Hal-

You're still good in my book. This site has a habit of sensing blood in the water and attacking it's own at times.

That's why I have less than 1600 posts in ten years.
I learned my lesson early on the hard way. I think you may have been one who taught me that lesson.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I just function better with "Please".

Thanks, me boy.

quote:

16" was probably picked for the same dumb reason. It suited the gov at the time.

With the Cutts compensator, the Thompson SMG barrell was 12.5".

If I were to make an unedumacated guess, I'd take a look at the Browning BAR 1918 being chopped down by gangsters such as Clyde Barrow.



other semi-auto rifles would also have withering effect at short-ranges.

Colt even had a chopped version called the Monitor developed to deal with the gangsters arsenals.

The use of "sawed off shotguns" and other chopped and lopped rifles is exactly what prompted the inclusion of that portion of the law, but why the 18 and then 16"remains a mystery.

The OP's worst and most inexcusable sin in this whole thread is asking the question in the first place. Now he's opened a can of worms that is going to eat at us gun nuts with no apparent answer in sight.

Gee, thanks, OP.

quote:

Originally posted by Echtermetzger:
Colt even had a chopped version called the Monitor developed to deal with the gangsters arsenals.

That compensator looks like it came off the movie set of Forbidden Planet!

It's a Cutts compensator. Similar concept to the Cutts compensators on the early Thompsons, just beefed up for the .30-06 cartridge.



Cutts compensators were also popular on sporting shotguns of the interwar and WW2 eras:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
The use of "sawed off shotguns" and other chopped and lopped rifles is exactly what prompted the inclusion of that portion of the law, but why the 18 and then 16"remains a mystery.

The OP's worst and most inexcusable sin in this whole thread is asking the question in the first place. Now he's opened a can of worms that is going to eat at us gun nuts with no apparent answer in sight.

Gee, thanks, OP.

You are certainly welcome. Also, you may call me Hal.

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

All in all, my thread has been a cluster fuck created by me. But, Indiana Boy was out of line, in my opinion, and, could have addressed things as you did.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on this medium.

IMHO, it was readily apparent that you weren't going for sarcasm.

You wanted a troll thread and you got a troll thread. Evidently it hurt your feelings.


Your passive aggressive machinations didn't add any valuable content, I thought they were worthy of ridicule.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

All in all, my thread has been a cluster fuck created by me. But, Indiana Boy was out of line, in my opinion, and, could have addressed things as you did.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on this medium.

IMHO, it was readily apparent that you weren't going for sarcasm.

You wanted a troll thread and you got a troll thread. Evidently it hurt your feelings.


Your passive aggressive machinations didn't add any valuable content, I thought they were worthy of ridicule.

The next time you clean the glass on your optics, give a deep clean to that crystal ball of yours as it is not very clear.
keep up the night school classes in psychology. Maybe you will pick something up of value.
Be well and enjoy the rest of your day.

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

All in all, my thread has been a cluster fuck created by me. But, Indiana Boy was out of line, in my opinion, and, could have addressed things as you did.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on this medium.

IMHO, it was readily apparent that you weren't going for sarcasm.

You wanted a troll thread and you got a troll thread. Evidently it hurt your feelings.


Your passive aggressive machinations didn't add any valuable content, I thought they were worthy of ridicule.

The next time you clean the glass on your optics, give a deep clean to that crystal ball of yours as it is not very clear.
keep up the night school classes in psychology. Maybe you will pick something up of value.
Be well and enjoy the rest of your day.

Exposing your shortcomings are ya now?

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:
Exposing your shortcomings are ya now?

Did you ever find an answer?

Do the plebes need to stroke your ego and beg 'please sir' to get an answer?

Can you function politely as a member of a group or does your ego preclude that?


I am generally more than happy to acquiesce to the reality that this format sacrifices some nuance, but you appear to enjoy that.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:
Exposing your shortcomings are ya now?

Did you ever find an answer?

Do the plebes need to stroke your ego and beg 'please sir' to get an answer?

Can you function politely as a member of a group or does your ego preclude that?


I am generally more than happy to acquiesce to the reality that this format sacrifices some nuance, but you appear to enjoy that.

First warning: Facts (on topic) not flames gentlemen.

Back on topic:

I suspect 16" was as arbitrary a number in 1934 as 10 rounds was in 1994. Somebody had to pull a number out of their asses and somebody did.

Politician's ability to do research back then was even more limited back then than it is today. Hell, we have the internet, the NRA, the the NSSF, and Youtube, but politicians and news agencies still can't be bothered to figure out how a bump-stock works.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:
Exposing your shortcomings are ya now?

Did you ever find an answer?

Do the plebes need to stroke your ego and beg 'please sir' to get an answer?

Can you function politely as a member of a group or does your ego preclude that?


I am generally more than happy to acquiesce to the reality that this format sacrifices some nuance, but you appear to enjoy that.

First warning: Facts (on topic) not flames gentlemen.

Back on topic:

I suspect 16" was as arbitrary a number in 1934 as 10 rounds was in 1994. Somebody had to pull a number out of their asses and somebody did.

Politician's ability to do research back then was even more limited back then than it is today. Hell, we have the internet, the NRA, the the NSSF, and Youtube, but politicians and news agencies still can't be bothered to figure out how a bump-stock works.

I bet if we do the research, we will find that the guy that cooked up the 18" rule was the father of the guy that cooked up the 16" rule and the grandfather of the guy that cooked up the 10-shot mag rule.

Sometimes mental derangement is genetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Echtermetzger:
Colt even had a chopped version called the Monitor developed to deal with the gangsters arsenals.

The Monitor played an interesting role in Stephen Hunter's latest novel, G-Man.
 

quote:

Originally posted by Jelly:
So what was the barrel length(s) of the Tommy gun back in the bad old days?

I think about 10.5” without the compensator. Also, the stock was designed to be easily removable IIRC.

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
The use of "sawed off shotguns" and other chopped and lopped rifles is exactly what prompted the inclusion of that portion of the law, but why the 18 and then 16"remains a mystery.

The OP's worst and most inexcusable sin in this whole thread is asking the question in the first place. Now he's opened a can of worms that is going to eat at us gun nuts with no apparent answer in sight.

Gee, thanks, OP.

The best explanation I have found:

Shotgun barrel length was never changed, but the apocryphal story is that when Uncle (Sam) started to surplus out M1 Carbines, it was discovered that some of those barrels were shorter than the standard 18 inches.
Politician’s got enough nasty, nasty telephone calls threatening the one thing all politician's crave (remaining in office and on the gravy train) and thus they changed SBR barrel length to 16 inches to cover any eventuality.

ttps://www.quora.com/Why-are-guns-with-a-barrel-shorter-than-16-inches-illegal-Shouldn%E2%80%99t-it-be-the-other-way-around-considering-that-a-longer-barrel-gives-a-faster-muzzle-velocity-resulting-in-a-more-powerful-weapon

I don't yet know where they came up with 18" from; but I understand that the reduction to 16" for rifles was to legitimize the large numbers of surplus Swedish 1894 Mauser carbines with 450mm = 17.7" barrels.

I have randomly looked at laws enacted by the US Gov't and nowhere in each one is the reason for a number or amount being selected.
Thus, a lot of myths and conjectures come about. One such myth is the 65 was chosen as the age of retirement in regards to Social Security because that was the age of Otto Von Bismark when the German republic enacted there program. This was not so but, the myth endures.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:
I have randomly looked at laws enacted by the US Gov't and nowhere in each one is the reason for a number or amount being selected.
Thus, a lot of myths and conjectures come about. One such myth is the 65 was chosen as the age of retirement in regards to Social Security because that was the age of Otto Von Bismark when the German republic enacted there program. This was not so but, the myth endures.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

Um, and yeah, let's not forget that the life expectancy of a German male at age 10 in 1880 was around 50!