Hawk: Yes it is an AR15, though I switched out that upper months ago, I got all tacticool and put on a quad rail handguard, only thing I have on it right now is an EOTech holosight, I haven't shot it in almost 9 months due to ammo being fucking scarce and ridiculously expensive after all the panic buying after the Election, prices are coming down now though, anyways, back to my original line of discussion. This is what it looks like today:



And the HK416 is basically a piston operated upper recievered M4 as opposed to the M4 direct gas impingement system, so with the 416 you don't have the gases from the rounds coming back into the chamber and fouling the moving parts with carbon, conventional wisdom indicates it runs cleaner and is more reliable under harsh conditions. so it'll shoot while waterlogged or filled with sand because none of that is getting into the gas tube with the piston blocking the way. It's not really a new innovation as LWRC and others have been making piston uppers for Ar/M4 platforms for a while now, I guess at one point H&K was looking to sell it to the regular army, the HSLD guys already have them, they're other selling point was that they're compatible with the m4 lowers so the army would only have to buy the uppers.

cool comparison of the two:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/

and you can have an ar15 in Cali, it's just got to be butt ugly though lol
these are prime examples of Cali legal AR15s

I dont get why you cant have one with a pistol grip, or a mag capacity higher than 10 rounds or it has to be pinned at 10 and welded into the rifle, it basically turning it into a non removable internal mag in CA, I guess cause it looks scarier with a dealy pistol grip, not like it alters the rate of fire or anything.
EDIT: link for hawk http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/building-a-california--legal-ar-15-rifle.aspx

Knyte wrote:

Move to Oregon. We don't have any gun laws* *Not true, but Class 3 firearms are legal. (Machine Guns and other heavy weapons)

Legal as long as you pay for the $200 ATF Tax stamp. NFA items are fun

SoldierHawk wrote:

Knyte wrote: Move to Oregon. We don't have any gun laws* *Not true, but Class 3 firearms are legal. (Machine Guns and other heavy weapons) *drools* Well, technically speaking I think they are here too--but there's all sorts of alterations you have to make to them to make 'em legal. The barrel can't be military length for example, your magazine is only allowed to house (I think) eight rounds, you can't have an easily ejectable magazine and worst of all for me, you can't have a collapsing buttstock. One of the reasons I cheered like a maniac for the Army's transition from M16 to M-4 is the collapsing buttstock. (My arms are so short its very hard to hold an M16 comfortably. M-4? Shorten the stock and I'm all set.) I've been considering buying a CA legal M-4, or at least an M-4 upper, but if I'm going to spend that kind of money I'd really rather have the real thing.

The M16 still wins in accuracy, range, and lethality, but loses in regards to ergos and handling, I like the convenience of being able to adjust the length of pull to fit personal preference. With the 14.5" barrel of an m4 you lose velocity as there's less barrel for the bullet to spin through, powder doesn't burn as thoroughly, as a result the bullet doesn't stabilize as well in flight, and less chance the bullet is going to yaw and break up in the target which only really happens at longer ranges anyways(the main selling point of the 5.56 round besides it's weight savings, keep in mind the 5.56 was developed for a rifle with a 20" barrel) but range doesn't really matter when most engagements are 300M and less, it's an easy fix anyways, when all you have to do is get a separate 16-20" upper, as an aside, AR15s are fucking cool ass toys.

Cameron wrote:

The basic nightstick. The way I see it, it's good for both attack and defense; for attacking someone, you can hold it like a club and whack somebody with it. For defending yourself, you can hold it by the side-handle and block a blunt attack (though I guess you're pretty much screwed if the person attacking you has a sharp edge or a firearm). Plus, jabbing someone in the ribs with it is likely to induce a ton of pain.

Like this?

If you're going to be hunting anything bigger than a squirrel it will be "Higher powered" than an AR15 keep in mind the 5.56/.223 is just a pointy, higher velocity .22 caliber round, most hunting rifles will be a variation of a .30 caliber(7.62,x54/.308, 7.62x39(AK), .30-06, .300 Weatherby, .300 Win Mag etc.) round. The term "Assault rifle" is a bit of a misnomer when talking about civilian legal ARs and AKs, as an assault rifle is defined as a select fire(can fire an automatic burst) weapon, but these have been regulated in America since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed, the term "assault rifle" has been used in recent times as a buzzword for the anti gun community (like the Brady Campaign) to push their agenda of banning all Semi automatic weapon sales to the civilian populace. That and scare tactics like telling outright lies, such as "these weapons can be easily modified to fire fully automatic" Bullshit, unless you're an experienced machinist with a tool shop and have the necessary components, such as an upper reciever capable of handling fully auto fire, which civilian legal ARs for the most part do not, you'll end up making a rifle that may in fact fire fully auto, but it's just as likely to blow up in your fucking face. I'll stop boring you now.

RobotGumshoe wrote:

Kudos for Knyte also owning a Bokken. You guys and your guns your like goddamn crazy mountain people. You're armed like the Incredible Hulk is going to sneak in your window at night to punch your organs out of your ears, when what you need at most is a heavy piece of wood to thrash some toothless meth addict away from your silverware.

Hmmm, it's not about need. Do I NEED all of the guns I own? Probably not. Should I be barred from owning them because I do not NEED them? I would say Hell the fuck no. I don't see how exercising my rights as an American citizen equates to being one of the "crazy mountain people", I'm not out in the street waiting for someone to shoot, never threatened anyone with violence, I hope everyday I never need to use a weapon for such a purpose, but I am prepared to if my wishes go unnoticed. Most of what I do is competitive shooting via the IPSC, USPSA, and NRA competitive shooting leagues, even if none of the guns I own were for that purpose, why the hell should it matter that I legally own firearms? Because of people who have no desire to understand that my hobby is a valid one? I have no problem with others not wanting to own firearms, that's their right, when people think they don't need them I shouldn't have them is pure BS.

EDIT: Just got off the phone with my dad (23 Year Veteran of the Chicago Police Dept. now a Rescue Diver for the CPD Marine Unit), I asked him the feasibility of your scenario pertaining fending off a doped up criminal, not that someone busting into your abode would automatically make them a crack/meth head, with a blunt wooden object, you know what he said? Nothing, he was fucking laughing at me, then he tells me "Good luck with that", being that he has experience in that area and I certainly don't, I trust his word.(but I don't doubt that this CAN be done, anything is possible, and I'm not saying the cure all is guns guns guns, not at all)

Here's a pic of the old man working: