The following is a transcription of a pamphlet originally produced by Springfield Armory. This uncopyrighted material is republished here in this WEB document as a public service.

From Springfield Armory...
Answers to questions most often asked about military firearms.

What do you tell them when they ask: 
"Why does anyone need military style guns?"

We understand the thrill of shooting military style firearms. We understand the satisfaction of being able to show off a prized addition to a military rifle collection. We understand those feelings and so do you. But our feelings are not necessarily shared by everyone.

When your friends, neighbors or coworkers question the validity of military style rifles and handguns as legitimate sporting arms, are you prepared to respond to their queries and criticisms in an intelligent manner? Since most criticism stems from misinformation and from highly emotional stimuli, we've found that the best rebuttal is usually a calm, unemotional response based on facts.

We'd like to offer assistance to military firearms enthusiasts who are likely to be subjected to legitimate questions from the curious or scathing attack by hard core anti-gun proponents. So, we're offering this list of the questions and criticisms we've found to be the most effective in both educating the uninformed and silencing all but the most militant critics.

Q: Why would anyone want to buy a military style firearm?

A: For much the same reason some people buy antique or reproduction furniture or even classic cars. Military style firearms have a character, a personality and a history that commercial "sporting" firearms simply can not match. So, an original military firearm - or one based upon an original military design - becomes more than just another gun; it becomes a cherished possession that generates a genuine pride of ownership and, ultimately, becomes very collectable. And, in much the same way a person might choose an expensive high performance vehicle over a bare bones economy model, a serious shooter might choose a military style firearm for its superior accuracy, reliability and technologically advanced design. Military style firearms are designed and built to perform better, last longer, and withstand more abuse than all except the most expensive commercial and "hunting" firearms. So in addition to owning a piece of history, purchasing a military style firearm is actually a sound investment in a superior piece of equipment that will likely appreciate in value.

Q: Since military style guns can't be used for hunting, what worthwhile sporting purpose could anyone find for a gun like that?

A: Military style firearms can be used for hunting. In those states that permit hunting with rifles and handguns, they are used very successfully for popular games like deer, elk, caribou, moose, grizzly and wild boar, and for varmints and predators like coyotes, wood-chucks and prairie dogs. But hunting is not the only legitimate sporting use of firearms. The most common civilian use of military style firearms is in the many forms of organized national and international shooting competitions that have grown and diversified throughout this century. The annual National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, co-sponsored by the Department of Civilian Marksmanship (a governmental department) and the National Rifle Association attracts thousands of enthusiasts who compete in events built around proficient use of authentic American service rifles and pistols. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the United States Practical Shooting Association, the International Practical Shooting Confederation, the World Speed Shooting Association, the NRA and other governing bodies have been instrumental in building the sports of action shooting and practical shooting into first-class participation and spectator events booth at the local and national level, with several of these major tournaments now enjoying nationally televised coverage. All of these sanctioned, professionally organized events promote the responsible use of semiautomatic pistols and revolvers and military style rifles. And since some of those competitions date back to the turn of the century, they must be considered every bit as "legitimate" and "traditional" as hunting, trap and skeet shooting.

Q: Who really needs a potentially lethal "automatic" rifle or "automatic" pistol for sporting use?

A: Thats much like asking why so many NASCAR drivers now drive racing cars with automatic transmissions rather stick shifts. Actually, "automatic" is a misnomer, because most military style rifles and pistols manufactured and sold today are "semiautomatic". That simply means they will cycle a fresh round into the chamber each time the trigger is pulled without manually using a bolt handle, a lever, a pump, or manually cocking the hammer. But semiautomatic rifles and pistols will not empty a complete magazine with one pull of the trigger. They are really no more lethal than a capably operated bolt action or lever action repeater or a pump shotgun. Furthermore, supposed "assault" rifles are not the only firearms designed to function semiautomatically. Literally millions of tubular magazine .22 rifles and auto loading shotguns have been manufactured and sold during this century. And although they are commonly used for nothing more "lethal" than hunting game birds or rabbits, shooting at bullseyes and clay pigeons, or plinking at tin cans, their potential for harm is at least equal to or greater than that of semiautomatic military style firearms. We must point out that the obvious advantage of semiautomatic firearms of any kind - and the very reason people opt for them - is the opportunity they afford for a quick follow-up if the shooter misses the target or if the hunter misses his quarry on the first shot. From a competition standpoint, most of the shooting competitions oriented around military style firearms test not only the competitor's ability to shoot accurately, but his quick reaction time, as well. So the speed afforded by semiautomatic firearms is critical.

Q: The news media says that the powerful cartridges used in military "assault" rifles aren't even used for hunting, so why would anybody want to buy a rifle that shoots them unless he or she has something disreputable in mind?

A: Obviously, the news media's sources for such gun related information is not always accurate. The most common chamberings for military style rifles are .308 Winchester for the larger rifles and .223 Remington for the smaller, lighter weight rifles. The .308 is a long time favorite among hunters, and many popular bolt action and lever action commercial deer rifles that don't look anything like military guns are still offered in the same superb caliber. Ironically, the power of this "military" cartridge qualifies it only for target shooting and medium size game, and does not begin to match the potency of several other commonly used "big game" cartridges, like the .300 magnums or the brutish .358 Winchester, .375 H&H Magnum and .416 Rigby. But we never hear of their life threatening properties. The .223 Remington is a high velocity .22 caliber cartridge and among the most popular choices for varmint hunters, as well as a favorite of ranchers and farmers anxious to protect their livestock from various predators.

Q: Why do the police say that semi-auto military style rifles are the weapons of choice of drug dealers, street gangs and other criminals?

A: "The Police" don't say that. That unsubstantiated claim has been made by a few highly publicized desk bound administrators - many of them elected politicians - who presume to represent the rank and file of America's working police officers. In truth, the overwhelming majority of police officers is adamantly opposed to restrictive firearms legislation. Because most active police officers who work the streets to combat crime on a daily basis are acutely aware of several important facts:
  1. Of all homicides committed in the U.S. during 1987, only 4% were perpetuated with rifles of any kind, semiautomatic or otherwise. And semiautomatic rifles constitute a scant 2% to 3% of all firearms confiscated in association with the commission of any types of crimes including misdemeanors and illegal possession offenses in which the rifle is never fired. That compares to the verifiable figure of 20% of all homicides being committed with cutting/stabbing instruments and 6% with blunt objects.
  2. The U.S. Justice Department's own studies reveal that no evidence exists of increased firearms restrictions resulting in decreased crime rates. Washington, D.C., with America's most restrictive gun control laws, suffers with the highest murder rate in the U.S. And New York City's Sullivan Act - now more than fifty years old - has been completely ineffective in curbing the alarming rise of violent crimes in America's largest metropolis.
  3. A large number of the semiautomatic rifles earmarked by some politicians and anti-gun activists for extinction are full size, large caliber, non-concealable firearms. Their size and weight make them very poor choices for drug dealers trying to protect their stashes or for fast moving gangs who engage in mobile warfare with opposing groups. Neither are most of these rifles "easily converted" to fully automatic fire, nor are they capable of the ridiculously high rate of fire misquoted by anti-gun activists and repeated without question by a very gullible news media.
  4. As the saying goes: "When only police are, we will live in a police state". Nobody knows the truth of that statement as well as a police officer who will one day retire from active service and become a private citizen like the rest of us. Ask a police officer if he feels that a disarmed citizenry would be an aid or burden in the performance of his duty. Then ask him if he, as a private citizen, would feel safe if his right to legally own the firearm of his choice was limited or completely revoked.
  5. The consensus of opinion among active police officers is that the real culprit is not firearms nor firearms ownership, but a lax judicial system that allows excessive plea bargaining, reduced sentences, and too-soft handling of convicted felons and hard-core criminals. When justice once again becomes an important part of the law enforcement and judicial process, America will become a safer and more law abiding place for all its citizens, and a police officer's efforts to enforce the law will be much less fraught with danger. In June of 1989 nearly three hundred police officers from across the United States traveled to Washington, D.C. to offer congressional testimony in opposition to proposed anti-gun legislation. Their trek and testimony received little media attention as did the recent formation of Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment (LEPSA), a nationwide organization of law enforcement officers. Little wonder the views of police officers are so often misrepresented and misstated.

Q: Do only "Rambo" and "Walter Mitty" types buy military style guns?

A: Certainly not. Although a military background might be partially responsible for initial interest in military style firearms, enthusiasts come from virtually every segment of our society, from every social strata, and from every occupational background. Doctors, lawyers and elected officials collect military style firearms with the same enthusiasm as machinists and electricians; educators, accountants and corporate executives compete in military matches with the same intensity as police officers and factory workers; real estate salesmen, insurance agents and screen actors as well as mechanics and merchants trek to their local shooting ranges for a day of target shooting with their favorite military style rifles and pistols. Women and young people are even becoming more involved, with many competitions providing special categories for females and for youngsters. Junior shooting programs have been part of the Olympic and National Rifle Championships for decades.

Q: But these "assault rifles" are so ugly and ominous looking they must be dangerous, so why should anyone be allowed to own one?

A: Restrictive legislation based on aesthetic appearances is pretty risky business, because what's handsome and what's not is really a very subjective judgment. Any anyone - legislator or private citizen - who advocates banning any item based solely on its appearance, is obviously guilty of very narrow thinking or has chosen to remain ignorant of that item's actual purpose, use and value. If all items that "resembled" military equipment were banned, the whole series of "CJ" Jeeps would have become extinct years ago. The "assault rifle" appellation is a grossly incorrect "buzz word" that has been effectively used to make semiautomatic rifles sound more threatening and ominous than they really are. Strictly speaking, their semiautomatic function does not satisfy the U.S. Department of Defense's description of an assault rifle, to wit: "Assault rifles are short, compact, select fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun (pistol) and rifle cartridges". Most of the targeted semi-auto firearms - including the Springfield Armory rifles - meet none of those criteria. The real question that should be posed is not ... "Why does anybody need one?" ... but, rather ... "Why should responsible citizens not be allowed to own one?" To date, no valid argument has been presented to justify depriving law abiding Americans of their Constitutional right to purchase, own or use this or any other type of civilian firearm they choose. It's obvious from the plethora of unsubstantiated innuendoes, untruths and half truths that have been used to perpetuate the semi-auto myth that this issue has become a personal crusade rather than a logical, rational debate in which the rules of fairness and common decency prevail. One cannot make a fair and honest judgment on an issue one does not understand. The simple fact is that those who so strongly advocate the banning of military firearms neither know enough about the objects of their ire nor care enough about the dangerous precedent they are determined to set by robbing American citizens of one of their most fundamental rights.

Q: The why not just limit the size of the magazines available for these high-fire power semiautomatics?

A: Because that's just skirting the real issue rather than realistically addressing the problem. When we attempt to crack down on drunken driving offenses we don't limit the size of automobile engines to four cylinders, nor do we forbid the use or purchase of alcohol to responsible citizens. Instead, we very wisely pass and enforce laws aimed at punishing irresponsible behavior and misuse. The same tactics should be applied to the criminal abuse of firearms - any firearms, not just semiautomatics. By putting teeth in our current firearms laws and by focusing on punishing the law breakers rather than turning well-intentioned, law abiding citizens into criminals, we can do a much more effective job of controlling firearms related crime. Firearms ownership is both a Constitutional right and a responsibility, and we should hit with the hammers of hell those who abuse that privilege, while defending those whose exemplary behavior has earned them that right.

Remember: All gun owners and firearms enthusiasts should be concerned about any legislation that is intended to limit or prohibit gun ownership.

All responsible gun owners are strongly encouraged to write their state legislators, congressmen and senators, and to urge their elected officials to vote against any proposed legislation that might deprive firearms enthusiasts of their right to legally own and acquire the firearms of their choice.

Last Updated: 16-May-1997


The material on this page was originally published by Springfield Armory, Inc.