There are three basic components to an "assault weapon" in the rifle area:
1. Semi-automatic.
2. Detachable magazine.
3. Certain "features" of a generally military appearance.
These latter features generally include pistol grips, grenade launchers, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, and sometimes muzzle brakes/compensators and "threaded" barrels.
The 1994 AW ban allowed a weapon to have ONE--no more--of those features. (I wrote in TDF 25 about that--more on that later.) Other laws listed features completely banned without regard to other features. New York has banned ALL of the above features. California allows muzzle brakes, which means some sort of threading on barrels is permitted. Its far-Left governor even vetoed one bill that would have extended its already extensive rifle restrictions. So go figure! But it's still California, a State needing a couple of generations of military occupation and disenfranchisement of its people to turn it around.
The question for realistic and practicality/function-based Patriot gunners--that means, not hobbyists, purists, libertarians, or liberals--is, which features are more important in practical terms? That is, in intense negotiations involving imminent AW bans by the insurrectionist regime in power, what can be traded for what--and what is worth trading for what?
A few of the features are easy to write off. Grenade launchers, for instance, are useless without grenades, and only flare-type items are novelties. Thus it would be an obvious chip to bargain. Only on the Yugoslav SKS does the feature really factor into the weapon, and between its fixed magazine and carve-outs if needed, it should not be affected. (Besides, its commie caliber makes it secondary in any case.)
Bayonet lugs would be next on the expendable list. In truth, I'm wondering why we don't see more marketing of "spearfishing knives" with clamps for use on a "metal rod" to take the place of the lugs. In any case, that's two features we can deal with losing.
This leaves pistol grips, flash hiders, muzzle brakes/comps, and adjustable stocks, with threading being contingent on the muzzle features. This is where the real functionality exists, and where the matter becomes most entangled from the good guys' practical perspective. They each have at least some impact on an individual's employment of a weapon, with relative importance varying by user, caliber, and to a degree employment.
PISTOL GRIP: Ergonomics for accuracy and handling on move; some impact on rapidity of fire. / Most distinctive and most politically targeted; may aid in "assault" actions.
FLASH HIDERS: Actually hides the flash more from the firer than anyone downrange. / Perception of aiding night criminality.
MUZZLE BRAKES/COMPENSATORS: Help to smaller-framed shooters; faster follow-up shot. / Perception of aiding mass shootings.
BARREL SHROUDS: Protects shooters. / Comes into play in high firing rates.
ADJUSTABLE STOCKS: Aids shooters of various builds; storage. / Aids concealment or "assault" actions.
At this point, I direct the reader to TDF 49, where I discuss a hope of distinguishing pistol-caliber arms from full-power rifle-caliber ones in regard to magazine limitations. Similar arguments can and should be made for distinguishing pistol-caliber carbines (PCCs) and home-defense shotguns in this regard. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on these features only on rifle-caliber arms.
Of these four, muzzle brakes/compensators are the most easily defended politically. Most states with AW bans still allow them, and they have clear "sporting" value. In tactical terms, they are more useful in larger-caliber rifles, while perhaps counterproductive for smaller-caliber weapons. Preserving them would also facilitate preserving barrel threading.
(A PC argument in FAVOR of them is also possible: "They especially help women--including 'trans-women'--to shoot. And don't worry, those mass shooters are almost always cis-gender males." Hey, whatever works.)
Adjustable stocks have a strong argument in their favor, but only if compartmentalized. For instance, traditional telescoping AR stocks do little in the way of aiding concealment, but do help the same weapon be used effectively by varying sizes of people. (See also PC argument above. Again, whatever works.) If they can be segregated from full-on folding stocks or telescoping stocks that can all but eliminate the stock's contribution to overall length, then they might be savable. Barring that, they are such a classic AW feature as to make them DOA. Also, tactically it should be noted that most standard-issue military rifles today use fixed stocks anyway, making this "military feature" actually rather "specialized."
Flash hiders are gone. Fuggetaboudem! No "sporting" use, and the urban chaos point defense argument only goes so far. (Yet of course, the one most useful tactically--see later. To save them would require a LOT of sacrifice.)
Barrel shrouds are expendable on their face. Most rifles, even military rifles, don't have them. While there is functionality to them, they are indeed heavily cosmetic, and hard to justify for civilian use. Even defensive shootings rarely involve the rate of fire they are designed to heal with. They are not worth much effort.
Pistol grips are the big ones--and the ones that demonstrate so much of the problem in this regard. They are the favorite son of shooting hobbyists, and the favorite target of gun-banners. Thus, they are where the sharpest fight would occur. They are also the LEAST useful of these for 2A civilian Militia. Sufficient accuracy can be obtained with traditional wrist grips, and most of the users in that context lack the training and discipline to act in many capacities where pistol grips would be that big of a benefit. (On a personal note, I've found that carrying a rifle wrist-grip on a long march is actually less fatiguing than using the pistol grip.)
Now for some of my standard graphics on this:
As for AR-pattern rifles, the New York ban especially has borne a number of interesting stock/grip replacement systems. The middle one below, though, does seem to place the optic rather high when shouldered.
Surveying social media and statements by noted anti-gunners, pistol grips seem to occupy such a high level of attention from them, be it from genuine concern or simply them being the most conspicuous and symbolic of the features, that a ban ONLY on pistol grips may actually satisfy a sizeable chunk of the rank-and-file of gun control supporters.
In any case, pistol grips are, rationally speaking, the most expendable feature AND the most targeted. So it would be a valuable chip that could save much of the higher-end firepower available to American civilians. The problem is that too much of the 2A community acts in a less rational manner. Libertarians go off yelling about repealing NFA, driving away the moderates and neutrals of the electorate. Purists bristle at and join with their conspiracy theory-sodden friends in chants of, "Shall not be infringed!"--as if that incantation will magically change the political trends and their own failure to stop the 2020 Election Steal. Liberal gunners, while potentially useful on a good day on some matters, go too far the other way, probably being actually supportive of expansive AW bans (save perhaps for their "standard-capacity" pistol magazines). And too many, but not all, hobbyists would take the loss of this understandably favored feature personally, acting like petulant children in the whole process.
On that last group, I reprint this from TDF 25 (mentioned above):
In the early 2000s (decade), during the 1994 AW ban, I was looking at a 5.56mm AK (a Century Arms SAR3, example pictured below), noting how a pistol grip was its sole "evil feature" (that 1994 law allowed for one such feature). I noted to the clerk/dealer how it would be smarter to have a thumbhole stock (not one of the features in that law), ignore adjustable stocks (standard military rifles are one-size-fits-all), leave off grenade launchers (no one has the grenades) and bayonet lugs (market a "survival knife" with clamps so it can used for "spearfishing"), and having a flash hider as the single feature of concern. The answer was that people wanted guns that looked more like the real thing. It was a case of treating 2A as a hobby and indulgence, and NOT as it is intended--facilitating the efficacy of the civilian Militia.
The lesson these hobbyists, a set which includes many in the others sets, is what I said in TDF 37: The Second Amendment is not about a hobby! Preserving civilian 2A firepower is far more important than whether one's favorite toy LOOKS like something big bad soldiers carry. And they are NOT essential, especially in the roles most of them will ever hold in a Militia-type situation. I place again one of my favorite graphics here:
Hobbyists can go play with this and poke hoplophobes:
It is not worth seeing a nationwide stripdown of firepower to New York State levels to try to save pistol grips on semi-automatic rifles. Allow and encourage our pro-gun legislators to act to preserve essential firepower, and as much firepower as possible. Using the 1994 ban's parameters, even if adding muzzle brakes and compensators, would at least allow for flash hiders--the most tactically useful feature for the 2A civilian Militia--plus have the political/legislative advantage of acting on material already in the U.S. Code. No, it's not what you want. No, it's not what *I* want. And no, I'm not going to say these bans are somehow constitutional (certainly not by the standards used for 1A--but that's a whole other story). I AM going to say that this is about something far more real and practical than your "principles." This is about FIREPOWER. That is more important.
And one final graphic, the flagship of THE DAILY FUDD. It IS the reality. Let us not lose it.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
