Has anyone priced the "legal" versions of the ak47 or m16/m4 assault rifles? If you have, you'll notice they are about 1.5 times the price they were a few months ago and most likely sold out. Obviously this grab for guns, and paticularly the "assault" type is do to fears of upcoming legislation that would prevent the purchase of said rifles. My question is do you feel there is such a high demand for these rifles for the nostalgia\cool factor or do you feel the public is losing confidence in the government to provide security for the nation and or feel the government itself is becoming too oppressive and may pose such a threat to their own freedom that it would prompt them to purchase an "assault" weapon.
1. Lots of prices have gone up dramatically.
2. If they don't have full-auto capability, they're not assault rifles, even if they look like weapons that do have full-auto capability.
3. The high demand/price factor for such weapons has been with us for well over a decade, largely for the 'cool' factor.
4. If people feared that such weapons would be banned/confiscated (as in the infamous California ban), they'd be awfully foolish to spend their money on them, wouldn't they?
Danno, whose "non-assault" guns work just fine.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Assault rifle and gun bans include more than full auto bans. Those bans mostly include bans on sale, they won't actually confiscate your property (at least that's what some say).
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Wow Danno by the numbers I see
1 "assault' rifles have risen considerably in realtion to other types of firearms
2 I did take care to put assault in parentheses so as to show that this definition was in question. however i will say of all legal fire arms they typically have the highest rate of fire and also can be converted to fully auto in most cases. Try doing that with your 30-06
3 The ak47 for most of last 5 years could be purchased for under $400 ftry finding one for under $600 now. In Comparison a hunting rifle typically set you back close to a grand That being said I guess your response is people are buying them for reasons other than a fear of there governments waning ability to provide secvurity or being overlu oppressive
4That would depend on the level of their resolve
Shawn77: Has anyone priced the "legal" versions of the ak47 or m16/m4 assault rifles? If you have, you'll notice they are about 1.5 times the price they were a few months ago and most likely sold out. Obviously this grab for guns, and paticularly the "assault" type is do to fears of upcoming legislation that would prevent the purchase of said rifles. My question is do you feel there is such a high demand for these rifles for the nostalgia\cool factor or do you feel the public is losing confidence in the government to provide security for the nation and or feel the government itself is becoming too oppressive and may pose such a threat to their own freedom that it would prompt them to purchase an "assault" weapon.
I don't think there is any one single reason as to why individuals are buying these type of weapons up. I know some that are buying them because they fear a shit storm on the horizon, and I know some that are buying them up simply because they want to have them before the government bans the sale of them and not to try and out of some desire to fight the government or anything like that.
I'm far more worried about the government imposing large taxes on ammunition to be honest. They don't really need to make guns illegal if they make it far too expensive to shoot them. And it isn't like ammo isn't already expensive....
krazy kaju: Assault rifle and gun bans include more than full auto bans. Those bans mostly include bans on sale, they won't actually confiscate your property (at least that's what some say).
Don't tell that to the California residents who had their firearms confiscated because they looked scary - I expect that they're still kinda annoyed about it.
They wouldn't confiscate gold, either - would they?
Danno, enjoyin' a good snicker.
Shawn77: Wow Danno by the numbers I see 1 "assault' rifles have risen considerably in realtion to other types of firearms
I can't claim to have been tracking it carefully - some examples of actual data would be useful.
With any semi-auto, you get one round per pull of the trigger - you get a higher rate of fire by pulling the trigger faster (and, largely, a lower rate of accuracy). An "assault-looking" semi-auto shoots no faster than any other semi-auto. Do it with a 30-06, and your shoulder's gonna get very sore very quickly.
As far as converting any of them to full auto, that generally takes the installation of a full-auto receiver, which is expensive, requires a full-auto license to purchace, and is a job for a gunsmith, not a home hobbyist. That's another myth of the anti-gun lobby.
Considering that full-auto accuracy is very difficult to achieve without lots of practice, the primary value of full-auto to most shooters is the ability to go through expensive ammo very quickly. Most shooters are happier putting one hole where they want it, rather than a bunch of holes somewhere in the neighborhood of the actual target. Maybe you should take fewer notes from movies?
That's pure conjecture - methinks you're fishing for a particular mindset that you're unlikely to find here. FWIW, "a hunting rifle" can be found for anywhere between $200US and $20,000US - it's a remarkably vague term that covers lots of ground.
My response is actually that every person who buys one has a personal reason that an economist doesn't need to know or care about - all that's needful is to know that people are buyin' them. Trying your poll on a web site devoted to firearms enthusiasts may be more to the point - but I think that they're likely to laugh at you, too.
I can't say I've ever chatted with someone who has expressed the desire to get into a shooting match with the police, National Guard, or anyone else over the possession of a particular firearm, no matter how many t-shirts you've seen with the "pry from my cold, dead fingers" slogan. That wouldn't be their resolve - that'd be their idiocy.
Danno, who, like Sir Monty, is expecting more 'prohibition via taxation', but enjoys feeding the occasional troll.
Well danno i posted under current events not economics and i did this because i was not looking for someone to solve this economic riddle. I was looking for opinions however you have chosen to pick it apart and attack me personally. In doing so you have only shown your own ignorance. You've asked me to prove guns have risen in price. I say why the point of my post was not to prove guns have risen in price. Also if you knew anything about guns it would be obvious these types of firearms have risen dramitically in comparison to other firearms. How do I know you know nothing of guns well your comments "With any semi-auto, you get one round per pull of the trigger - you get a higher rate of fire by pulling the trigger faster (and, largely, a lower rate of accuracy). An "assault-looking" semi-auto shoots no faster than any other semi-auto. Do it with a 30-06, and your shoulder's gonna get very sore very quickly." Each semi auto rifle has its own rate of fire. The mechanism that cycles the new round and ejects the spent one can only complete this process so quickly typically slower than you can pull the trigger. In addition few if any non assault type rifles have barrels that will allow 100 rounds in a few min without melting the barell. Also most 30-06 are bolt action get the most skilled gun smith you can find and let him try to cconvert that to full auto. Maybe you should try a firearms site you have alot to learn
heres shawn77 hoping danno knows more about economics than he does firearms
Shawn77: Well danno i posted under current events not economics and i did this because i was not looking for someone to solve this economic riddle. I was looking for opinions however you have chosen to pick it apart and attack me personally.
Well danno i posted under current events not economics and i did this because i was not looking for someone to solve this economic riddle. I was looking for opinions however you have chosen to pick it apart and attack me personally.
<shrug> You have my opinion - I don't know that your basic precept is accurate, if it is accurate, there's no good way to tell the predominance of reasons for buyers from just the data that demand has risen, and I'm not terribly interested in discussing large groups of people who feel an urge to acquire stylish but impractical weapons on a hypothetical basis. It was not intended as a personal attack, though I suppose I was attacking some of the ideas you wanted to explore.
In doing so you have only shown your own ignorance. You've asked me to prove guns have risen in price. I say why the point of my post was not to prove guns have risen in price.
If you want to discuss things here, you're going to need to get used to people asking you to back up your claims. I'm not asking for hard proof - just some actual data behind your assertion.
Also if you knew anything about guns it would be obvious these types of firearms have risen dramitically in comparison to other firearms. How do I know you know nothing of guns well your comments "With any semi-auto, you get one round per pull of the trigger - you get a higher rate of fire by pulling the trigger faster (and, largely, a lower rate of accuracy). An "assault-looking" semi-auto shoots no faster than any other semi-auto. Do it with a 30-06, and your shoulder's gonna get very sore very quickly."
The little 'Quote' tag at the bottom of the post when you hit the 'Reply' button makes doing that much easier, and more obvious. It took me a while to get used to that sort of thing, too.
Each semi auto rifle has its own rate of fire. The mechanism that cycles the new round and ejects the spent one can only complete this process so quickly typically slower than you can pull the trigger.
Your finger must be considerably quicker than mine, or your rifles considerably slower.
One of the nifty add-on gadgets for the Ruger 10/22 clamps on at the trigger, allowing the shooter to turn a crank, rather than pull the trigger. The crank operates a cam that pulls the trigger twice or four times per revolution of the crank - allowing a very high rate of fire while retaining legality. Such devices would be pointless unless the trigger pull wasn't slower than the cycling of the action. As they're harder to aim accurately unless you use a benchrest, and burn through ammunition quite quickly, they're not much more than fun toys - but they exist, and as .22LR ammo is about as cheap, per round, as you're going to find, they're not absurdly expensive to run.
Or, in short - you're dead wrong here. Trigger pull time is almost never is less than cycle time on a semi-automatic, and never slower if you're actually trying to aim. I've never seen a firearms manufacturer or retailer even mention cycle time as part of the data on a semi-auto; it's irrelevant to almost everyone but you.
In addition few if any non assault type rifles have barrels that will allow 100 rounds in a few min without melting the barell. Also most 30-06 are bolt action get the most skilled gun smith you can find and let him try to cconvert that to full auto. Maybe you should try a firearms site you have alot to learn heres shawn77 hoping danno knows more about economics than he does firearms
<shrugs, other shoulder> You have every right to have whatever opinion you like of my firearms expertise - my economic expertise is pretty minimal, in relation to much of the crowd here.
I still find it very difficult to believe that there are any large number (say, over 2%) of firearms purchasers who buy assault-looking firearms with the intention of converting them to full-auto operation. Especially so if they've ever lugged a full ammo case, which is almost as heavy as it is expensive.
Danno, who has always been taught to sneer at 'spray and pray' shooting.
Danno: krazy kaju: Assault rifle and gun bans include more than full auto bans. Those bans mostly include bans on sale, they won't actually confiscate your property (at least that's what some say). Don't tell that to the California residents who had their firearms confiscated because they looked scary - I expect that they're still kinda annoyed about it. They wouldn't confiscate gold, either - would they? Danno, enjoyin' a good snicker.
1. So you admit that assault rifle bans include more than just autos?
2. I said MOST gun bans. Using ONE case otherwise doesn't disprove my statement. There have been other "bans" that did not necessarily include confiscation.
krazy kaju: 1. So you admit that assault rifle bans include more than just autos?
I'd have been a fool to ever say that they didn't - nor do I recall saying or implying that. IIRC, full-auto weapons started requiring a special license (expensive and difficult to obtain, but they're out there) back around 1930 - every ban since has been relevant to other types of firearms and accessories. The so-called "assault rifle bans" are called that because they were based upon the appearance of the firearm, rather than the function. That none of the weapons so affected actually were assault rifles remains somewhat amusing to the gunnies - as if lots of people started dismissing Mises or Rothbard as an economist because he was too Keynsean. Not amusing in a good way, but amusing nonetheless.
I wasn't trying to disprove your statement - just pointing out that, if people are actually expecting a new ban, that they're more likely to be preparing for a worst-case scenario, rather than ignoring the recent history. If Obama's new tax on loose cigarette tobacco (from 0 to about 200% of list price in one step) is any indication, he's not a guy for small steps.
Danno, who still wouldn't see a surge in popularity for scary-looking rifles as ominous, even if it were so.
The military for almost every country in the world has chosen either the ak47 or some variant of stoners m16 design. If these weapons hold no value over other semi auto rifles then I wonder why they use them. It is not for full auto because my m16 was never capable of full auto the entire time I was in the military. I certainly am against any bans on firearms, so i would agree they need no other designation as rifle but to argue that becasue they lack full auto capabilities or 3 round burst they are mere replicas of their military counterparts is to show a complete lack of understanding for these firearms. In any case I am not concerned with defining these types of rifles(someone else already has, which is why when i say assault rifle people, amost without exception think of the ak or m16). I was merely observing that they had risen in cost and was curious what the mises crowd thought reasons for this may be.
Shawn77: The military for almost every country in the world has chosen either the ak47 or some variant of stoners m16 design. If these weapons hold no value over other semi auto rifles then I wonder why they use them. It is not for full auto because my m16 was never capable of full auto the entire time I was in the military. I certainly am against any bans on firearms, so i would agree they need no other designation as rifle but to argue that becasue they lack full auto capabilities or 3 round burst they are mere replicas of their military counterparts is to show a complete lack of understanding for these firearms. In any case I am not concerned with defining these types of rifles(someone else already has, which is why when i say assault rifle people, amost without exception think of the ak or m16). I was merely observing that they had risen in cost and was curious what the mises crowd thought reasons for this may be.
The m16 is used because it uses the standard nato round, because it has minimal recoil, allowing for far easier shooting and training, and because the US govt always buys the cheapest thing they can. The m16 is, as you know being ex-military, a peice of crap. The civilian versions (and the newer m4 variations) are much better weapons. The AK on the other hand is used because it is a brilliant design that almost never breaks, and because the massive factories and stockpiles from the USSR days have made it dirt cheap. If military types wanted the best guns, they'd go to europe and pick up a FAMAS or other such rifle.
Now, as to the rising cost, its because people are scared they will be banned again. During the last ban, civilian m4s sold for more than double their original price. These weapons are useless for anything other than target practice (ever shoot a deer with a 5.56? the round tumbles, and blows apart your pretty deer meat) But they are 'cool' guns and they're 'cool' to have. And, in the event that this country really does have a military revolution, it'll be nice to have one. Though I still think i'm far more dangerous with a Remmington 700 in .308 than a M4... ;-)
"These weapons are useless for anything other than target practice (ever shoot a deer with a 5.56? the round tumbles, and blows apart your pretty deer meat) "
Military style or assault rifles will do the job nicely for shooting people though. Since a 5.56 round has pretty limited capabilities for hunting animals I would assume that it is not the purchaser's intention to hunt animals with these guns. M-4 or AK 47 etc. are VERY versatile weapons that are great against people at varying ranges. I own an M-4 and an AK 47. I also own a Remington 700 BDL 30-06. While the Rem 700 is great for hunting deer or shooting people at long ranges it is not as versatile a weapon. I would have a hard time in a CQB situation such as clearing a house with a Rem 700 as it is a bolt action rifle and only holds 5 rounds.
The armies of the world adopted these types of weapons for their low cost, versatility, and effectiveness against people. I still believe that a civilian model M-4 is more effective in more situations than a common semi auto hunting rifle. I have several weapons, some for hunting and some for tactical purposes. The M-4 for example can more easily be fitted with High capacity magazines, night vision, lasers, flashlights, railing system, M68 red dot scope, ACOG 4x scope etc. than other types of rifles. Also the cheapness and availability of this standard NATO ammo comes into play because I wont have to travel as far to purchase the ammo and accessories for it and I could resupply myself from the dead bodies of people I engaged. I might have used an FN FAL, HK G3, or Steyr AUG as my primary battle rifle if I lived in one of the countries where this was adopted by military and law enforcement and was more common.
I think that there are a few reasons for people buying these "assault weapons". Some people think there is going to be civil unrest and they may have to defend themselves against unruly mobs of people, foreign invasion, or their own govt. forces. Also, people who were on the fence about getting one are probably expecting prices to rise and less availability so want to get theirs before the price goes too high. Also, people who already own a lot of weapons are stockpiling more ammo, accessories, and getting additional weapons that they want to add to their arsenal. As for myself I think there is a decent chance of there being some sort of breakdown of govt. or natural disaster which would require me to defend myself and my property by force of arms. Others may disagree and say this is foolish but it is my money and I am free to spend it as foolishly as I choose.
There was a great, informative article on just this theme today on LRC. Most of you had probably seen it, but for those that may have not. It would be a shame to miss:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/mattis1.html
JParker: The m16 is used because it uses the standard nato round, because it has minimal recoil, allowing for far easier shooting and training, and because the US govt always buys the cheapest thing they can. The m16 is, as you know being ex-military, a peice of crap. The civilian versions (and the newer m4 variations) are much better weapons. The AK on the other hand is used because it is a brilliant design that almost never breaks, and because the massive factories and stockpiles from the USSR days have made it dirt cheap. If military types wanted the best guns, they'd go to europe and pick up a FAMAS or other such rifle
The m16 is used because it uses the standard nato round, because it has minimal recoil, allowing for far easier shooting and training, and because the US govt always buys the cheapest thing they can. The m16 is, as you know being ex-military, a peice of crap. The civilian versions (and the newer m4 variations) are much better weapons. The AK on the other hand is used because it is a brilliant design that almost never breaks, and because the massive factories and stockpiles from the USSR days have made it dirt cheap. If military types wanted the best guns, they'd go to europe and pick up a FAMAS or other such rifle
While I will agree that the current issue military m16 is far from perfect and in fact one of the cheaper models of AR/M16/M4 style carbines available, the design itself is not a bad weapon at all. The early models were prone to a few problems, but they haven't been that much of an issue in MOST environments in many years (the desert is a possible exception).
Also, the AK, while admirable in many respects, is only good for certain applications. It has limited range and accuracy and only holds any sort of advantage for low skilled users and relatively close quarter engagements.
Well the good thing is that the AR/m16/M4 styles are also available in something other than 5.56 now days isn't it? :P A 700 or some other .308 is indeed more deadly in certain applications (primarily sniper/marksmen), but I would rather have a much greater rate of fire provided by the M4 or AK in a close quarter urban setting. You know, the kind you are more likely to encounter if engaged with an aggressive military force unless you live in the backwoods (like me and the rest of the "rednecks and hicks" :P).
I'm seriously considering buying an LWRC AR in 6.8. Not only is it legal to hunt deer with, it has better ballistics than the 5.56 and greater accuracy, range, and velocity than the 7.62 X 39.
/done with senseless gun rant
As an aside, I DO own an M4, so its not like I think they're stupid to own ;-)
What I find funny about such weapon bans is that often the target weapon is not at all used in the perpetration of crimes. One obvious reason for it is that such weapons are expensive (even if you were to have a fully unregulated arms market, full auto assault weapons would still be costly to acquire because they're fewer made compared to semi auto models). Another reason would be the fact that they're not good for perpetrating crimes as often they're too big (save for maybe the MP5, which is pretty compact...) to conceal. A reliable pistol is better for robbery over an AK-47 any day. And if you do need a good man stopper, a shotgun or semi auto rifle can be useful, whereas a full auto is all about throwing up a wall of lead by comparison.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
I am pretty accurate at 300 meters with the AK 47. AK 47 can hit a man sized target pretty easily at 300 meters which is about as far as you'll be engaging targets with an assault rifle. I can also personally attest to the reliability of the M-4 in the desert. It was mainly the early models supplied in vietnam that malfunctioned a lot.
My only concern about buying an M-4 chambered for 6.8 is that the ammo is not as plentiful as 5.56. If I ran out of ammo after society collapsed it would be more difficult to resupply myself. I suppose if you stocked up a couple thousand rounds it wouldnt be too big of a deal. But 6.8 is also more expensive. Whereas 1000 rounds of 5.56 is about 350 dollars 1000 rounds of 6.8 is about 800-1000 dollars.
I would take an AK 47 into a robbery or gunfight over a pistol any day. The only advantage that pistols have is their concealability and that they may be drawn from a holster quicker than a rifle. Once they are pulled out for use they lose the concealment advantage. Also, If I'm going to rob or kill someone my rifle is already going to be out in the ready position. Pistols typically cannot hold more than 15 rounds and due to shorter barrels have less stopping power than rifles. AK 47 have 30 round magazines. Also you can have 75 round drums attached which if you have the Full Auto capability can be useful because you wont run out of ammo as quickly with 75 rounds to burn off. I hardly ever use Full Auto on rifles like the AK 47 or M-4. The Full Auto versions of these are only available for Military. Due to automatic weapons ban the cost of full auto weapons is prohibitively high for most people. A Full Auto M16 will sell for about 20,000 but If you can get a Full Auto machine gun such as the M240B, M249 SAW, RPD, RPK, M60 etc. they can be very effective.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap