One of these things is not like the other?: Actually, they’re the same.

In this judgemental and materialistic world where everyone has an opinion, and feels free to voice it no matter who may be hurt in doing so, perception is reality. Looks like an asshole, must be an asshole. Well no, not really.

In this post you will see images of two guns, both mine:

Lee Enfield .303
Built in 1918 - Lee Enfield MKIII* which is often referred to as the SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield)

This gun began production in 1895. Yep, you read it correctly. It was used by the British army and Commonwealth forces in general until 1957. It served in both World Wars and beyond. The sights were iron and adjustable for range. The rifle had an effective range of slightly over 500m and a maximum firing range of about 2,700m. That means at 500m it was sure to kill you and at 2,700 you'd be unlucky if it did. Still, shots have been made amazing ranges. Billy Sing, an Australian sniper in the Gallipoli campaign, racked up an amazing number of confirmed kills at great distance. The rate of fire is about 20-30 aimed shots a minute with a good operator behind it. This rifle uses sliding ramp rear sights and fixed post front sights.

Ruger Precision Rifle
Built 2016 - Ruger. This one is in 6.5mm calibre. Simply referred to as an RPR

This gun was built for a couple of reasons. Firstly as an affordable long range hunter and as a long range competition gun. It is built using a match barrel which is simply a barrel of a better quality than normal. It is available in a few different calibre's but mine is 6.5mm. I use this rifle for tactical competition matches out to long range. I have shot this one to 1551m accurately, meaning a group the size of a small apple. it can shoot very accurately out to about 2,000m. My rate of fire is about 31 aimed shots a minute. This rifle uses a sophisticated scope rather than iron sights.

The difference

Ok, so this post is not really about the guns themselves, merely the difference between them. I always try not to get too technical. If you're a gun person there's no need to give me every technical specification. I just want to highlight the general difference. (Which is not that much)

For some research I posted these pictures to IMGUR and made it public. (I never make my images public but wanted some reactions.) Interestingly the very first comment was, "the wooden one being ok, but we don't need assault rifles like the black one!" From there I got many positive and negative comments. Most of the negative ones related to how assault rifles kill people.

So, here's the kicker...These rifles are identical! That's right. Both rifles are bolt action rifles with a 10 round magazine. The tactical-looking nature of the RPR is simply to allow the shooter to adjust it into a more comfortable position. Both rifles require the operator to load the magazine with rounds and insert it to the gun. Both rifles then need the operator to cycle the bolt to cock the firing pin, set the trigger and load a round. On the trigger pull only one bullet can be shot at a time. Ever. The operator must then cycle the bolt which ejects the spend case, re-cocks the firing pin and resets the trigger and on closing loads another round ready for the trigger pull once more. To rapid fire this process has to be repeated every time and then once the last bullet is fired the magazine needs changing. Image shows rear sight on my SMLE.

The chassis the RPR sits in does not make it an assault rifle. The wooden stock of the SMLE does not make it less dangerous. These rifles are equally safe and dangerous depending on the operator.

Further differences come into play with the sights which are more modern and sophisticated on the RPR. This scope cost me about $4,000 and is made by Kahles or Austria. (Not Australia. There's a difference.) The scope allows me to see further more accurately as it is magnified at 6-24x and I can dial elevation and windage rather than just elevation. It also has sub-tension marks on the reticle (crosshairs) which allow me to *hold for elevation and windage rather than dial it in. This feature does not make the rifle more dangerous. It's just easier to work. Image shows optics on the RPR.

My RPR also has a deployable bipod mounted on the front for greater stability, rather than just leaning it on something. This does not make the rifle more dangerous, just easier to aim.

One major difference is that the SMLE made in 1918 was made intentionally for the military for it to kill people. The wooden stock is sturdy and was used in trench warfare and hand to hand combat as a weapon in its own right. It is also able to have a bayonet mounted. It's a wicked and scary looking thing. I have it, and have mounted it on the rifle. It's fearsome. In war time a soldier might use the stock to batter away an enemy's bayonet thrust and then plunge the bayonet into the enemy. They would always do this with a loaded round because if it got stuck they will fire a round to help draw it out of the body. I told you it was gruesome. It was the assault rifle of the day. (Image shows both bolt actions opened).

There is obviously many technical differences between the two rifles. Imagine a car from 1918 compared to a car from 2016. Materials and features are different, but they're both still cars. These two rifles though are basically the same bolt action rifle, packaged differently. Could someone judge one to be more dangerous than the other? Yeah, sure. Could a person's perception of the RPR turn it into an assault rifle? Hmm, yeah I guess...But only in their small, uninformed mind. Perception is not reality. If it was it would be called reality, not perception. (Image shows detachable magazines both capable of holding 10 rounds)

I do not believe for one second that my little post will have any influence or bearing on a person who has an anti-gun mindset. I don't feel that the anti-gun or pro gun argument will be swayed one way or another either. In the grand scheme of things the argument is a moot point. Guns are regulated, as are cars, drugs, alcohol, flick knives, uranium etc. We don't hear a call to ban certain cars because someone killed a person whilst drink driving on do we? Do you know how many people die on Australia's road each year? It's a lot. Slightly more than 1290 people in 2016. And yet, no call to ban cars. You see, for every argument there is a counter argument. That's how it goes. (Image shows front sight.)

"Oh yeah, Galen, but you don't need a gun"...Hmm, ok, possibly true, but you don't need a car either. I mean what happened pre-car, you know back in the day? See, argument and counter argument.

Thanks for reading my little post. If you don't like guns you probably didn't get this far and if you do, right on! if you are an unsafe gun user then sharpen up your act, you're making us all look bad and if you have simply read this post out of curiosity thank you so much, I really appreciate that.

Design and create your ideal life, don't live it by default
@galenkp