle in your locker. Under those circumstances the breech was removed and kept in the armory. In a posted unit, weapons were kept in the armory. In an active combat unit, you kept your weapon with you at all times.
Makes sense.

M16? Not as far as I know. We had the 7.62 Self Loading Rifle. Before the SLR we used the .303 Rifle.

 

Only got to fire a Bren once, when posted in Singapore. Rumour has it that the Bren was replaced because it is magazine fed and because it is too accurate. IE it hits exactly what you aim at. In contrast, the M60 machine gun is belt fed and hits what you aim at plus everything in the immediate vicinity.That made it an excellent weapon for assault or defence.

M16? Not as far as I know. We had the 7.62 Self Loading Rifle. Before the SLR we used the .303 Rifle.
Maybe I'm wrong. Armalite developed the M-16 and a few variants like the AR-15; I got the impression the Australian army adopted some of those.
Only got to fire a Bren once, when posted in Singapore. Rumour has it that the Bren was replaced because it is magazine fed and because it is too accurate. IE it hits exactly what you aim at. In contrast, the M60 machine gun is belt fed and hits what you aim at plus everything in the immediate vicinity. That made it an excellent weapon for assault or defence.
Interesting. If true Vietnam probably had something to do with that.

“Maybe I’m wrong. Armalite developed the M-16 and a few variants like the AR-15; I got the impression the Australian army adopted some of those.”

 

I guess they may have, but not while I was in, to the best of my knowledge. (1968-70) Then again, I might simply not have heard about them. Not exactly a ‘need to know’ in Malaysia at that time.

“Interesting. If true Vietnam probably had something to do with that.”

What do you mean “if true”? I have simply repeated what I taught; that the M60 fired a 'cone ’ of rounds. Never really saw the grea advantage. The M60 is air cooled, that means short bursts of no more than 4 rounds. Even at that rate, it can still overheat, causing the breech with a live round, to explode. That was called ‘a cook off’ and was dreaded.

Yeah I think Vietnam was indirectly responsible; the M60 (7.62 round) is an American weapon. There is a British version, slightly different, called the M58

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CLMbXOBnWE

holy shit, what’s that barrel made out of? Isn’t muzzle bullet clearance like vanishingly minimal. No distortion, no misfire. But then way out of my league, I’ve never been around that shit, some nice hunting rifles sure, but never tried thaaatt!

 

My mama told me, that ain’t the way to have fun, son.

Yessir, that is one hot barrelled human killin’ machine. Just imagine how many of them human varmints you could dispose of to get the barrel that hot.

(a bit of sarcasm there, tho I do recognize there can be a time and a place for killing human varmints, but imo, that sort of thing is almost exclusively best left to really well ordered militia’s like the military, rather than to individual citizens).

What do you mean “if true”? I have simply repeated what I taught; that the M60 fired a ‘cone ‘ of rounds. Never really saw the grea advantage. The M60 is air cooled, that means short bursts of no more than 4 rounds. Even at that rate, it can still overheat, causing the breech with a live round, to explode. That was called ‘a cook off’ and was dreaded.

Yeah I think Vietnam was indirectly responsible; the M60 (7.62 round) is an American weapon. There is a British version, slightly different, called the M58.


Damn, I should’ve been more clear earlier; I was under the impression that Aussies in Vietnam adopted some American weapons, e.g. the M60, because they might have performed better in the jungle environment than older weapons like the Bren (though the M-16 definitely did not perform better).

As far as M60 reliability: I remember reading it had a high rate of fire as long as the assistant gunner switched out the barrels regularly. That’s how it works with the current standard medium machine gun the US military fields — the M240, which is similar to the M60. I have seen that in action and it’s a beautiful beast.

 

Yes, you’re right about barrel exchange on the M60; that would prevent cook offs, assuming you had the spare barrels, which was not always the case.

The M60 machine gun was seen as superior to the Bren in important ways. Firsts being that the M60 is belt fed, vs the Bren’s magazine feed. From from memory, I think it held 30 rounds. I think M60 also had a greater rate of fire, but I’m not sure . Finally the M60 was considered to be an excellent defensive weapon as well as an assault weapon. However, I wouldn’t like to carry it any distance. In my platoon there were 4 M60’s, each carried by a very strong, fit guy.

I also loved firing the Armalite (only at the range) A deceptive weapon; full or semi automatic , weighing 5kg fully loaded. Fibreglass stock and barrel, aluminium breech. It was like a toy to carry and fire next to an SLR.

Vets in my platoon didn’t like Armalite, because they said it jammed if it got dirty.

Yeah, the M-16 was hated by a lot of US troops in Vietnam because of its tendency to jam easily. I carried the newer M-16 A2, and the M4 — which is a carbine version of the A2 —they weren’t bad, though the A2 could be a bitch to get in and out of vehicles with because of the barrel length. Small round without much stopping power too, unlike the M240 and M60 with the 7.62 round.