Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 11:45 am

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 11:42 am

The Sporter was not designed for the battlefield.  If it was THAT would have been sold to the government instead of the M16.  Duh!

The AR-15 Sporter-1 (SP1) is a semi-automatic variant of the AR-15 series of assault rifles. It was produced by Colt, the same manufacturer of the military M16 on the same production lines as the military rifle.[3]

 

That is unverified.  The 3 at the end of the fandom wiki leads to the footnotes.  When you click the 3rd one it goes to a site that is no longer active.  So, it is unverified. 

The sporter was not designed for the battlefield.  If that were the case they would not have needed the M 16

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 11:44 am

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 11:40 am

It is unverified.  The 3 at the end of the fandom wiki leads to the footnotes.  When you click the 3rd one it goes to a site that is no longer active.  So, it is unverified. 

The sporter was not designed for the battlefield.  If that were the case they would not have needed the M16.

The sporter was not designed for the battlefield.  If that were the case they would not have needed the M16.

What do you call this, you oblivious **** brick?


This is how **** stupid you are, Dwarf.

 

The sporter was not designed for the battlefield.  If that were the case they would not have needed the M 16.

Why did the need the Sporter, on conversely the M16.  According to you they are both battlefield weapons.  According to you they are exactly the same.  So why did they need to design two separate weapons.  With extremely different functions and parts?  

Makes no sense from a business standpoint.