Liberal Forum

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:07 pm

 

You're a ****** and a liar.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 2:57 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 2:57 pm

Answer a question, ******.

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Schmuck, you are comparing Ruger to dozens of companies, if not close to a hundred, that manufacture AR 15 STYLE weapons.  Only ONE company makes THE AR 15.  Colt.

you are running from that question.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:08 pm

You're a ****** and a liar.

@Vegas  .  We have achieved Meltdown Mary status.  I even got the number ultimate badge of honor.  A tribute thread.
 

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm

@Vegas  .  We have achieved Meltdown Mary status.  I even got the number ultimate badge of honor.  A tribute thread.

Tiny,

A meltdown is defined by an issue with The Issue.

You don't answer questions. 

Now everyone gets another chance to confirm that.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:14 pm

Tiny,

A meltdown is defined by an issue with The Issue.

You don't answer questions. 

Now everyone gets another chance to confirm that.

You made a demand.  Which I replied to.  And I don’t think Colt 5 million At 15s last year.  You are running from this question:

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Schmuck, you are comparing Ruger to dozens of companies, if not close to a hundred, that manufacture AR 15 STYLE weapons.  Only ONE company makes THE AR 15.  Colt.

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm

you are running from that question.

The Ruger Mini was DESIGNED as a semi auto for the civilian market. It is based on a BATTLE RIFLE system ABANDONED by the US military

It was MODIFIED for full auto.

Done.

Now answer my question. 

 

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:15 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:15 pm

You made a demand.  Which I replied to.  And I don’t think Colt 5 million At 15s last year.  You are running from this question:

Now what are you gonna do?

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:17 pm

The Ruger Mini was DESIGNED as a semi auto for the civilian market. It is based on a BATTLE RIFLE system ABANDONED by the US military

It was MODIFIED for full auto.

Done.

Now answer my question.

Lmao!  That's the dumbest argument I ever heard.

That battle rifle was designed to do kill and many as possible in a short time.  Your words,

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:20 pm

Lmao!  That's the dumbest argument I ever heard.

That battle rifle was designed to do kill and many as possible in a short time.  Your words,

Nobody gives a **** how you feel about the facts.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:22 pm

Nobody gives a **** how you feel about the facts.

The only reason is it is called a battle rifle is because it is a fully powered cartridge.  It is stronger and does more damage than an intermediate powered cartridge.

A battle rifle is a service rifle chambered to fire a fully powered cartridge.[1] The term "battle rifle" is a retronym created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-powered assault rifles (e.g. the StG-44, AK-47, M16, AUG) from full-powered rifles 

This argument is **** hilarious,
 

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:27 pm

The only reason is it is called a battle rifle is because it is a fully powered cartridge.  It is stronger and does more damage than an intermediate powered cartridge.

A battle rifle is a service rifle chambered to fire a fully powered cartridge.[1] The term "battle rifle" is a retronym created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-powered assault rifles (e.g. the StG-44, AK-47, M16, AUG) from full-powered rifles 

This argument is **** hilarious,

Because, you stupid ****, the fully powered cartridge wasn't consistent with the change in Doctrine that obliged the introduction of the M16.

Had you read the ORIGINAL citation on the development of the Assault Rifle, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Hell, if you could only recall what YOUR OWN citation on the .222 told you about it.

But you can't **** read.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:34 pm

Because, you stupid ****, the fully powered cartridge wasn't consistent with the change in Doctrine that obliged the introduction of the M16.

Had you read the ORIGINAL citation on the development of the Assault Rifle, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Hell, if you could only recall what YOUR OWN citation on the .222 told you about it.

But you can't **** read.

the .222 is not relevant to the M14 7.62.  The change was the military wanted a lighter rifle with lighter round so soldiers could carry mor am,o, schmuck.

But keep these hits coming.

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:38 pm

the .222 is not relevant to the M14 7.62.  The change was the military wanted a lighter rifle with lighter round so soldiers could carry mor am,o, schmuck.

But keep these hits coming.

You're about to take ANOTHER runner.

You insisted on adding a bunch of irrelevant crap about the .222, while failing to understand anything about the development of the RELEVANT .223.

Watch..

what was the name of the military project which led to the .223 AND the 5.56 rounds?

this was YOUR citation, ******.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:46 pm

You're about to take ANOTHER runner.

You insisted on adding a bunch of irrelevant crap about the .222, while failing to understand anything about the development of the RELEVANT .223.

Watch..

what was the name of the military project which led to the .223 AND the 5.56 rounds?

this was YOUR citation, ******.

Who cares?  The round needed to be lighter.  .
Source(s): [1][2]The .223 Remington (designated as the 223 Remington by the SAAMI[3] and 223 Rem by the CIP[4]) is a rimless, bottlenecked riflecartridge. It was developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries for the U.S. Continental Army Command of the United States Army as part of a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity firearm. The .223 Remington is considered one of the most popular common use cartridges and is currently used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual-action rifles as well as handguns.In the U.S. Army, the cartridge is referred to as "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball M193." The 5.56×45mm NATO was also developed from the 223 Remington.[5]

The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Development began in 1957. A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was also invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62×51mm NATO) design.[6]Winchester was also invited to participate.[7][5]
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:22 pm

Nobody gives a **** how you feel about the facts.

Apparently you have little use with facts that **** up your narrative.  There is no PG here, schmuck.

Only a small time punk clears a tribute thread with Pg.

@Blackvegetable  

Schmuck, are you ever going to anser this question:

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Schmuck, you are comparing Ruger to dozens of companies, if not close to a hundred, that manufacture AR 15 STYLE weapons.  Only ONE company makes THE AR 15.  Colt.

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:05 pm

Who cares? The round needed to be lighter.  .
Source(s): [1][2]The .223 Remington (designated as the 223 Remington by the SAAMI[3] and 223 Rem by the CIP[4]) is a rimless, bottlenecked riflecartridge. It was developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries for the U.S. Continental Army Command of the United States Army as part of a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity firearm. The .223 Remington is considered one of the most popular common use cartridges and is currently used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual-action rifles as well as handguns.In the U.S. Army, the cartridge is referred to as "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball M193." The 5.56×45mm NATO was also developed from the 223 Remington.[5]

The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Development began in 1957. A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was also invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62×51mm NATO) design.[6]Winchester was also invited to participate.[7][5]

Either you haven't read ****, or nothing penetrates.

The lighter round was a CONSEQUENCE not the purpose.
The PURPOSE was to exploit the discovery of the "temporary cavity".


It was called SCHV.



 

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 4:07 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:07 pm

Apparently you have little use with facts that **** up your narrative.  There is no PG here, schmuck.

Only a small time punk clears a tribute thread with Pg.

Not because you run your pissant yap.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:34 pm

Either you haven't read ****, or nothing penetrates.

The lighter round was a CONSEQUENCE not the purpose.
The PURPOSE was to exploit the discovery of the "temporary cavity".

It was called SCHV.

no idiot, it was the lighter round.  But that is not relevant to your argument.  The 7.62 was a more powerful round.  Bigger and heavier.  I posted the effects.  Being  Ana idiot  you prolly lined it out,

Who cares? The round needed to be lighter.  .
Source(s): [1][2]The .223 Remington (designated as the 223 Remington by the SAAMI[3] and 223 Rem by the CIP[4]) is a rimless, bottlenecked riflecartridge. It was developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries for the U.S. Continental Army Command of the United States Army as part of a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity firearm. The .223 Remington is considered one of the most popular common use cartridges and is currently used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual-action rifles as well as handguns.In the U.S. Army, the cartridge is referred to as "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball M193." The 5.56×45mm NATO was also developed from the 223 Remington.[5]

The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Development began in 1957. A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was also invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62×51mm NATO) design.[6]Winchester was also invited to participate.[7][5]

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:35 pm

Not because you run your pissant yap.

No, I kick your *** constantly,  you gonna answer this question?

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Run forest, run.