For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[320 Years of History]

Sorry dude, but he's right, but probably for the wrong reasons.

TY, but there's no reason to be right when citing a factual point of information, and that reason is because one gives a damn about presenting facts not fiction.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

 

[320 Years of History]

Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.

Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.

Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.

**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.


2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR

View attachment 78100

I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.

Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.

Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.

• DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
  
• About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.

Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war, the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?

The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition. From the Hague Declaration document:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
​

Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.

• General thought on the matter -- The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues

[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.​

• Specific guidance re: hollow point bullets -- Military Sniper Combat Use of Open Tip Match Ammunition
• Practice Relating to Rule 77. Expanding Bullets

What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.

One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.

As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.


Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.

Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition. The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Sorry dude, but he's right, but probably for the wrong reasons.

The Armalite AR-15 came first, was bought by Colt and refined into the M-16 then, later, Colt, owning the rights to "AR-15" made a civilian version labeled, you guessed it, the AR-15.


FWIW, I used to own a neat little gun, the AR-7, also by Armalite. Now made by Henry.

http://www.nodakspud.com/RetroAR15.pdf
The M16 is a child of the late Eugene Stoner, then-chief engineer for ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Aircraft. At this point it’s appropriate to point out the somewhat confusing nomenclature associated with this weapon series. Prior to its type classification by the U.S. military, it was known as the AR-15, and, as it was designed for military applications, it was a selective-fire weapon, meaning that it had the capacity to fire in the full-auto mode. This designation was used because it was part of ArmaLite’s product line and all of their firearms designations used an “AR” prefix followed by a number, usually indicating their chronological order of development in ArmaLite’s catalog. After adoption by the U.S. military, Colt decided to market a civilian version that was semiautomatic-only and designated it as the Colt AR-15. So today, the term “M16” refers to a selective-fire rifle, while an “AR-15” is the semiautomatic-only version

Yes...I mean the civilian semi auto only version. It came after the full auto version. The civilian semi-auto version came after the full auto version. Names aside. As you know.

Blue:
Oh, I see now. You meant something other than what you wrote and without regard to what I actually wrote, but your meaning something other than what you wrote was enough for you to attempt to castigate me. And so my initial assertions that your remarks suffer from a lack of clarity and accuracy are shown again to be correct.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's why, years ago, after I retired from the Army and a civilian occupation, I bought land FAR out in the mountains of Montana. 260 acres to be exact. Hell, one could see the direction this poor country was heading back then - and I wanted to be as far from highly populated areas as I could get. There are storm clouds on the horizon. There is a storm coming in America and the main instigators of it are liberals. Most will not stop until this country is destroyed. Taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is a necessary part of their ideology.

While I agree that is the goal of "modern liberals", more than half the country disagrees with them. Of course, not that many side with Republican authoritarians either.

Regardless, I have great faith our nation will survive and I have great faith most Americans are loyal to our ideals and our Constitution. The problem, IMO, is that far too many Americans are soft Pillsbury Doughboys compared to our ancestors even as recently as "the Greatest Generation". The children of our nation have grown soft and spoiled. They don't fight for their rights, unless it's to shop. The problem is one of being spoiled by our own successes as a nation. They are content to let the Federal government mother them.

The Patriot Act is a great example of this. Look how many quickly supported a federal government that reduced our freedom for the sake of an illusion of security.

 

[bucs90]

Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.

Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.

Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.

**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.


2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR

View attachment 78100

I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.

Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.

Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.

• DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
  
• About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.

Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war, the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?

The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition. From the Hague Declaration document:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
​

Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.

• General thought on the matter -- The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues

[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.​

• Specific guidance re: hollow point bullets -- Military Sniper Combat Use of Open Tip Match Ammunition
• Practice Relating to Rule 77. Expanding Bullets

What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.

One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.

As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.


Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.

Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition. The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Sorry dude, but he's right, but probably for the wrong reasons.

The Armalite AR-15 came first, was bought by Colt and refined into the M-16 then, later, Colt, owning the rights to "AR-15" made a civilian version labeled, you guessed it, the AR-15.


FWIW, I used to own a neat little gun, the AR-7, also by Armalite. Now made by Henry.

http://www.nodakspud.com/RetroAR15.pdf
The M16 is a child of the late Eugene Stoner, then-chief engineer for ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Aircraft. At this point it’s appropriate to point out the somewhat confusing nomenclature associated with this weapon series. Prior to its type classification by the U.S. military, it was known as the AR-15, and, as it was designed for military applications, it was a selective-fire weapon, meaning that it had the capacity to fire in the full-auto mode. This designation was used because it was part of ArmaLite’s product line and all of their firearms designations used an “AR” prefix followed by a number, usually indicating their chronological order of development in ArmaLite’s catalog. After adoption by the U.S. military, Colt decided to market a civilian version that was semiautomatic-only and designated it as the Colt AR-15. So today, the term “M16” refers to a selective-fire rifle, while an “AR-15” is the semiautomatic-only version

Yes...I mean the civilian semi auto only version. It came after the full auto version. The civilian semi-auto version came after the full auto version. Names aside. As you know.

Blue:
Oh, I see now. You meant something other than what you wrote and without regard to what I actually wrote, but your meaning something other than what you wrote was enough for you to attempt castigate me. And so my initial assertion that your remarks suffer from a lack of clarity and accuracy are shown again to be correct.

The semi auto version did not come before the full auto version.

 

[GaryDog]

Thank you for illustrating how failed liberal policy of disarming the American people has resulted in catastrophic effects for the American people.

Is that's what has been happening?

Just kidding, not a real question. I know you're a liar.

How am I a "liar"? It's your statistic junior. If it's inaccurate - it's on you. It proves you are the liar. If it's accurate, it proves how liberalism has failed the American people. Which way do you want to go with it? I'm good with either....

You're actually claiming that gun laws have been MORE restrictive since 2001? Are you fucking high?

 

[GaryDog]

Liberal "thought"

.I can squash your right to own firearms but you can't monitor mosques or stop Muslim refugees from coming into this country basically unchecked


Morons

Stupid (American citizen) Muslim refugee, shooting up a nightclub.

You're really REALLY dumb, aren't you?

 

[320 Years of History]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

The point is that I noted a point of fact -- the AR-15 evolved into the M16 -- and Busco refuted it as noted in the red text above, referring to my parenthetical comment (separated by commas) as "sh*t." The point is that I was not wrong. The point is that Busco didn't at all address the substance of the post in which he found my remark about he M16. The point is that Busco focused on a minor point of fact that is merely ancillary information, thus why it was offered parenthetically, and has used that bit of minutia as the full basis for whether my remarks should be taken seriously. The point, therefore, is that Busco is vulgar cretin.

 

[GaryDog]

The gun nuts have decided that the background check loopholes are the most important element of gun rights in this country.

Why is that?

There is no loophole, you're just lying.

The ONLY time a background check is not needed is when a PRIVATE individual sells a single weapon the he/she owns, to another private individual.

You know this, yet chose to lie.

Fucking leftists, not so much as a shred of integrity in any of you.

They also don't admit that this "loop hole" takes place 99% of the time in the urban ghettos where black market gun sales happen dozens of times a day. More black market gun sales occur in a Chicago weekend than every Illinois gun show on any given weekend.

You know, it's funny when you consider this: The United States of America is one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world - second only to Russia. We export all manner of death and destruction to anyone (and everyone) who has the cash. Yet our leaders (and I use that term very loosely) want to disarm the law-abiding citizens of our own country. Has no one ever asked - "Where the hell do these inner city minorities get the tens of thousands of guns that are always there?"

Hell, one many weekends this year, there have been as many deaths as there were in Orlando. Yet the democrat controlled city NEVER affects change in that city.

Please - help me understand the crap that goes on in this country and how the hell democrats can "walk out" on a moment of silence while their constituencies are dying in the cities that THEY control??

Find ONE -- even ONE -- fucking example of this, dipshit.

 

[Timmy]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

 

[Chuz Life]

Two

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Additionally, let's get this clear, once and for all - the definition of an "Assault rifle". The layman's definition is simple - it is a military style rifle capable of firing either semi-automatic or select fire to automatic. A AR-15 is NOT built with a select fire switch. It is a semi-automatic rifle and nothing more. Is it possible in the United States to own automatic weapons? YES! After making an application with the ATF (and FBI) and paying your application fee of $200 dollars and waiting a year or two for the investigation - you can receive your FFL (Federal Firearms License) which gives you the ability to pay THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS to purchase an automatic weapon.

Why do not the majority of American NOT get the FFL? Several reasons - one, the fully automatic weapons are HIGH dollar and two - the ammunition needed to "feed these beasts" will put you into bankruptcy. Third - What the hell is the need? Contrary to the belief of the left - most of us don't get off on wasting bullets tearing up weeds. Just that simple.

 

[GaryDog]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Because it's more effective at killing lots of people, all at once, in a situation where you're moving, and under duress. It's designed specifically for that.

But the gun nuts won't let you listen to that simple fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Why did David use a sling to kill Goliath? Because it was the most effective weapon at the time.

Pistols are great for between 10-100 yards (and 100 yards is sometimes pushing it). A rifle will reach out 100-500-600 yards and in some cases 800-1000 yards and up to a mile with larger caliber rifles combined with the proper scopes.

 

[Divine Wind]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

I think it's important to be factual, but not get bogged so far down in it we forget the big picture.

The M-14 won the design contest for replacing the M-1 Garand, with the AR-10 being a loser. Even though I'd love to have an M-14, I couldn't justify spending $2000 for something that would see little use. Instead, I spent half that on a DPMS AR-10, specifically, the Oracle: 308 WIN & 7.62 NATO 16-18

 

[Divine Wind]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Two

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

Indeed. When Eugene Stoner was first approached - he developed the AR-10 to replace the M-14 (wooden stocks don't do well in jungles with extremely high humidity). I don't recall off hand why the DoD didn't like the AR-10 - but I believe that it was that they wanted a lighter, higher speed weapons system that would be easy to carry through jungles and even easier to carry a full combat load.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Exactly.

 

[320 Years of History]

Two

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.

Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.