Liberal Forum

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 10:59 am

Try again.  Note the difference in branding and more importantly the selector switch.  If you don't know what that is, google it.  

 Tiny,

What do the markings tell about the type and model?

 

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

I gave you the citation and Link earlier.  You failed to read it.  Stop making an *** of yourself. And that is all information I have provided for you in the past.  

You refuse to acknowledge any information that correctly disputes your talking points.

You may now acknowledge your humiliating defeat.
 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:08 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

I gave you the citation and Link earlier.  You failed to read it.  Stop making an *** of yourself. And that is all information I have provided for you in the past.  

You refuse to acknowledge any information that correctly disputes your talking points.

You may now acknowledge your humiliating defeat.
 

 

That's funny.  Every I posted has been verified by multiple citations.  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am

That's funny.  Every I posted has been verified by multiple citations.

Who developed the .223 round, when, and why?

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am

That's funny.  Every I posted has been verified by multiple citations.

Who developed the .223 round, when, and why?

 

You have unanswered questions on the forum.  But you can start here:

At the very start there was the .222 Remington. This was uniquely developed (no parent case) in 1950 as a cartridge for varmint hunting. It became known far and wide as a benchrest competition cartridge because it was good at it, and its developers were avid benchresters. It was the first commercial rimless .224 cartridge made in the United States. So, when Armalite, and others, started its Small-Caliber/High-Velocity experiments, this is what they started with. It was clear early on that it wouldn’t meet the Continental Army Command velocity and penetration requirements, so Armalite went straight to Remington, who in turn responded with the .222 Remington Special, which had a longer case body and shorter case neck than its .222 Remington. Springfield Armory concurrently developed the .224E2 Winchester, an even longer-bodied .222 Remington, which later became the .222 Remington Magnum. Springfield dropped out and in 1963, the Remington .222 Special got its designation as 5.56x45 mm and was adopted for use in the new M16 rifle (even though it was already being used). The next year it got SAAMI-certified and emerged as .223 Remington in commercial loadings.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/12/ ... came-to-be

More to come

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am

That's funny.  Every I posted has been verified by multiple citations.

Who developed the .223 round, when, and why?

 

Here is a little more:

During the 1980’s, the 5.56mm cartridge was officially standardized as a NATO cartridge. A remaining weakness of the M193 load was its extremely poor penetration through heavy clothing at ranges of 500 yards and beyond. The Belgium military provided a solution with their 62 grain bullet design. The Belgium load became the standard NATO ball, designated the 5.56 NATO. Muzzle velocity is 3025fps from a 20” barrel. The M16 rifle then underwent a further upgrade to a 1:7 barrel twist rate to utilize the new load. The new model rifle was designated the M16A2.

https://fenixammo.com/pages/history-of- ... -cartridge

The point being the round used to day is not the same round from the 60s.  Additionally, the shooter in Ulvalde did not use NATO 5.56x45.  According to reports he used an expanding round.  

You still have unanswered questions on the forum.  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:54 am

You have unanswered questions on the forum.  But you can start here:

At the very start there was the .222 Remington. This was uniquely developed (no parent case) in 1950 as a cartridge for varmint hunting. It became known far and wide as a benchrest competition cartridge because it was good at it, and its developers were avid benchresters. It was the first commercial rimless .224 cartridge made in the United States. So, when Armalite, and others, started its Small-Caliber/High-Velocity experiments, this is what they started with. It was clear early on that it wouldn’t meet the Continental Army Command velocity and penetration requirements, so Armalite went straight to Remington, who in turn responded with the .222 Remington Special, which had a longer case body and shorter case neck than its .222 Remington. Springfield Armory concurrently developed the .224E2 Winchester, an even longer-bodied .222 Remington, which later became the .222 Remington Magnum. Springfield dropped out and in 1963, the Remington .222 Special got its designation as 5.56x45 mm and was adopted for use in the new M16 rifle (even though it was already being used). The next year it got SAAMI-certified and emerged as .223 Remington in commercial loadings.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/12/ ... came-to-be

More to come

The question is about the .223.

Who developed it, when and why.

Ya follah?


 

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm

Here is a little more:

During the 1980’s, the 5.56mm cartridge was officially standardized as a NATO cartridge. A remaining weakness of the M193 load was its extremely poor penetration through heavy clothing at ranges of 500 yards and beyond. The Belgium military provided a solution with their 62 grain bullet design. The Belgium load became the standard NATO ball, designated the 5.56 NATO. Muzzle velocity is 3025fps from a 20” barrel. The M16 rifle then underwent a further upgrade to a 1:7 barrel twist rate to utilize the new load. The new model rifle was designated the M16A2.

https://fenixammo.com/pages/history-of- ... -cartridge

The point being the round used to day is not the same round from the 60s.  Additionally, the shooter in Ulvalde did not use NATO 5.56x45.  According to reports he used an expanding round.  

You still have unanswered questions on the forum.

Why don't we stop here and ask the point of this post?

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:43 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:10 am

That's funny.  Every I posted has been verified by multiple citations.

Who developed the .223 round, when, and why?

ANd here is another source: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]CONARC ordered rifles to test. Stoner and Sierra Bullet's Frank Snow began work on the .222 Remington cartridge. Using a ballistic calculator, they determined that a 55-grain bullet would have to be fired at 3,300 ft/s to achieve the 500-yard performance necessary.[5]Robert Hutton (technical editor of Guns and Ammo magazine) started the development of a powder load to reach the 3,300 ft/s goal. He used DuPont IMR4198, IMR3031, and an Olin powder to work up loads. Testing was done with a Remington 722 rifle with a 22" Apex barrel. During a public demonstration, the round successfully penetrated the US steel helmet as required, but testing also showed chamber pressures to be too high.[7][5]Stoner contacted both Winchester and Remington about increasing the case capacity. Remington created a larger cartridge called the .222 Special. This cartridge is loaded with DuPont IMR4475 powder.[5]

cont
 
 

continued
During parallel testing of the T44E4 (future M14) and the ArmaLite AR-15 in 1958, the T44E4 experienced 16 failures per 1,000 rounds fired compared to 6.1 for the ArmaLite AR-15.[5] Because of several different .222 caliber cartridges that were being developed for the SCHV project, the .222 Special was renamed .223 Remington. In May 1959, a report was produced stating that five- to seven-man squads armed with ArmaLite AR-15 rifles have a higher hit probability than 11-man squads armed with the M-14 rifle. At an Independence Day picnic, Air Force General Curtis Le May tested the ArmaLite AR-15 and was very impressed with it. He ordered a number of them to replace M2 carbines that were in use by the Air Force. In November of that year, testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground showed the ArmaLite AR-15 failure rate had declined to 2.5/1,000, resulting in the ArmaLite AR-15 being approved for more extensive trials.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington#:~:text=It%20was%20developed%20in%201957,

@Blackvegetable  

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 11:54 am

You have unanswered questions on the forum.  But you can start here:

At the very start there was the .222 Remington. This was uniquely developed (no parent case) in 1950 as a cartridge for varmint hunting. It became known far and wide as a benchrest competition cartridge because it was good at it, and its developers were avid benchresters. It was the first commercial rimless .224 cartridge made in the United States. So, when Armalite, and others, started its Small-Caliber/High-Velocity experiments, this is what they started with. It was clear early on that it wouldn’t meet the Continental Army Command velocity and penetration requirements, so Armalite went straight to Remington, who in turn responded with the .222 Remington Special, which had a longer case body and shorter case neck than its .222 Remington. Springfield Armory concurrently developed the .224E2 Winchester, an even longer-bodied .222 Remington, which later became the .222 Remington Magnum. Springfield dropped out and in 1963, the Remington .222 Special got its designation as 5.56x45 mm and was adopted for use in the new M16 rifle (even though it was already being used). The next year it got SAAMI-certified and emerged as .223 Remington in commercial loadings.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/12/ ... came-to-be

More to come

The question is about the .223.

Who developed it, when and why.

Ya follah?


 

 

Remove the strike thru and read it.  You area embarrassing yourself.  You have unanswered questions to get to.  

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:08 pm

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm

Here is a little more:

During the 1980’s, the 5.56mm cartridge was officially standardized as a NATO cartridge. A remaining weakness of the M193 load was its extremely poor penetration through heavy clothing at ranges of 500 yards and beyond. The Belgium military provided a solution with their 62 grain bullet design. The Belgium load became the standard NATO ball, designated the 5.56 NATO. Muzzle velocity is 3025fps from a 20” barrel. The M16 rifle then underwent a further upgrade to a 1:7 barrel twist rate to utilize the new load. The new model rifle was designated the M16A2.

https://fenixammo.com/pages/history-of- ... -cartridge

The point being the round used to day is not the same round from the 60s.  Additionally, the shooter in Ulvalde did not use NATO 5.56x45.  According to reports he used an expanding round.  

You still have unanswered questions on the forum.

Why don't we stop here and ask the point of this post?

 

If you have to ask your do not have the knowledge necessary to participate. And you didn't read it because below the link I said "the point being..."

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:09 pm

continued
During parallel testing of the T44E4 (future M14) and the ArmaLite AR-15 in 1958, the T44E4 experienced 16 failures per 1,000 rounds fired compared to 6.1 for the ArmaLite AR-15.[5] Because of several different .222 caliber cartridges that were being developed for the SCHV project, the .222 Special was renamed .223 Remington. In May 1959, a report was produced stating that five- to seven-man squads armed with ArmaLite AR-15 rifles have a higher hit probability than 11-man squads armed with the M-14 rifle. At an Independence Day picnic, Air Force General Curtis Le May tested the ArmaLite AR-15 and was very impressed with it. He ordered a number of them to replace M2 carbines that were in use by the Air Force. In November of that year, testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground showed the ArmaLite AR-15 failure rate had declined to 2.5/1,000, resulting in the ArmaLite AR-15 being approved for more extensive trials.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington#:~:text=It%20was%20developed%20in%201957,

@Blackvegetable

Are you suggesting the .223 was developed by the Army to maximize the damage wrought by an assault rifle, as part of its project to develop weapons firing small caliber high velocity rounds?

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:11 pm

If you have to ask your do not have the knowledge necessary to participate. And you didn't read it because below the link I said "the point being..."

None of this twaddle changes any of the facts I've presented, nor does it address the arguments fashioned therefrom.

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:13 pm

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:11 pm

If you have to ask your do not have the knowledge necessary to participate. And you didn't read it because below the link I said "the point being..."

None of this twaddle changes any of the facts I've presented, nor does it address the arguments fashioned therefrom.

 

 

I have given you the history and the "why".  Hell, you haven't addressed where I tore your case apart.  This is just for my entertainment.  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm

Remove the strike thru and read it.  You area embarrassing yourself.  You have unanswered questions to get to.

Shorty,

Had you read the original citation you claimed to have read, you'd have known ALL of this....

That is why I did.

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 10:59 am

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 9:08 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 9:06 am

There ya go

 

Try again.  Note the difference in branding and more importantly the selector switch.  If you don't know what that is, google it.  





 

 

@Blackvegetable  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm

I have given you the history and the "why".  Hell, you haven't addressed where I tore your case apart.  This is just for my entertainment.

You babbled on about a .222 round.

In the course of that, your citation confirmed everything I have said about the .223, the 5.56 and the development of the AR 15

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm

@Blackvegetable

Shorty,


If the SP1 is a design DISTINCT from the AR-15, why is the part STAMPED "COLT AR-15 Model: SP1"?

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm

I have given you the history and the "why".  Hell, you haven't addressed where I tore your case apart.  This is just for my entertainment.

You babbled on about a .222 round.

In the course of that, your citation confirmed everything I have said about the .223, the 5.56 and the development of the AR 15

 

GO read that citation you struck thru, moron.  You never said anything about Remington.  Stoner went to Remington.  Remington got it right because the army wanted a lighter round with more velocity.

If you had read the citation you would see that the .223 was first the.222.  And to kick it off it is really a .224