Liberal Forum

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm

or:

Huh, a .22 firing at 3700 FPS designed in the 30s. Who deemed 1100 a muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes?

You should have read the link I provided.  What else ya got?  This is fun and your argument is ignorant.  Sit down, shut the **** up, and don't challenge me on this again.

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO



do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:26 pm

Cucurbitophobia » 06 Sep 2022, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:25 pm

Mary, you got owned.

Only if you ignore the citations in favor of the yap yap.

I never do.
 

 

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.   

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.

No...I'm not.

Do you wanna see yourself take two opposite stands on the Sporter?
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm

or:

Huh, a .22 firing at 3700 FPS designed in the 30s. Who deemed 1100 a muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes?

You should have read the link I provided.  What else ya got?  This is fun and your argument is ignorant.  Sit down, shut the **** up, and don't challenge me on this again.

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO



do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

 

That is a question and you were done a long time ago.  You are acting as if 3300 for a .22 is unheard of.  I just posted other wise.

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes.

According to whom? ANd yet they were selling, for civilian purposes, 22 rounds with a much a higher muzzle velocity.  You lose.  But by all means, keep yapping.  This is great. 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:44 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.

No...I'm not.

Do you wanna see yourself take two opposite stands on the Sporter?
 

 

I want to see the relevance of your report as it pertains to the muzzle velocity of common rounds available in the 50s AND what it has to do with the modern sports rifles.  None have a link to the Armalite Rifle 15, the rifle in your report, that was REJECTED by the military in favor of the M14. 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:45 pm

That is a question and you were done a long time ago.  You are acting as if 3300 for a .22 is unheard of.  I just posted other wise.

According to whom? ANd yet they were selling, for civilian purposes, 22 rounds with a much a higher muzzle velocity.  You lose.  But by all means, keep yapping.  This is great.

do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.


Vaya
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:44 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.

No...I'm not.

Do you wanna see yourself take two opposite stands on the Sporter?
 

 

Focus, BV.  Stay on point.  These are you words:

The AR-15 was SPECIFICALLY developed to launch a modified .22 caliber round at 3X its "civilian speed".

But for its use in an Assault Weapon, it was increased by a factor of 3.

and:

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes

As to first set, I say "so"...as my citation has pointed out that was only 3300 was ten higher than the fastest.  And to be real, the report you didn't read tested the rounds at 3275.  And the weapon was rejected.  

My citation also point out there was a 22 round that fired at 2700 and another in the 30s that fired at 3700.  So no, 1100 was not deemed sufficient for civilian purposes. 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:51 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:45 pm

That is a question and you were done a long time ago.  You are acting as if 3300 for a .22 is unheard of.  I just posted other wise.

According to whom? ANd yet they were selling, for civilian purposes, 22 rounds with a much a higher muzzle velocity.  You lose.  But by all means, keep yapping.  This is great.

do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My edit:  **** ******


Vaya
 

 

Bye then.  Tuck your tail between your legs and realize you just received one of your more massive curbstompings at my hands.  Still waiting on that argument that does not contain questions.  

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm

Bye then.  Tuck your tail between your legs and realize you just received one of your more massive curbstompings at my hands.  Still waiting on that argument that does not contain questions.

Are these your words, psychotiny?

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.   

First time.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm

or:

Huh, a .22 firing at 3700 FPS designed in the 30s. Who deemed 1100 a muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes?

You should have read the link I provided.  What else ya got?  This is fun and your argument is ignorant.  Sit down, shut the **** up, and don't challenge me on this again.

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO



do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

 

You should read the entire article.   And the Armalite Rifle 15 was rejected in favor of the of the M14.  That is why Armalite sold to Colt. 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:57 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:54 pm

Bye then.  Tuck your tail between your legs and realize you just received one of your more massive curbstompings at my hands.  Still waiting on that argument that does not contain questions.

Are these your words, psychotiny?

Actually, you are ignoring the citations.   

First time.

 

 

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:26 pm

Cucurbitophobia » 06 Sep 2022, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:25 pm

Mary, you got owned.

Only if you ignore the citations in favor of the yap yap.

I never do.
 

 

The citations are not being ignored.  You are wrapped around this notion that 3300 was bad for civilians although they were already there with other weapons.

I am not arguing that the magic number was in the 3300 range.  What you have failed to is argue why that is relevant. 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:02 pm

The citations are not being ignored. You are wrapped around this notion that 3300 was bad for civilians although they were already there with other weapons.

I am not arguing that the magic number was in the 3300 range.  What you have failed to is argue why that is relevant.

Acknowledge the underlined in the citation provided, and stop yapping.

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

.acknowledge the fact in the citation.

Or get under the porch and lick your stumps.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:31 pm

Acknowledge the underlined in the citation provided, and stop yapping.

Nope.  

Let's try this again:

The citations are not being ignored. You are wrapped around this notion that 3300 was bad for civilians although they were already there with other weapons.

I am not arguing that the magic number was in the 3300 range.  What you have failed to is argue why that is relevant.

Your words:

The AR-15 was SPECIFICALLY developed to launch a modified .22 caliber round at 3X its "civilian speed".

But for its use in an Assault Weapon, it was increased by a factor of 3.

and:

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes

As to the first set, I say "so"...as my citation has pointed out that  3300 was ten higher than the fastest.  And to be real, the report you didn't read tested the rounds at 3275.  And the weapon was rejected.  

My citation also pointed out there was a 22 round that fired at 2700 and another in the 30s that fired at 3700.  So no, 1100 was not deemed sufficient for civilian purposes. 

You are all over the map.  Focus.  Run from your words.  

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:36 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:01 pm

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

.acknowledge the fact in the citation.

Or get under the porch and lick your stumps.
 
 

 

You are incapable of making an argument, ******. Now focus and explain what your velocity **** is all about.  

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:36 pm

Nope.  

Let's try this again:

The citations are not being ignored. You are wrapped around this notion that 3300 was bad for civilians although they were already there with other weapons.

I am not arguing that the magic number was in the 3300 range.  What you have failed to is argue why that is relevant.

Your words:

and:

As to the first set, I say "so"...as my citation has pointed out that  3300 was ten higher than the fastest.  And to be real, the report you didn't read tested the rounds at 3275.  And the weapon was rejected.  

My citation also pointed out there was a 22 round that fired at 2700 and another in the 30s that fired at 3700.  So no, 1100 was not deemed sufficient for civilian purposes. 

You are all over the map.  Focus.  Run from your words.

Too much yap, yap..

 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:38 pm

You are incapable of making an argument, ******. Now focus and explain what your velocity **** is all about.  

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

If you will stop yapping, you've got another gobsmacking coming up, Gunny...  

From a citation.


 

Cucurbitophobia » 06 Sep 2022, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:44 pm

Convince your bitchbro to acknowledge the fact in the citation and we can get this done..

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 3:00 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 2:38 pm

You are incapable of making an argument, ******. Now focus and explain what your velocity **** is all about.  

Sorry, it is not 6 March 2023.  The whole purpose of me reposting the title of the report a third time was for you to present an argument in narrative form without questions.

You can't do it.  I have destroyed your velocity BS.  If you have nothing else, BYE!

If you will stop yapping, you've got another gobsmacking coming up, Gunny...  

From a citation.


 

 

I wasn't a Marine.  To smart for that.  But I declare this discussion officially over and you are the loser.