“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[Daryl Hunt]

^
|
|
Doesn't know what an assault rifle is.

Almost any rifle can be used as an assault rifle. Some better than others. The AR-15 was designed as an Assault Rifle from the git go and was later introduced in it's semi auto form to the civilian market. For Combat use, a Match Grade AR-15 will more than hold it's own with a M-16A-4 since almost all shots will be done in the semi auto setting.

There are some that used the Model 70 308 as weapons of war. Makes a mighty fine sniper rifle. In fact, that style started out as a battle rifle long ago. It just happens it also can drop a deer or an elk as well.

So how about stopping with trying to prove your military knowledge. You don't have any.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and not used in combat until it was modified, and became a totally different firearm

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards.

Thanks for backing me up

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards.

Thanks for backing me up

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thanks for backing me up

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

and the Ar 15 does not have that ergo an Ar 15 modified to fire any other way than semiautomatic fire is no longer the same gun

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thanks for backing me up

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

What are you trying to prove here? Colt can modify its sporting rifles and custom outfit them for police use, just like Ford/GM will outfit police cars to specs from police departments.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I mean I should reply to everyone of Gun Bubbas lies and wacko comment from every gun Bubba mental case. NOT

There is not one single model of assault rifle that is available on the civilian market

I suppose you think my Ruger Mini 14 is an assault rifle too right?

Nope. It's way too clumsy to be considered an assault rifle. The way the mag goes in, the fact the charging handle is on the right hand side where you have to reach over or under the rifle or turn it to get at it. While it may operate just fine, it's just too cumbersome to be used in a combat situation of today. Stoner took one look at that M-14 and said, there has to be a better way and made the AR-10 with some real nice improvements.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

What are you trying to prove here? Colt can modify its sporting rifles and custom outfit them for police use, just like Ford/GM will outfit police cars to specs from police departments.

He's trying to say that a car modified for a stock car race is the same as one you buy off the showroom floor

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, I gave the wrong model of M-16. They were upgraded to the M-16A-2. The AF didn't have M-16A-1s. It seems the Army cut corners on the construction to save money. Hence the -1 and -2 then the -3 and the -4. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 sometime in the late 60s. Sometimes I believe that the leaders in the Army were trying to derail the M-16 program from the very beginning. Had they been successful, there would have been NO Civilian AR-15 semi autos at all.

Just learned today, the Army is now working with a new caliber that will replace both the 556 and the 762. The 6.5. With the new materials, the ammo is as light as the 556, uses the same mags as the 762 and all you have to do is do a barrel change on the battle rifles. It means that they are working on modifying the M-16 and the M-4 to also accept the 6.5. But going from the 556 to the 6.5 is more than just a barrel change. it might be easier to design a whole new rifle.

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

and the Ar 15 does not have that ergo an Ar 15 modified to fire any other way than semiautomatic fire is no longer the same gun

We are talking about the gun that you said didn't exist. The AR-15 Model 601. You know, the one that brought us the M-16. You already stated that NO AR-15s were made that could fire full auto. And yet, there it is for God and Everyone to see.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Almost any rifle can be used as an assault rifle. Some better than others. The AR-15 was designed as an Assault Rifle from the git go and was later introduced in it's semi auto form to the civilian market. For Combat use, a Match Grade AR-15 will more than hold it's own with a M-16A-4 since almost all shots will be done in the semi auto setting.

There are some that used the Model 70 308 as weapons of war. Makes a mighty fine sniper rifle. In fact, that style started out as a battle rifle long ago. It just happens it also can drop a deer or an elk as well.

So how about stopping with trying to prove your military knowledge. You don't have any.

Why don't you go ahead and list all the firearms NOT designed for military use. Can you, Mr. Military Knowledge?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I mean I should reply to everyone of Gun Bubbas lies and wacko comment from every gun Bubba mental case. NOT

There is not one single model of assault rifle that is available on the civilian market

I suppose you think my Ruger Mini 14 is an assault rifle too right?

Nope. It's way too clumsy to be considered an assault rifle. The way the mag goes in, the fact the charging handle is on the right hand side where you have to reach over or under the rifle or turn it to get at it. While it may operate just fine, it's just too cumbersome to be used in a combat situation of today. Stoner took one look at that M-14 and said, there has to be a better way and made the AR-10 with some real nice improvements.

They fire the exact same round at the exact same rate of fire

and FYI there are mini 14s with different stocks

THIS is still a mini 14

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We are talking about the gun that you said didn't exist. The AR-15 Model 601. You know, the one that brought us the M-16. You already stated that NO AR-15s were made that could fire full auto. And yet, there it is for God and Everyone to see.

And, the point is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

and the Ar 15 does not have that ergo an Ar 15 modified to fire any other way than semiautomatic fire is no longer the same gun

We are talking about the gun that you said didn't exist. The AR-15 Model 601. You know, the one that brought us the M-16. You already stated that NO AR-15s were made that could fire full auto. And yet, there it is for God and Everyone to see.

No I said they are not available on the civilian market

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So they were upgraded by the addition of completely different firing mechanisms thereby making them completely different firearms

The firing mechanism is what differentiates firearms not the cosmetics or the ability to rail mount accessories

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

What are you trying to prove here? Colt can modify its sporting rifles and custom outfit them for police use, just like Ford/GM will outfit police cars to specs from police departments.

He's trying to say that a car modified for a stock car race is the same as one you buy off the showroom floor

Wrong, cupcake. The AR-15 Model 601 was what I and hundreds of thousands of other used in the Air Force. Yes, we called it M-16 but it had the triangle charging handle identifying it as an AR-15 that just had the rails and such to mount the M-16 accessories on. Otherwise, the AR-15 Model 601 is identical to the M-16A-2 except the AR-15 model 601 was green instead of black. It's like adding stock racks to your pickup.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

and the Ar 15 does not have that ergo an Ar 15 modified to fire any other way than semiautomatic fire is no longer the same gun

We are talking about the gun that you said didn't exist. The AR-15 Model 601. You know, the one that brought us the M-16. You already stated that NO AR-15s were made that could fire full auto. And yet, there it is for God and Everyone to see.

No I said they are not available on the civilian market

Actually, they are. You can buy a clone of a Model 601 that is semi auto for about 900 bucks. But it will have some additions that makes it just short of a match M-16 like a lot of Chromium. But not quite as much as the Match M-16 which costs about 1500 bucks. Now, if you want one of the original full auto Model 601 from the 60s get ready to shell out about 3000 bucks as a minimum bid but have your FFL handy.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/769867578
it's a modified 601 to the A-1 specs by changing the a birdcage flashhider, improved BCG and a buttstock with the trap door). It has a 20" small diameter barrel with 1 in 12" twist and Colt markings on BCG, upper and barrel. You can own a real piece of history if you have the license and the money for a fraction of the cost of a real Manufactured M-16. Why it's so cheap, I don't know. There were a hell of a lot more M-16s made than the AR-15 Model 601. If you wanted a real M-16 you would have to pay in excess of 15,000 bucks. And there are millions of those. There were less than 9000 Model 601s made.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what the 601 looked like before the mods. And the dates it was produced. You will notice it look like stripped down M-16. Page Title

The AR and the M-16 both uses the direct impengement gas operated sliding bolt action from the very first one produced in 1959. That hasn't changed. The Mods were the made were the ability to use the M-16 accessories. Until the Model 601 was retired, it even used the triangle charging handle. The M-16 uses the bar charging handle. If what you thought was a M-16 and it had a triangle charging handle you were firing an AR-15 Model 601 modified. If you look at the pictures here of the Model 601 you will see the full auto feature.
Page Title

The ones I used all had the triangle charging handles and we called them M-16A-2s. But the M-16A-2s manufactured in 1986 all had the bar charging handle. The Marines finally dumped their -1s in 1986 and went with the same one that the AF was using and were a whole lot happier.

BTW, the Army finally went with the -4 which was what the AF was using in the early 90s. They finally dumped their bargain basement -1s and -3s.

How about leaving military history to Military Historians instead of must making crap up as you go to try and cover up a lie already.

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

and the Ar 15 does not have that ergo an Ar 15 modified to fire any other way than semiautomatic fire is no longer the same gun

We are talking about the gun that you said didn't exist. The AR-15 Model 601. You know, the one that brought us the M-16. You already stated that NO AR-15s were made that could fire full auto. And yet, there it is for God and Everyone to see.

No I said they are not available on the civilian market

Funny, I already found one. And in that same area, I found some 601 semi auto clones as well that are brand new. You need to look at my 601 posts a bit closer. And the real deal I found was a AR-15 Model 601 upgraded to an A-1 (probably an A-2) and it's full auto. It can be owned by a civilian all day long as long as you have the Money and the FFL License. So don't say a civilian can't own it. Civilians always could and still can.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

And, the point was that because the AR15 was designed for military contract, it should be banned?

Again, list all firearms NOT designed for military use.

 

[Pop23]

AR15s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less

Again this guy also doesn't have a clue , There is no way that he can change the fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon to compete for a massive government contract for the military. Stick that in your gun expert ear.

and not used in combat until it was modified, and became a totally different firearm

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards.

Thanks for backing me up

I;m not backing you up. I am just trying to educate the uneducated masses we have in here. I don't want to ban all guns. But I do want to see common sense gun regulations like we have in Colorado. But we just had one of the common sense laws turned down by the State Republican Senate yesterday concerning mentally ill or violent people having guns. The House (democratic controlled and even supported by some republicans) sent the bill to the Senate and it never made it out of committee. And yet, I hear the gun nutters saying something needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I guess the NRA sees them as a source of income so that just can't happen. It's going to be on the next general ballot and guess how the voters are going to go on that one. One of the Representatives (R) from here (the most red part of the state) voted for it yet it failed in the senate committee. It was never allowed to go to a vote in the Senate. It's mighty close to the 2018 elections to be playing those kinds of life threatening games. We'll see.

But I don't support you, personally. But I also don't support the "Grab all the Guns" dude either. And I sure as hell don't support the NRA paid trolls either.

So, by way of example, you get a call from your daughter that she just fought off a rapist who told her that he was going to kill her after (details not appropriate for this forum) and dump her body somewhere where no one would ever find her. She continued the description by telling you how she fought him off and that the reason she was able to escape was by the use of a weapon.

Which, of the many weapons that she might tell you she used to save her life, would you find unacceptable to have used?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing the weapon she choose to fight off the attack was registered?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing she had no license for it?

Would you find it unacceptable that she completed no government mandated training with it?

Would you find it unacceptable that the weapon she used had a rail on it?

Would you find it unacceptable that it was Military grade?

I think the truth is that you probably wouldn't care. And maybe, most important is that nobody really would care, except perhaps the murderous rapist.

Look forward to your response.

 

[Likkmee]

The AR injures far too many people. They need to focus more on the M14 in 7.62.It has a lot more power and is far more accurate at long distances.