Which is which?. They are the exact same weapon except one has been modified with a different stock and attachments. They will shoot exactly the same no matter
x
Click to expand

Which is which?

(Enlarge)
Which is which?. They are the exact same weapon except one has been modified with a different stock and attachments. They will shoot exactly the same no matter

They are the exact same weapon except one has been modified with a different stock and attachments. They will shoot exactly the same no matter what they look like. I assure you that they are both real firearms that fire lethal bullets.

I have what I call a
ial experiment that
I am going to try here.
The test is simple. . all
I want you to do is
identify which of
these pictures would
be classified as an
assault weapon" in
the comments, but
before you do that I
I _ Id like you to read
I e description at the
bottom of the post. I
don' t mean for this to
be a trick or troll of
any sort I am just
curious.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+72
Views: 5803
Favorited: 1
Submitted: 07/30/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to zradel Subscribe to fucking-guns submit to reddit

Comments(104):

[ 104 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#76 - johnstyron (08/12/2012) [-]
Why would anyone ever do that to a 10/22? It's horrible
User avatar #95 to #76 - VikingSharkPANCH (12/12/2012) [-]
Yea it doesn't even look like the 10/22 anymore. ITs basically the same bolt group, but I would never recognize that as a 10/22
User avatar #92 - shinote (10/06/2012) [-]
Not gonna lie, I just like the look of some weapons over others.

I'm a guy who likes things to look nice, I mean it's the same reason people prefer BMW's to idk hondas?

If I were FORCED to choose between the two, I'd choose the top one, NOT because of all the goodies, but because I like the look of the quad rail & suppressor.

Plus I dislike guns that are styled like the bottom, reminds me of westerns & **** , of which I was never fond of.
User avatar #28 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
under the old assault rifle ban the top 10/22 would be considered an assault weapon (the stock must be fixed and magazine capacity capped at 10) even though that would be incorrect as an assault rifle is a rifle that can fire multiple shots within the same trigger pull
User avatar #29 to #28 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
and the fact it is a rim fire exempts it from the ban
User avatar #30 to #29 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
Actually, if you're going off of the 1994 AWB then the top would still be illegal even though it is a .22LR because the .22 exemption only applied to those .22's that had tube fed magazines like the Marlin 60. And in #28 you're mixing apples and oranges...according to U.S federal law, assault weapon and assault rifle are two different things.
User avatar #31 to #30 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
are you sure? I know assault weapon can be classified as almost anything used in an assault manner. in most assault charges i have seen they call anything from a baseball bat to a block of butter an assault weapon, but again this is my experience
User avatar #32 to #31 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
That's the exact point I was trying to make with this post...you put a stock and a pistol grip on a "normal" gun and all of the sudden it looks tactical so it has to be an assault weapon and therefore illegal. It could be just me but it makes no sense.
User avatar #33 to #32 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
yeah I know the feel, here in Canada I cannot get an Ak cause they look scary.....feels bad man
#35 to #33 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
It's similar here in my state. I can't own a Colt AR-15 because it was named an "assault weapon" in a law but I can own a Smith and Wesson M&P-15 which is for all intensive purposes a carbon copy of the Colt. The people making the laws make them out of fear and without a true understanding of what they're banning.
#80 to #35 - qwermy (08/22/2012) [-]
NJ, MA, or CA?
User avatar #82 to #80 - zradel (08/24/2012) [-]
None of the above...CT
User avatar #36 to #35 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
exactly, but what astounds me is i can get an 8.5 inch barrel shotgun no questions asked or taxes payed, but as soon as i want a handgun i am a baby killin terroist or if i want an ak, or even a ******* ar 15 not made in china....... it is sad
User avatar #37 to #36 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
Some of the same stupid **** here. In my state if you own a rifle that has an adjustable stock you can go to jail...because those three inches that the stock would move down apparently turn your firearm into some sort of weapon of mass destruction that will end everything.
#38 to #37 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
the only way i see my country redeeming themselves, is if the RCMP allow this to pass into the borders and into my loving arms
#68 to #38 - LEDEL (08/01/2012) [-]
ppsh43,that bitch 'll go through IIA. and standard military helmets.
7.62x25 is such a sexy round.
User avatar #70 to #68 - subgunner (08/01/2012) [-]
and yes sexy round haha
#69 to #68 - subgunner (08/01/2012) [-]
actually it is a PPS 43, just a slight difference the PPSH 41 was designed in 41 and by Georgi Shpagin which in turn was a improved version of the PPD 40 Vasily Degtyaryov it is basically just the simplest design and the PPS 43 was designed by Alexei Sudayev in 43 and is just pure stamped steel, with slower rate of fire and inability to accept drum magazines it became the weapon of tank crews and special forces, unlike the PPSH 41 that was given to entire platoons during world war 2.


TL;DR i love the PPD 40, PPSH 41, and PPS 43
User avatar #71 to #69 - alexei (08/02/2012) [-]
I like how I got a notification saying you mentioned me...
User avatar #72 to #71 - subgunner (08/02/2012) [-]
haha you invented the pps 43!!
#39 to #38 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
I'm just waiting for this to be legal in my state again...
User avatar #40 to #39 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
which state? sounds like a horrible place,
User avatar #41 to #40 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
Connecticut...where almost every flash suppressor is illegal unless it is permanently welded to the barrel
User avatar #42 to #41 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
Jesus.... what do they got against flash hiders and adjustable stocks?
User avatar #45 to #42 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
Apparently those can only be on nefarious assault weapons meant to hurt people...
User avatar #54 to #45 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
to be honest i can kind of see it, but they are also pretty good self defence weapons, and the 2 amendment is put in place to allow citizens the right to defend themselves form any oppressive government (shortly after the war with Britain) including the current U.S. government, they are trying to disarm you
0
#34 to #32 - zradel Comment deleted by zradel [-]
#78 - qwermy (08/22/2012) [-]
I can see that both are 10/22s, but the top one is an "assault weapon" because of it's above 15 round magazine, collapsing stock, grip, and (possibly fake) suppressor. These features make the gun no more dangerous. In fact, the stock and grip add accuracy (making the gun less prone to hitting the wrong target), and the suppressor makes it shootable without earplugs. In the hands of a responsible person, that makes it safer. In the hands of a criminal, it is potentially more lethal. That said, it comes down to the person holding this gun, not the gun itself. The tactical appearance of the top gun adds virtually nothing to its ability to kill, and either gun would be only safe in responsible hands.
#86 to #78 - anon (09/04/2012) [-]
your an idiot the shooter not the goodies make it accurate who the **** would want a gun with all the extra weigh? retards and ******* cuz it looks tacticool
#87 to #86 - qwermy (09/05/2012) [-]
Grips add control. There is a reason tactical weapons have them, ******** .
User avatar #98 to #87 - atrolldad (12/12/2012) [-]
the grip adds control for rapped fire only. a marksman doesn't need them also a 22 has so little kick and lift its useless to the shooter other than hand placement for training for larger cal like the mini 30 or 14 ( .22 cheaper to practice )
User avatar #105 - InglushMayjur (12/13/2012) [-]
Clearly the first one is an assault weapon, because, going by politician gun control logic, it looks more dangerous.
#88 - anon (09/08/2012) [-]
isnt that the arch angle kit?
+1
#11 - sdevmanny **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#25 to #11 - krakarot (07/30/2012) [-]
All that nostalgia.
All that nostalgia.
User avatar #43 - theplatypus (07/30/2012) [-]
Neither. Perform an assault or raid a building with 10/22 and find out what happens to you. 2/10 OP. Stop spreading anti gun slander if you don't own and regularly use weapons like this.
User avatar #44 to #43 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
I do own and use multiple weapons. The point wasn't anti-gun it was the opposite. I was trying to show how people think adding attachments and stocks somehow make the weapon completely different and then should be illegal because of it
User avatar #46 to #44 - theplatypus (07/30/2012) [-]
Well it appeared so me as if you were sating the second one SHOULD be illegal even though they are both just old rugers.
User avatar #47 to #46 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
That would never be my intention...the 10/22 is a great gun. Like i said before I was just trying to point out that in some states that gun on top would be illegal even though it is for all intensive purposes the same as the one on the bottom.
#74 to #47 - irolltoomuch (08/04/2012) [-]
As a side note, both of those are legal until you put a knife on it,

then it becomes dangerous

********************** .jpg
#48 to #47 - theplatypus (07/30/2012) [-]
Aaah sorry mate. What would they think of my mosin? :D
User avatar #49 to #48 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
From what I can see it looks perfectly legal (not to mention badass) but I don't see any restricted items on there
User avatar #50 to #49 - theplatypus (07/30/2012) [-]
Aww. And aren't they restricting your second with that? Its not a class 3 firearm so there should really be no problem
User avatar #51 to #50 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
No, in fact i have two hex receiver mosins from 1895 and 1934. The government doesn't really care about bolt action here and the Mosin Nagant is a pretty cheap weapon
User avatar #52 to #51 - theplatypus (07/30/2012) [-]
1895 is a bit early, mines from 1927.
User avatar #53 to #52 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
Yeah I know; the first ones came out in 1891 so I can't believe I found a '95...it interesting though because the sights and the way you have to load the round are different.
#67 to #43 - LEDEL (08/01/2012) [-]
I'm not saying i would go looking for trouble and **** with a 10/22,but if you get hit in the right place it wont matter anyway,unless you've got armor on.
Also,even without proper shot placement,getting shot is getting shot,it'd still hurt like **** .
Quad-tap
#3 - iamnewhere ONLINE (07/30/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Judging by the magazine on the top one, i'd say neither... because they look like BB guns..
User avatar #8 to #3 - hdierks (07/30/2012) [-]
it's a 10/22, the ammo is small
User avatar #73 - Kalder (08/04/2012) [-]
the only way either could be considered an "assault" weapon is of they have an option for full auto fire
User avatar #75 to #73 - zradel (08/05/2012) [-]
You're thinking assault rifle, which is a weapon that fires more then one bullet with each trigger pull. An "assault weapon" is not the same. If you would like to share an opinion please use proper terminology.
User avatar #123 - charagrin (12/19/2012) [-]
Am I the only on that left my 10/22 vanilla? All I added was a scope with see through mounts.
User avatar #122 - giggitygil (12/18/2012) [-]
I love my 10/22. I have the magazine with the 3 stock magazines attached to eachother, a holographic site, a red and blackish stock (without the stock) with the grip of a pistol, and a heavy barrel.
User avatar #120 - thejgwentworth (12/17/2012) [-]
My 10/22 is slightly tactical now but the truth about assault rifles is that they are select fire weapons meaning they can either fire semi auto or burst fire and in some cases full auto but the ones we used were burst fire full auto are for special forces anyway a civillian AR-15 isnt an assault rifle its just a semi auto rifle. Also this is a cool experiment you have.
User avatar #121 to #120 - zradel (12/17/2012) [-]
Assault weapon, not rifle. Two completely different things.
User avatar #113 - boobiesman (12/14/2012) [-]
ruger 10/ 22 i have one and love it
#112 - anon (12/14/2012) [-]
All these morons in this chat is making me sad, few appear to notice they are 10/22s, and even less notice that they both have exact features, the difference is optics and mag sizes, but even then, they both have the capability to have the larger mag size and optics with no major modification.
#110 - DangerToManifold (12/13/2012) [-]
both 22lr semi autos?

i'm English and this is what seems apparent to me. i may be missing something though.
User avatar #111 to #110 - danielph (12/13/2012) [-]
no you're not, they both appear to be 10/22s
User avatar #109 - dritz (12/13/2012) [-]
Both? Because you could just as easily assault them anyway...
User avatar #106 - gobnick (12/13/2012) [-]
well, seeing as the first has a suppressor (not legally available to citizens) i'd say it would be the more illegal of the two, but the semi-auto rifle that's beneath it would probably be considered the assault weapon
User avatar #108 to #106 - razgrizninja (12/13/2012) [-]
suppressor, and yes they are, proper paperwork and you can own one
-2
#19 - Zorfsic has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #21 to #19 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
They're the same, weapon- a Ruger 10/22 and according to the old assault weapons ban the bottom is not considered an assault weapon while the top would be.
-2
#22 to #19 - Zorfsic has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #26 to #22 - subgunner (07/30/2012) [-]
the only thing you got correct was that they are Ruger 10/22s
-1
#14 - badasstoaster has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17 to #14 - zradel (07/30/2012) [-]
They are the same gun...just the top has a different stock. They will shoot exactly the same.
[ 104 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)