Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm

Huey » 12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm

And the coup de grace:

An AR 15 semi auto bolt carrier group does not have that lug. In fact, it’s cut off. This results in a lighter weight BCG and that’s the primary advantage of semi-auto BCGs. At least it was way back before every company out there produced lightweight full auto rated BCGs.

@Blackvegetable  

What have you learned?  You learned that a full auto BCG does not make an AR 15 full auto,

And you learned that the original AR 15 had a different BCG than the Stoner Design.

I told you that years ago but you didn’t listen.  Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Now let's get back to what I've said.

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is no discreet DESIGN for semi auto AR 15 style firearms, they use the Stoner design, with certain modifications.

This constitutes a VARIANT, NOT a DESIGN.


You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

Period. End of story.

Nod.
 

 

Part 2:

I suggest you read this:

Exaggerated claims were made by Colt prior to the shift from the M14 to the Ar-15/M16. One commercial asserted: "Unsurpassed as a Sniper Rifle both accurate and lethal, at 500 yards the AR-15 makes a complete penetration of 10-gauge steel, or both sides of a steel helmet. On impact the tumbling action of the .223 caliber ammunition increases effectiveness." But bullets do not ‘tumble’. They may yaw and rotate 180 degrees within the body, but the standard definition of “tumble” suggests turning end-over-end through a full 360 degrees. This rarely happens.
 Sweden raised complaints about the M16 and its 5.56x45mm M193 projectile during and following the Viet Nam War. But the diplomatic conference that produced the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed that wounding characteristics of modern military small arms weapons and ammunition did not provide a basis for a new small arms protocol. More recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) objected to the terminal ballistics of contemporary military small arms ammunition and their alleging inconsistencies with the law of war.
(and then there is this again):
 There were complaints that the diminutive 5.56x45mm projectile failed to incapacitate enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through-and-through wounds consistently failed to render the targeted enemy hors de combat, necessitating a soldier shooting his target ten or more times before he ceases to be a threat.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/556.htm