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

[Crixus]

Get rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

Yep, do you want to ban this "assault style weapon?"

SBR. An average Joe can not go buy that anywhere unless they did all the NFA stuff. Same with full auto, sane with silencers and the like.

 

[Crixus]

All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.

Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?

No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.

If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.

Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.

Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "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." -- is precisely that?

Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?

No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.

If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.

Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.

Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "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." -- is precisely that?

Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

 

[Crixus]

No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.

If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.

Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.

Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "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." -- is precisely that?

Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

I have to disagree.
The round is no more effective in full auto than single fire.
In fact I'd have to say it's less effective because you cant hit shit beyond 50ft on full auto.
And the rate of twist does two things.
One it makes it more accurate and two it slows down muzzle velocity.
It's a delicate balance which allows the longer barrel to out perform the short....same bullet spin without the loss of muzzle velocity due to the added resistance of the sharp angled rifling.
Gentle angle rifling over a longer barrel will always win in accuracy and muzzle velocity.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
LOL...That makes two of us.

Truly, however, my fist two posts in this thread made no effort to discuss guns themselves, but rather the ineptitude and rampant material inaccuracies in the OP.

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

I don't frankly want to engage in 2nd Amendment and gun control discussions, and most especially not the one that surely is going on in this thread which was begun with at least three factual falsehoods and one gross misrepresentation of context.

You post a lot of interesting information on this subject.

Unfortunately the information you post is simply not accurate.

What is inaccurate about what I posted? And insofar as you've asserted something(s) in the noted posts above are factually inaccurate, what are they? Please note that the claims I made are supported by the content you'll find at the links in the two noted posts (#247 and #92), so you'll need to show that the writers there are wrong.

You'll note I made three central points:

• Bucs90's claim that the reason that .45 cal ammunition is not use in war is because it's too deadly.
  • My remarks and supporting evidence show that deadliness has nothing to do with the Hague Declaration's prohibitions.
  • My remarks and supporting evidence show that it's not .45 cal ammunition at all that the Hague Declaration prohibits.
    • .45 cal ammunition is available in non-expanding form and that form is no prohibited.
    • Whether a .45 cal bullet has a hollow point or doesn't isn't the determining factor in whether it can be used in war.
• Busc90's remark about the applicability of the Hague Declaration's Rule 77 is of no consequence to the matter of whether an AR-15 be banned for civilian sale because Rule 77's scope is limited to international warfare.
• The size of the bullet the "Pulse" gunman fired and used to kill 49 people is irrelevant because the fact is that he did kill 49 people, making his deed the worst mass shooting in recent history. The plausible consequence of the gunman's having used a larger bullet is that more people would have died, not that fewer people would have died.
  
  The point the OP made in this regard is much akin to one's basing a claim that king cobras aren't dangerous (enough to be concerned about) in comparison to black mambas or sea snakes because cobra venom is less potent than is that of a black mamba sea snake. Sure, the relatively large volume of venom a king cobra injects plays a role in its effectiveness at killing, but the venom, even in comparatively small "doses," is lethal nonetheless. That it may take less, say, sea snake venom to kill an adult isn't critical to the people who get bit by either sea snakes or king cobras, or to their surviving family and friends. It's also not relevant to people who must risk getting bitten by either.
  
  Where is the sense in the inference one is to take from Bucs90's remarks about the size of the AR-15's bullets? Are folks to think, "Oh, well, of course, seeing as the AR-15 shoots small bullets, it's okay for nuts to walk about with them shooting people?"
  
  You know what I think? I think that folks who can in good conscience and in their minds rationalize, espouse and accept as credible, as relevant, that line of argument are the same sorts of people who allow their kids to fall into gorilla pens or get grabbed by alligators.

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.

If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.

Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.

Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "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." -- is precisely that?

Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

I fully appreciate the points you two are making about FPS and whatnot. I think, however, the relevant point, regardless of the deltas in FPS or much else is this: "the loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people." Might that be different were the people targeted have on protective gear? Likely it would be, but most Americans don't generally go about their daily business of bar hopping and grocery shopping and so on wearing armor.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

I fully appreciate the points you two are making about FPS and whatnot. I think, however, the relevant point, regardless of the deltas in FPS or much else is this: "the loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people." Might that be different were the people targeted have on protective gear? Likely it would be, but most Americans don't generally go about their daily business of bar hopping and grocery shopping and so on wearing armor.

There is no protective gear for a high powered rifle that is convenient for civilian or police use,it's to heavy and cumbersome.

Which of course in the spirit of the 2nd is a good thing.

 

[320 Years of History]

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

I fully appreciate the points you two are making about FPS and whatnot. I think, however, the relevant point, regardless of the deltas in FPS or much else is this: "the loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people." Might that be different were the people targeted have on protective gear? Likely it would be, but most Americans don't generally go about their daily business of bar hopping and grocery shopping and so on wearing armor.

There is no protective gear for a high powered rifle that is convenient for civilian or police use,it's to heavy and cumbersome.

Okay. Well, that's all the more reason why the emboldened text above is a key factor and one that should share a prominent place in consideration of what to do to prevent or minimize the occurrence of gut wrenching disasters and losses of life such as what occurred at "Pulse."

 

[P@triot]

"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." - Frederick Douglass

 

[Crixus]

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

I have to disagree.
The round is no more effective in full auto than single fire.
In fact I'd have to say it's less effective because you cant hit shit beyond 50ft on full auto.
And the rate of twist does two things.
One it makes it more accurate and two it slows down muzzle velocity.
It's a delicate balance which allows the longer barrel to out perform the short....same bullet spin without the loss of muzzle velocity due to the added resistance of the sharp angled rifling.
Gentle angle rifling over a longer barrel will always win in accuracy and muzzle velocity.

Say three round burst is fired. The other two bullets don't make the one round kill better, but the cumulative effect of all three hitting flesh does.

Rate of twist in 223 cal bullets or 556 if ya want. My current rifle has 1:9. Not so sexy and for what I shoot (62gr greentip) many say it's not so good, but the effect is that yaw you speak of. There is also the tendency of green tip to ft agent wickedly. In a three shot burst on flesh it's hard to look at.


Barrel length. I was where you are on that but I'm changing. There is a school of thought that a shorter barrel is more rigid, more consistent and more accuract. I can match the best 20 inch barrel with my 16. Same with my musket which is short barrled.awesome long range gun for a muzzle loader.

 

[Tax Man]

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.

You sure have a strawman there.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

I fully appreciate the points you two are making about FPS and whatnot. I think, however, the relevant point, regardless of the deltas in FPS or much else is this: "the loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people." Might that be different were the people targeted have on protective gear? Likely it would be, but most Americans don't generally go about their daily business of bar hopping and grocery shopping and so on wearing armor.

There is no protective gear for a high powered rifle that is convenient for civilian or police use,it's to heavy and cumbersome.

Okay. Well, that's all the more reason why the emboldened text above is a key factor and one that should share a prominent place in consideration of what to do to prevent or minimize the occurrence of gut wrenching disasters and losses of life such as what occurred at "Pulse."

Meh....police the idiots not the guns.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not bad.....
But the AR-15 can fire just as hot a round as the M16 as long as you buy Milspec which is pretty much all AR-15''s that fire the 5.56
And FPS has more to do with barrel length.
The civilian AR actually has a higher FPS than the military issue M-4 due to the laws regarding barrel lengths for civilians.

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

I have to disagree.
The round is no more effective in full auto than single fire.
In fact I'd have to say it's less effective because you cant hit shit beyond 50ft on full auto.
And the rate of twist does two things.
One it makes it more accurate and two it slows down muzzle velocity.
It's a delicate balance which allows the longer barrel to out perform the short....same bullet spin without the loss of muzzle velocity due to the added resistance of the sharp angled rifling.
Gentle angle rifling over a longer barrel will always win in accuracy and muzzle velocity.

Say three round burst is fired. The other two bullets don't make the one round kill better, but the cumulative effect of all three hitting flesh does.

Rate of twist in 223 cal bullets or 556 if ya want. My current rifle has 1:9. Not so sexy and for what I shoot (62gr greentip) many say it's not so good, but the effect is that yaw you speak of. There is also the tendency of green tip to ft agent wickedly. In a three shot burst on flesh it's hard to look at.


Barrel length. I was where you are on that but I'm changing. There is a school of thought that a shorter barrel is more rigid, more consistent and more accuract. I can match the best 20 inch barrel with my 16. Same with my musket which is short barrled.awesome long range gun for a muzzle loader.

My Sig has a 16 in barrel and a 1.7 twist.
It can and will cause lighter rounds to fragment and break apart in the hotter loads.
Put a 62 grain in it and the problem disappears.

 

[Crixus]

An AR15 with a full auto pack is an M16. AR's not marked for .556 can't shoot it, or aren't supposed to. The loss in FPS between a 20, 18 and 16 inch barrel are minimal to the point t of not mattering when it comes to killing people. Civilians can not only own an M16 with a ten inch barrel, but it can be full auto with a sllencer to.

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

I have to disagree.
The round is no more effective in full auto than single fire.
In fact I'd have to say it's less effective because you cant hit shit beyond 50ft on full auto.
And the rate of twist does two things.
One it makes it more accurate and two it slows down muzzle velocity.
It's a delicate balance which allows the longer barrel to out perform the short....same bullet spin without the loss of muzzle velocity due to the added resistance of the sharp angled rifling.
Gentle angle rifling over a longer barrel will always win in accuracy and muzzle velocity.

Say three round burst is fired. The other two bullets don't make the one round kill better, but the cumulative effect of all three hitting flesh does.

Rate of twist in 223 cal bullets or 556 if ya want. My current rifle has 1:9. Not so sexy and for what I shoot (62gr greentip) many say it's not so good, but the effect is that yaw you speak of. There is also the tendency of green tip to ft agent wickedly. In a three shot burst on flesh it's hard to look at.


Barrel length. I was where you are on that but I'm changing. There is a school of thought that a shorter barrel is more rigid, more consistent and more accuract. I can match the best 20 inch barrel with my 16. Same with my musket which is short barrled.awesome long range gun for a muzzle loader.

My Sig has a 16 in barrel and a 1.7 twist.
It can and will cause lighter rounds to fragment and break apart in the hotter loads.
Put a 62 grain in it and the problem disappears.

55 grain .223 for mine. I use freedom munitions stuff.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I can post up all the info you want about barrel length an fps if ya want.
And what the hell is a full auto pack? Are you referring to the lower?
And had you read my short post and retained the info I specifically said I was referring to the 5.56.

Much of the effectiveness of an FMJ .223 bullet comes from yawing and bullet fragmentation. To get these effects the bullet must strike the target at at least 2,700 feet per second or more. From a 14.5 inch barrel you drop below 2,700 fps at @ 60 yards when firing M855 ball ammunition. An 11.5 inch barrel's performance is worse,
If you are buying an AR15 as a deffensive weapon 16 inch and 20 inch barrels are a much better choice.

True dat, but if I have a 14 inch bullet hose the feet per second matter little in full auto. Rate of twist has allot to do with it to. Lemme know when you are headed west in i10. We will shoot the hell out of some shit and you will see what I mean.

I have to disagree.
The round is no more effective in full auto than single fire.
In fact I'd have to say it's less effective because you cant hit shit beyond 50ft on full auto.
And the rate of twist does two things.
One it makes it more accurate and two it slows down muzzle velocity.
It's a delicate balance which allows the longer barrel to out perform the short....same bullet spin without the loss of muzzle velocity due to the added resistance of the sharp angled rifling.
Gentle angle rifling over a longer barrel will always win in accuracy and muzzle velocity.

Say three round burst is fired. The other two bullets don't make the one round kill better, but the cumulative effect of all three hitting flesh does.

Rate of twist in 223 cal bullets or 556 if ya want. My current rifle has 1:9. Not so sexy and for what I shoot (62gr greentip) many say it's not so good, but the effect is that yaw you speak of. There is also the tendency of green tip to ft agent wickedly. In a three shot burst on flesh it's hard to look at.


Barrel length. I was where you are on that but I'm changing. There is a school of thought that a shorter barrel is more rigid, more consistent and more accuract. I can match the best 20 inch barrel with my 16. Same with my musket which is short barrled.awesome long range gun for a muzzle loader.

My Sig has a 16 in barrel and a 1.7 twist.
It can and will cause lighter rounds to fragment and break apart in the hotter loads.
Put a 62 grain in it and the problem disappears.

55 grain .223 for mine. I use freedom munitions stuff.

I'll shoot 55 grain occasionally but I try to stick with the 63 or 65.
When I find em cheap I buy them by the shitload.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny shit dude. What part of closest gun to today's military weapon did you not understand? Was it the word "closest"? Look it up.

Since I can buy a Colt 1911 - which IS used by the military, I find your attempt to build a straw man utterly stupid.

I know four people with ARs. They would all buy an M16 if they could. Nice dodge of a question though.

You've asked them this, have you?

Sure you have.

AR15s have sold by the millions because M16s aren't available to the public.

To deny that is stupid. The AR is a wannabe weapon of war. Like gun nutters are wannabe warriors.

You have never fired a firearm in your life, have you?

I like to hit what I aim at. You anti-liberty thugs operate on a fantasy that has no basis in reality.

Burst and full auto are ONLY useful when suppressing an enemy during an assault - which is why a full auto is called an "assault rifle" and why an AR-15 is not and never will be an assault rifle; regardless of what mindless fucks like Nancy Pelosi or Fair&Balanced spew,

Look, you want to end civil rights, as does your filthy party. So you spew your filth in hopes of crushing civil liberty. The problem is that half of what you post is outright lies, and the other half is abjectly ignorant.

But whatchagunnado?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

If sarcasm was the intent, I didn't realize that to be the case.

Oh, the pictures of regiments holding muskets didn't clue you in?

That says a great deal about you.

Why wasn't it apparent to me? Because there's nothing in the post that indicates a tone of humor....not a smiley, not a "<wink>", not an "LOL," not a "Yeah, right...," or other idiomatic expressions that suggest a writer's word aren't to be taken seriously, and not anything akin to those types of cues that would inform a reader that Bucs90 wrote his remarks with any sort of sarcastic intent. Also, because in Bucs90's OP I'd already identified multiple factual inaccuracies, the I saw no reason to think that his remark about muskets was not just another one.

The 2nd directly protected "weapons of war."

"Weapons of war" is a new catch phrase the anti-liberty left is floating in it's unrelenting assault on civil rights. What fucking stupidity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I'll shoot 55 grain occasionally but I try to stick with the 63 or 65.
When I find em cheap I buy them by the shitload.

It's always the 55 that I find cheap. 65 grain is often double the cost. Of course I'm getting PMC for $.19 a round these days.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[
I'll shoot 55 grain occasionally but I try to stick with the 63 or 65.
When I find em cheap I buy them by the shitload.

It's always the 55 that I find cheap. 65 grain is often double the cost. Of course I'm getting PMC for $.19 a round these days.

My Sig likes the heavier slug.