AR15s are not military grade... not even close
- Thread starter Rustic
- Start date
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,531
- 156,381
- 3,615
Now you are moving the goal posts. Can you not argue your point honestly?
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,531
- 156,381
- 3,615
He's some random YouTube poster. He has nothing to do with anything. You are making things up.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,531
- 156,381
- 3,615
No, you are moving the goal posts. That has nothing to do with what we were discussing in this thread.
I'm done with this crap. Come see me when you can make your point without inventing things or changing the subject midstream.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,905
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #69
More frivolous gun laws will do nothing but infringe on the second amendment.
Enforce the current laws donāt make any new frivolous laws...
And there is one way to deal with violence in this country, the vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas. Violent criminals should be executedā¦ Thatās how you get rid of repeat offenders
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #70
I see you're at it again. Shall I hand your ass back to you once again?
The AR-15 predates the M-16 by around 5 years. The original AR-15 Model 601 was a fully auto weapon and sold to many small 3rd world countries starting in 1959. The US Air Force bought them in 1961 and didn't get them out of service until 1992. In 1964, Colt offered a Semi Auto version using MOST of the same parts that was just called the Model R6000 Colt AR-15 Sporter Rifle using MOST of the same parts as the AR-15 Model 601. The M-16 wasn't invented yet since it wasn't used in the US Military so it couldn't use the M designation. The Air Force ignored the M identifier and called theirs the AR-15 Model 601.
The original M-16 was the AR-15 Model 602. It differed from the Model 601 slightly. The Charging Handle was a T handle while the charging handle on the 601 was a diamond shape. The 602 didn't get nearly the chrome plating internally that the 601 got and the 602 was more prone to jam in the field when dirty. The 602 had a more versatile set of rails and mounts than the 601. The Air Force upgraded to those rails and mounts and stamped the receivers with AR-15 Model 601 M-16. When I first fired what I thought was a M-16, it had a diamond charging handle.
Now, what makes an AR-15 Military Grade and why can't every one be legally called that? Easy answer. The parts MUST be made by either Colt or FN. This is why certain parts on others can be claimed to be Military Grade because that particular part if manufactured by either Colt or FN. But the whole rifle cannot be called Military Grade even if it really is.
The best AR-15 out there is made by Colt for Law Enforcement, the LE6920. It looks exactly like a full boat AR-15 you can buy off the shelf but it's not. And it can come in 3 different calibers, 9mm, 223 and 556. And yes, there is a difference between the 223 and the 556 rifles even in the LE6920. If you want, we can rehash the difference but we have been down that road before and you got your ass handed to you once again. A LE6920 starts out at right around a thousand bucks. And there isn't a better AR-15 made outside of a Match Rifle. The LE6920 is Military Grade because it shares MOST of the same parts from the Army M-4.
Your 399 special is lucky not to blow up in your face firing real Nato 556 rounds. Newsflash: Most of the 556 ammo sold over the counter is just belted 223 ammo, not real Nato 556. But it works no different using 223 than a M-4 works in single shot. Now on to that point. In real Combat, the M-4 is almost always in the single shot setting. Most shooters find that firing the 3 shot burst only the first one is on target so they rarely use that setting. Better to leave the auto firing to the M-249 and M-240 unless you have a mounted M-2 then all others need not apply. The job of the M-16 and M-4 is that of personal protection and keep the bad guy off the M-249 and M-240s ass. If it ends up (and it does from time to time) that you are relying on just the M-16 and M-4, you are either in an Urban situation or you screwed up badly. Almost every time, the LE6920 can do the same job as the M-4 in combat. So stop that nonsense.
The area I am in is considered Rural. Yet, per capita, we have had more gun deaths around here than Denver Colorado. Per Capita, we have lost more Cops as well. Around here, Cops are starting to get real jumpy so don't try and sell us that it's safer in a rural area than an urban area. The chances of you being killed by a firearm is about the same.
Tag, you're it.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #72
Then you sell 399 buck junk. If I were to have the undying need to own one, I would go for the Colt LE6920. And it has Military Grade stamped on almost EVERY part. Do I spend 500 bucks for a piece of crap or do I go the 1000 or less and buy the best AR-15 made? Not much of a choice here.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,905
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #73
I sell everything from $469 Smith and Wesson m&p15 to a few thousand for bravo company depending on the furniture...
The Smith and Wesson does very fine, because itās just a sporting rifle and does what itās meant to doā¦ Kill varmints. Very good value
Iāve shot tens of thousands of rounds through Smith and Wesson M&p15ās, One hell of a value for 469 bucks.
Every time thereās a shooting like this my sales skyrocket... Because of the hype unnecessarily.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,552
- 2,290
Yes....which means they are not military weapons...in fact, the AR-15 has never been used in a war...
However, in Crimea this week, a shooter using a pump action shotgun murdered 21 people compared to the 8 murdered today.....using the AR-15...which shows that the pump action shotgun is a deadlier weapon...right?
The pump action shotgun is an actual weapon of war and is a current weapon of war....the AR-15, not so much.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,552
- 2,290
Yes..... the gun isn't the issue, it is the gun free zone...
In Crimea, you doofus, just this week, a shooter with a pump action shotgun murdered 21 college students.....compared to the 8 today......so it is time in the gun free zone without being confronted by an armed citizen with a gun that matters, not the gun....you moron...
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #76
One HUGE problem with all this. Not ALL M-16s in the US Army are Autos or even 3 shot bursts. Some are single shot. The selector has only 2 settings, safe and fire. Here is an exert from a Retired Army SSgt.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-AR-15-is-a-military-weapon-what-countries-issued-them-to-their-military
Ron Prasuhn, former Staff Sergeant (Ret.) - Radio/Radio Teletype Oper. at U.S. Army (1965-1994)
Answered Apr 3
None, that Iām aware of, because the AR-15 is NOT, I say againā¦is NOTā¦a military weapon.
Itās cousin, the M-16 series (A1/A2) is a military weapon as it can be set for either āOffā, āSemiā (for semi-automatic), āBurstā (for 3-round bursts per each pull of the trigger), or āAutoā (fully automatica fire where one pull of the trigger is all thatās needed to empty the attached magazine which could be either a 20 or 30 round, used by most military).
On the M-16 you will see either āOff, Semi, Burstā or āOff, Semi, Autoā as options to select for fire. Not all M-16s are fully automatic as many tend to believe. The ones I was issued while serving between 1977ā1994 were āSemi-Automaticā as being the best I could select fromā¦same as my AR-15 that I have todayā¦Itās either āOffā or āSemiā, NOTHING else. I didnāt even have the āBurstā capability on the M-16s I was issued while on Active Duty. Not all units get the M-16 with full automatic firing capabilities either. Those are mostly used by the combat MOSs (Military Occupational Skills) like Infantry, Scouts, Combat Engineers and other āfront lineā troopsā¦which is a misnomer these days as there is no such thing as a āfront lineā as most people know it to be for many, many years ago.
Now, if you were to ask which countries issued their soldiers the M-16, I could say, for sure, the United States. After that, Iām not sure as most countries tend to have their own specific weapons, made in their country or another country where they can get them relatvely cheap, to cut defense costs. Mexico I believe issues the M-16 rifle to their troops, or some of them. I know this because I seen the Mexaican Coast Guard carrying them when on cruise to Mexico a few times. Even have a few photos of them with the M-16 rifles
Not ALL M-16s are fully or 3 shot burst. Therefore, the US Army does use the AR and it has to meet Military Specs. Chances are, they are the LE6920. Since the Auto and 3 shot burst is frowned upon by the US Military as a huge waste of ammo, it really doesn't make much difference if you are issued which weapon. BTW, the semi auto only for the Army is also stamped M-16 but it's really an AR-15 Model 603 with only a few parts from the Civilian Bin like the LE6920 Colt rifle. I can see the advantage of having the semi auto version around since it costs less than a third of what the 3 shot burst rifle costs but does the same job. Remember, the only round of your 3 shot burst that will be where you wanted it to go will be the first one.
So, the question, "What Military uses the AR-15?" How about the Unites States Army and the United States Air Force.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,552
- 2,290
Hey...shit stain....what difference does the magazine capacity make....? Answer, none.....actual research shows this....you are just too stupid to understand it...
In Crimea, this week.....a shooter with a pump action shotgun murdered 21 college students....the shooter here with an AR-15 rifle.... 8...... it isn't the gun moron, it is the location and the lack of a good guy with a gun that allows the killing to be so bad....you moron.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.
--------
We did not employ the oft-used definition of āmass murderā as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.
LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of ānonaffectableā cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.
Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBIās Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.
For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).
Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).
Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.
Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.
Specifically, we searched for
(1) the number of magazines in the shooterās immediate possession,
(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,
(3) the number of guns in the shooterās immediate possession during the incident,
(4) the types of guns possessed,
(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,
(6) the number of rounds fired,
(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.
Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?
We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.
Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.
(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?
There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.
-----
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.
The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.
Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.
The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.
It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.
----
For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined āShooter Paused, and Six Escaped,ā the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''
The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.
There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.
The plausibility of the āvictims escapeā rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.
If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.
On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.
In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes
-----
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.
Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shootersā rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooterās need to change magazines.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #78
Is that the best you got? Counter what I have stated. Unlike you, I have Military Experience with the AR-15 Model 601, M-16 and the M-4 and civilian experience with the AR-15. Now, step away from your Pauxsnews and get out of that cave once in awhile and get some experience.
blackhawk
Diamond Member
Those who are knowledgeable about firearms already know this those who are not will never be convinced otherwise.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,552
- 2,290
One HUGE problem with all this. Not ALL M-16s in the US Army are Autos or even 3 shot bursts. Some are single shot. The selector has only 2 settings, safe and fire. Here is an exert from a Retired Army SSgt.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-AR-15-is-a-military-weapon-what-countries-issued-them-to-their-military
Ron Prasuhn, former Staff Sergeant (Ret.) - Radio/Radio Teletype Oper. at U.S. Army (1965-1994)
Answered Apr 3
None, that Iām aware of, because the AR-15 is NOT, I say againā¦is NOTā¦a military weapon.
Itās cousin, the M-16 series (A1/A2) is a military weapon as it can be set for either āOffā, āSemiā (for semi-automatic), āBurstā (for 3-round bursts per each pull of the trigger), or āAutoā (fully automatica fire where one pull of the trigger is all thatās needed to empty the attached magazine which could be either a 20 or 30 round, used by most military).
On the M-16 you will see either āOff, Semi, Burstā or āOff, Semi, Autoā as options to select for fire. Not all M-16s are fully automatic as many tend to believe. The ones I was issued while serving between 1977ā1994 were āSemi-Automaticā as being the best I could select fromā¦same as my AR-15 that I have todayā¦Itās either āOffā or āSemiā, NOTHING else. I didnāt even have the āBurstā capability on the M-16s I was issued while on Active Duty. Not all units get the M-16 with full automatic firing capabilities either. Those are mostly used by the combat MOSs (Military Occupational Skills) like Infantry, Scouts, Combat Engineers and other āfront lineā troopsā¦which is a misnomer these days as there is no such thing as a āfront lineā as most people know it to be for many, many years ago.
Now, if you were to ask which countries issued their soldiers the M-16, I could say, for sure, the United States. After that, Iām not sure as most countries tend to have their own specific weapons, made in their country or another country where they can get them relatvely cheap, to cut defense costs. Mexico I believe issues the M-16 rifle to their troops, or some of them. I know this because I seen the Mexaican Coast Guard carrying them when on cruise to Mexico a few times. Even have a few photos of them with the M-16 rifles
Not ALL M-16s are fully or 3 shot burst. Therefore, the US Army does use the AR and it has to meet Military Specs. Chances are, they are the LE6920. Since the Auto and 3 shot burst is frowned upon by the US Military as a huge waste of ammo, it really doesn't make much difference if you are issued which weapon. BTW, the semi auto only for the Army is also stamped M-16 but it's really an AR-15 Model 603 with only a few parts from the Civilian Bin like the LE6920 Colt rifle. I can see the advantage of having the semi auto version around since it costs less than a third of what the 3 shot burst rifle costs but does the same job. Remember, the only round of your 3 shot burst that will be where you wanted it to go will be the first one.
So, the question, "What Military uses the AR-15?" How about the Unites States Army and the United States Air Force.
No... they don't....the M-16 is not the AR-15..... the selector switch makes them two different weapons, you doofus...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Israel is Hunting Down Iranian Officials One by One- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 1
-
Pentagon requests $200 billion for Iran warā¦ where are all the āfiscal conservativesā?- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 4
-
Gavin Newsome depicts Nick Shirley as a Pedophile to deflect from MASSIVE fraud in California.- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 4
-
-
