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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And no matter what you say it is not the same rifle that is available to civilians

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, given that ALL firearms were designed for military use, and that Daryl thinks that any gun designed for military use should be banned, can we go ahead and assume that Daryl wants ALL FIREARMS banned?

I think we can.

 

[Pop23]

So, given that ALL firearms were designed for military use, and that Daryl thinks that any gun designed for military use should be banned, can we go ahead and assume that Daryl wants ALL FIREARMS banned?

I think we can.

My question really is, what does it matter what the firearm was designed for? I posed this to Daryl awhile ago and have yet to get an answer:

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My question really is, what does it matter what the firearm was designed for? I posed this to Daryl awhile ago and have yet to get an answer:

Because he has no real answer. He has been shown that his qualms with the AR15 are purely emotional. It looks scary, so he wants to get rid of it.

It's the same with all these clowns.

There is also this underlying irrational belief that there is such thing as a non-lethal firearm, and if they could just ban all the lethal ones, we would be safe.

ALL FIREARMS ARE LETHAL!!!

 

[Pop23]

My question really is, what does it matter what the firearm was designed for? I posed this to Daryl awhile ago and have yet to get an answer:

Because he has no real answer. He has been shown that his qualms with the AR15 are purely emotional. It looks scary, so he wants to get rid of it.

It's the same with all these clowns.

There is also this underlying irrational belief that there is such thing as a non-lethal firearm, and if they could just ban all the lethal ones, we would be safe.

ALL FIREARMS ARE LETHAL!!!

I think my question to Daryl delves into the reasoning. Daryl has expressed many times about his hatred of conservatives. His answer would clearly show as to why he wants guns banned, or at least restrict them. Is it rational, or irrational?

Through this entire thread he makes the claim that the AR 15 is military grade, or at a minimum claims that it was developed for the military. I've posed the question many times: So what?

Daryl speculates that banning this class of guns we will either eliminate the body count, or minimize that count by eliminating the gun. But it's been more than adequately demonstrated that, minus this weapon, other weapons with equal capabilities or greater could/would be easily substituted. The net gain? Zero.

So, although it's an interesting discussion, it accomplishes nothing.

So, bottom line, if the goal cannot possibly be achieved without the criminals agreeing to participate, why seek the goal in the first place?

There must be another motive.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There must be another motive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the public

There is absolutely no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.

To repeat.... this rifle has never been used by the military. It has never been used in a war. It is not a weapon of war. It is the exact same rifle as all other semi automatic rifles, and as well, every semi automatic pistol and shotgun.......no difference in how they operate.....and you can even call revolvers semi automatic weapons as well...

There have been millions of these rifles in private hands since they came out.....and only a few are used a year for crime or murder..

In fact....more people are killed by lawn mowers every single year than are killed each year by any mass public shooter with an AR-15 rifle..... If you want to save more lives, ban lawn mowers.....

Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.
By the way Stoners family said after he had died and the AR-15 came under pressure , that this gun was never designed to be used by the public , it was designed for the military from day one. and he would roll over in his grave to find out these stupid gun Bubbas like to make hamburger out of anything they shoot with it.

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

 

[Pop23]

There is absolutely no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.

To repeat.... this rifle has never been used by the military. It has never been used in a war. It is not a weapon of war. It is the exact same rifle as all other semi automatic rifles, and as well, every semi automatic pistol and shotgun.......no difference in how they operate.....and you can even call revolvers semi automatic weapons as well...

There have been millions of these rifles in private hands since they came out.....and only a few are used a year for crime or murder..

In fact....more people are killed by lawn mowers every single year than are killed each year by any mass public shooter with an AR-15 rifle..... If you want to save more lives, ban lawn mowers.....

Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.
By the way Stoners family said after he had died and the AR-15 came under pressure , that this gun was never designed to be used by the public , it was designed for the military from day one. and he would roll over in his grave to find out these stupid gun Bubbas like to make hamburger out of anything they shoot with it.

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Let me short circuit this lack of reasoning on the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd was included in the bill of rights to garner support for the Constitution's ratification. It was a measure to ease the fear that the new federal government would do like the Brits and confiscate all weapons.

It is a ban on federal power (which no SCOTUS seems brave enough to actually recognize).

The right to keep and bear arms exists with or without government.

Now, if you want to debate the extent to which each individual state can regulate firearms, that is a different discussion.

We have people on here who want to ban a variant of a semi-auto rifle because it looks scary. That's the reality.

 

[jbander]

No...it is not the gun of choice....the pistol is the gun of choice...in fact, the worst school shooting was done with two handguns, not a rifle.....

That gun you hate....is protected by the 2nd Amendment....specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment as stated by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park.....as he bitch slapped the 7th circuit for ignoring D.C. v Heller and it's protection for guns that are in common use for lawful purposes, stating the AR-15 rifle is just such a gun....

Well when it's banned it won't be protected by the 2nd. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders . The pistol holds supreme because it is made up of family disputes and the gun Bubba killing that then goes along with it. Of the mass murders over 10 people the a major majority are killed by your hamburger gun your trying to protect, You see I don't give a dam what you want as far as these hamburger guns are concerned , my only concern is what I want , and I want them banned and have and will supply money to accomplish that.
I want To tell everyone before hand, that the gun Bubbas will turn this into I want to ban all guns , because the brain drain that goes with this group dictates that stupid kind of thinking.

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.

Good reply, wasn't it presented to the US governmnet first, before the other countries.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.

To repeat.... this rifle has never been used by the military. It has never been used in a war. It is not a weapon of war. It is the exact same rifle as all other semi automatic rifles, and as well, every semi automatic pistol and shotgun.......no difference in how they operate.....and you can even call revolvers semi automatic weapons as well...

There have been millions of these rifles in private hands since they came out.....and only a few are used a year for crime or murder..

In fact....more people are killed by lawn mowers every single year than are killed each year by any mass public shooter with an AR-15 rifle..... If you want to save more lives, ban lawn mowers.....

Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.
By the way Stoners family said after he had died and the AR-15 came under pressure , that this gun was never designed to be used by the public , it was designed for the military from day one. and he would roll over in his grave to find out these stupid gun Bubbas like to make hamburger out of anything they shoot with it.

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

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.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

 

[jbander]

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.

I've supported the 2nd all my life but if it is between the 2nd or doing it the Gun Bubbas NRA way, I'd lean to changing the second.

 

[jbander]

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.

Like the page you show here of the 601

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well when it's banned it won't be protected by the 2nd. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders . The pistol holds supreme because it is made up of family disputes and the gun Bubba killing that then goes along with it. Of the mass murders over 10 people the a major majority are killed by your hamburger gun your trying to protect, You see I don't give a dam what you want as far as these hamburger guns are concerned , my only concern is what I want , and I want them banned and have and will supply money to accomplish that.
I want To tell everyone before hand, that the gun Bubbas will turn this into I want to ban all guns , because the brain drain that goes with this group dictates that stupid kind of thinking.

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.

Good reply, wasn't it presented to the US governmnet first, before the other countries.

and the military found it to be inadequate

And no matter how you slice it the civilian model is not the same as the military model.

 

[jbander]

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?

Ya it accepts the NATO round. By the way I don't give a dam whether it shoots one bullet at a time or 1000 at a time, to call it a assault weapon, every company that produce the AR-15 called them assault weapons as did Ruger. Before the pressure was put on them by the public so these company's where brought together by a Weapons support organization who suggested not calling them assault weapons and small minds that make up the Gun Bubbas world , think they were never called assault weapons. Bullshitting by changing the name only worked for the micro minds.

 

[Auld Phart]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

 

[jbander]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

 

[Auld Phart]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I've supported the 2nd all my life but if it is between the 2nd or doing it the Gun Bubbas NRA way, I'd lean to changing the second.

All the 2nd Amendment was supposed to do was prohibit Congress from enacting legislation that would regulate arms.

Yet, in 1934, in reaction to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the Federal Government, for the first time ever, enacted legislation regulating firearms by way of a Tax (that's how they got around the 2nd Amendment's federal ban). The only case that had a shot at challenging the NFA was US v. Miller where everyone involved (all anti-gun people) knew Miller even show up and the case was decided by default, and there was no final conclusion, as the case was remanded to the district court for further findings. All the reasoning was based on it being a tax.

Much of that reasoning, also cited in Prinz v. United States indicates that we don't have a right to own/possess any weapon that is NOT intended for ordinary military use. Thus, we DO have a right to machine guns.


What Scalia should have done in the Heller (or in a more appropriate case) decision was to declare all federal action regulating firearms as unconstitutional, and let Congress amend the constitution to provide better clarity. Scalia was afraid.

 

[Pop23]

To repeat.... this rifle has never been used by the military. It has never been used in a war. It is not a weapon of war. It is the exact same rifle as all other semi automatic rifles, and as well, every semi automatic pistol and shotgun.......no difference in how they operate.....and you can even call revolvers semi automatic weapons as well...

There have been millions of these rifles in private hands since they came out.....and only a few are used a year for crime or murder..

In fact....more people are killed by lawn mowers every single year than are killed each year by any mass public shooter with an AR-15 rifle..... If you want to save more lives, ban lawn mowers.....

Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.
By the way Stoners family said after he had died and the AR-15 came under pressure , that this gun was never designed to be used by the public , it was designed for the military from day one. and he would roll over in his grave to find out these stupid gun Bubbas like to make hamburger out of anything they shoot with it.

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

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.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker.

The hope being that the attacker might not be equally trained, in such a case, a gun becomes the equalizer.