assault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years!

[sarisataka]

20. Not really when you look at their abilities

The Winchester 1894 .30-30 was not popular with the military because as a lever action it is difficult to use from the prone position.

Ammo capacity- 1894- 7-13 rounds
AR-15 10, 20 or 30 rounds

Rate of fire
1894- 2 rnd/sec according to Winchester
AR-15 45-60 rnd/min

Ballistics-
http://www.federalpremium.com/products/print/compare/rifle_compare.aspx?compare=6%2c56%2c28
(for comparison I included the 7.62x39 cartridge of the AK-47)

for those who don't want to follow the link, the 30-30 has more energy than the 5.56 by 580 ft/lbs at the muzzle, narrowing to a 45 ft/lb advantage at 500 yds

so to summarize, the 118 year old Winchester lever action can hold its own against an AR-15 in most situations. The quicker reload capability of the AR would give it an advantage in an extended battle.
An AR-15 is not an M-16, which would also have a burst or full auto advantage.

It is irrelevant if assault rifle is a made up term, marketing or whatever. It is easier to define what a high performance car is than an assault rifle.

It is the 'anti' side that wants these 'high-powered assault rifle' /bullet hoses banned. facts do not back up their claims

But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

That is the slippery slope. We ban 'assault rifles' because their purpose is to kill people; although they are excellent hunting weapons for more reasons than the larger magazines. Then do we look at hunting rifles that also are pretty good at killing people e.g. the Ruger Mini-14, an up dated version of the M-14, which was derived from the WW2 M1. The Mini-14 was designed for small game hunting, ranchers and law enforcement. The VPC now calls it "the Poor Man's Assault Rifle.