Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not
the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.

Apparently that hasn't yet made the link I put above.

As of December, last year, Bud's Gun Shop still thinks they're legal. Note page 2:

https://www.budsgunshop.com/feeds/st...strictions.pdf
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:04:42 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with
me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV


No bearing on the discussion.

The Ruger Mini-14 Ranch can use either .223 or 5.56 ammo. They are designed to use either the
standardized U.S. military or factory loaded sporting cartridges.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:22:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem
with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV




That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as
knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and
others here are although it was
my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO
round. Is that accurate?

Not necessarily. Depends on the manufacturer's directions. The Ruger Mini-14 can fire either.

Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the
.223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is
rim-fired.

Correct.

This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement
defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to
include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell
but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them.

That would indicate that the Ruger Mini-14 is still legal. It has the same capabilities as the AR-15
in terms of ammo and capacity and rate of fire. But the stock is wooden. Silly law.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Bernie...
 

On 3/6/2020 9:59 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.

Apparently that hasn't yet made the link I put above.

As of December, last year, Bud's Gun Shop still thinks they're legal. Note page 2:

https://www.budsgunshop.com/feeds/st...strictions.pdf
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



It's all up in the air now because the AG's office apparently doesn't
have a clue what they are talking about.

From GOAL (Gun Owners Action League):


The Gun Owners’ Action League, which has been organizing rallies in
protest of Healey’s (MA AG ) actions in the past several weeks, holds
the new information only muddies the waters even more.

“Upon viewing the page there are many new questions, which make this
untenable situation increasingly murky,� reads a statement from the group.

GOAL points out that Healey states rifles in .22 caliber are acceptable
but there is no clarification as to if the statement includes both
rimfire and centerfire chamberings.

They are further puzzled by the exclusion of the “Ruger Mini 14 or
substantially-similar model weapon� saying that, “virtually every
semi-automatic magazine fed rifle is substantially similar to the Mini 14.�

Indeed, the Mini-14 uses a rotating bolt which was very similar to that
of the M1 Garand — that is not considered an assault rifle by Healey’s
office — while the same type is also used on the Springfield M1A, which is.

“This is disturbing considering that Healey has threatened gun owners
not in compliance with a ten-year felony charge for transferring items
that are legal to transfer according to Mass General Law,� notes GOAL.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Bernie...
 

On 3/6/2020 10:08 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:22:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.Â* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem
with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
Â* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125� longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5� (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5� should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV




That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as
knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and
others here are although it was
my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO
round. Is that accurate?

Not necessarily. Depends on the manufacturer's directions. The Ruger Mini-14 can fire either.

Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the
.223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is
rim-fired.

Correct.

This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement
defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to
include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell
but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them.

That would indicate that the Ruger Mini-14 is still legal. It has the same capabilities as the AR-15
in terms of ammo and capacity and rate of fire. But the stock is wooden. Silly law.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



It's also center-fired (.223 cal) and some models ("Tactical) have a
pistol grip that makes it look like an assault rifle. I think the
controversy is still up in the air.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Bernie...
 

On 3/6/20 9:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the
nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that
Biden seems on the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.Â* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you
this is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem
with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22
because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L.
c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
Â* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that
a little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles
can safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of
the Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125� longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers
a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will
not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt.
Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56
NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5� (or shorter) barrel. The lower
powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that
occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the
rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer
than 14.5� should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV




That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification.Â* I am not as
knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and
others here are although it was
my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO
round.Â* Is that accurate?

Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the
.223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is
rim-fired.

This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification.Â* Her statement
defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to
include .22 calÂ* *rim-fired"Â* as being legal.Â* It's confusing as hell
but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them.




I don't know if it is still in production, but at one time Ruger made a
special target version of the mini-14 that would only work safely with
the .223 round. But most modern ARs can fire either of the two rounds,
as can most modern mini-14s. They are all center-fire rifles.

The target version of the mini 14 had a "harmonic damper" hanging off
the muzzle end of the barrel in order to improve the inherent inaccuracy
of the rifle. It isn't inaccurate for practical shooting, or for hunting
game, typically, but it's not so good for precision target shooting.

The plain old .22LR, by the way, can be shot very accurately at
reasonable distances out of a rifle or a pistol. The bullets themselves
are typically somewhat lighter (20% or so) than the most common .223
round and travel, typically, at half the speed, but they are deadly
bullets, even at considerable distances. The .22LR ammo I use has a 40
grain bullet, while the .223 rounds I use have a 55 grain bullet. There
are many lighter .22LR bullets, a few heavier ones. The .223 rounds
typically are 55 grain, but there are a few heavier bullets.

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.

Yeah, they call it the 10-22 ;-)

It is not really the same gun tho except in the most superficial
outward appearance. (An M1 Carbine sort of look)
My Ruger .44 is very similar looking too, actually just a slightly
bigger version of the 10-22. They are both straight blow back
operation. The Mini-14 is a rotating bolt thing.

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:10:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 9:59 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:53:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know. I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not
the last you’ve seen of him,” Biden said Monday night during a campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.”

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.

Apparently that hasn't yet made the link I put above.

As of December, last year, Bud's Gun Shop still thinks they're legal. Note page 2:

https://www.budsgunshop.com/feeds/st...strictions.pdf
--

Freedom Isn't Free!



It's all up in the air now because the AG's office apparently doesn't
have a clue what they are talking about.

From GOAL (Gun Owners Action League):


The Gun Owners’ Action League, which has been organizing rallies in
protest of Healey’s (MA AG ) actions in the past several weeks, holds
the new information only muddies the waters even more.

“Upon viewing the page there are many new questions, which make this
untenable situation increasingly murky,” reads a statement from the group.

GOAL points out that Healey states rifles in .22 caliber are acceptable
but there is no clarification as to if the statement includes both
rimfire and centerfire chamberings.

They are further puzzled by the exclusion of the “Ruger Mini 14 or
substantially-similar model weapon” saying that, “virtually every
semi-automatic magazine fed rifle is substantially similar to the Mini 14.”

Indeed, the Mini-14 uses a rotating bolt which was very similar to that
of the M1 Garand — that is not considered an assault rifle by Healey’s
office — while the same type is also used on the Springfield M1A, which is.

“This is disturbing considering that Healey has threatened gun owners
not in compliance with a ten-year felony charge for transferring items
that are legal to transfer according to Mass General Law,” notes GOAL.

Lotta stupidity floating around up there.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:04:42 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.Â* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem with
me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
Â* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125� longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5� (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5� should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV


There are actually similar differences between the NATO 7.62x51 and
the .308 too but most folks refer to them interchangeably. In the case
of the .308 it might be a hotter round than the NATO tho. A lot
depends on the loading. There may also be a little more headspace in
the NATO weapons so thin case .308 ammo might split on you. My M1A
seems to eat both without problems although I usually shoot Mil Spec
7.62 surplus stuff. (FMJ)

Bernie...
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:22:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/6/2020 9:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/6/20 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/6/2020 8:39 AM, Adorable Deplorable wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:13:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:50:14 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:36:23 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:23:50 -0500, Adorable Deplorable
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:46:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/5/2020 8:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:


...he's whining again. As I stated, if he wins the nomination,
I'll vote for him but...I'm much happier that Biden seems on
the track to win the prize.



Something I've noticed:

Seems the primary reason Biden supporters, including the former
contenders who have endorsed him, give for for their support
is that Biden has the "best chance" of beating Trump in the
election.

They don't speak much about *why* Biden would be a good
POTUS, just that he has the best chance of beating Trump.

Biden is scary and frankly, he doesn't look very healthy.
If he gets the nod, his choice for VP is going to be
very important.
——


Isn’t he eyeballing Beto for a running mate ?


Don't know.Â* I saw Biden thanking Beto for his support
and told him he (Beto) would head up Biden's gun control
initiative.

"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this
is not
the last you’ve seen of him,� Biden said Monday night during a
campaign
stop in Texas. "You’re going to take care of the gun problem
with me.
You’re going to be the one who leads this effort.�

Beto, as you may recall, was the one calling for
government confiscation of all AR-15 type rifles.
In one of the early primary debates he said,

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Wonder if he'll take the wooden-stocked, Ruger mini-14 also.

Most of these zealots would take your wooden-stocked 10-22 because it
is a semi auto with a detachable magazine. Some even want tube fed
pumps and lever actions (The Australia model)

"Sensible" gun laws are usually anything but sensible once you read
what they really want to do.

It's not a 10-22, it's a .223, same as the AR-15's.

I understand that but a 10-22 is still a semi automatic with a box
magazine and squarely in the sights of guys like Beto. That was the
point. Some states do exempt .22RF tho.
I bet Richard can't have a Mini 14, no matter how pretty the wood is
on the stock. "It can accept or be modified to accept a large
magazine".

Your phrase, "...your wooden-stocked 10-22..." led me to think you
thought my mini-14 was a 10-22.

Too much thinking on my part.

Mini-14's are legal in MA:

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or
duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates
of enumerated Assault Weapons.
For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c.
140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved
Firearms Roster, available here.
Â* Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer
Protection Regulations;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;

https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequent...ement-notice?-

--

Freedom Isn't Free!



The MA Attorney General recently clarified the legality of the Ruger
Mini-14 because they screwed up when it was declared "legal".
It's still subject to some confusion but her clarification
says that a ".22 cal rimfire" is legal but .223 cal (NATO) is not.

I don't think the Mini-14 is available as a .22 cal rimfire but
am not sure.





I'm not going to pretend to be one of your snarky asshole buddies here
and insult you, so I will merely point out that either you or your
attorney general is wrong about calling a .223 caliber round a NATO
round. It isn't.

The 5.56 NATO round is a higher pressure round than the .223 REM, and
the chamber on the rifle is a tad longer to accommodate the fact that a
little more powder is loaded into the NATO round. Many modern rifles can
safely fire either round, but some cannot. There is one model of the
Mini-14 that cannot safely fire the 5.56 round.

Here's a better explanation from Hornady:

Differences between the two are small but can have a large impact on
performance, safety and weapon function.

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO
cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is
loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact
that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125� longer throat. This allows
approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO
cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223
Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO
cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat
that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223
chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is
10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000
psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse,
cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a
223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered
weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem
cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not
be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems
start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO
chambered rifle with a 14.5� (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder
charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when
it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle
improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5� should
function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.

https://is.gd/13tegV




That was my error in my post not the AG's clarification. I am not as
knowledgeable about .223 cal and the NATO 5.56 standard as you and
others here are although it was
my understanding that a rifle chambered for .223 can also fire the NATO
round. Is that accurate?

Also ... (correct me if I am wrong) ... my understanding is that the
.223 and NATO 5.56 rounds are center-fired whereas the .22 round is
rim-fired.

This is the crutch of the MA AG goof and clarification. Her statement
defining legal rifles of this type has since been modified to
include .22 cal *rim-fired" as being legal. It's confusing as hell
but fortunately for me, I have no interest in any of them.

The article I saw seemed pretty unambiguous so they must have fixed
the language. Any center fire rifle capable of accepting or being
modified to accept a large cap magazine was banned. That means any
center fire rifle with a box magazine is illegal. I suppose there are
some old rifles that nobody has made large magazines for but they are
still capable of holding one if you had it.