Liberal Forum

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am

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

Acknowledge the fact in the citation.

There's another beating coming.


 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am

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

 

I wasn't a Marine.  To smart for that

you were **** ballast.

You're entirely expendable.

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

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

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.

@Huey  


Acknowledge the facts, Coward.

There's more to eat.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:40 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:40 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am

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

I wasn't a Marine.  To smart for that

you were **** ballast.

You're entirely expendable.

 

What were those dates you served....oh wait, this is embarrassing for you.

Carry on, ROTC.  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:39 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:39 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:36 am

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

Acknowledge the fact in the citation.

There's another beating coming.


 

 

You don't understand your citation.  You lost.  Your entire muzzle velocity argument was crushed in one fell swoop.

Unless  you can explain, in your own words, what your citation is telling you I am not obligated to acknowledge anything. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am

What were those dates you served....oh wait, this is embarrassing for you.

Carry on, ROTC.

Safe in the rear, counting down time.

Disabled himself, stateside, in peacetime.

Ca-ca-ca ching!
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am

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

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

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.

@Huey  


Acknowledge the facts, Coward.

There's more to eat.

 

Second time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

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

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.  

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:44 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:44 am

You don't understand your citation.  You lost.  Your entire muzzle velocity argument was crushed in one fell swoop.

Unless  you can explain, in your own words, what your citation is telling you I am not obligated to acknowledge anything.

This isn't about me.

This is about you acknowledging the FACTS in a CITATION.


 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:45 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:45 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:42 am

What were those dates you served....oh wait, this is embarrassing for you.

Carry on, ROTC.

Safe in the rear, counting down time.

Disabled himself, stateside, in peacetime.

Ca-ca-ca ching!
 

 

That's nice.

What were those dates you served?  Cat got your tongue? 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:46 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:46 am

Second time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.

No, I don't. 

This is about the facts.

Start acknowledging them.

Or accept your humiliating defeat.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:47 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:47 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:44 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:44 am

You don't understand your citation.  You lost.  Your entire muzzle velocity argument was crushed in one fell swoop.

Unless  you can explain, in your own words, what your citation is telling you I am not obligated to acknowledge anything.

This isn't about me.

This is about you acknowledging the FACTS in a CITATION.


 

 

First you must demonstrate you understand your citation.  As a man would.  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:46 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:46 am

Second time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.

No, I don't. 

This is about the facts.

Start acknowledging them.

Or accept your humiliating defeat.

 

Fourth time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:50 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:50 am

Fourth time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.

You complain about acknowledging citations.

now get on with it..

you've got another taint punt coming.

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am

First you must demonstrate you understand your citation.  As a man would.

Show me a SINGLE example of you doing so, Li'l Adolph.


 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:02 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:02 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:50 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:50 am

Fourth time:

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anthing.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS.

You complain about acknowledging citations.

now get on with it..

you've got another taint punt coming.

 

I explain my citations and understand them.  You know what needs to be done.  You really are incapable of doing it.  You can strike thru for the next 14 hours.  Nothing will change.  

Fifth time.  

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anything.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:04 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 6:49 am

First you must demonstrate you understand your citation.  As a man would.

Show me a SINGLE example of you doing so, Li'l Adolph.

 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:03 pm

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:31 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm

 

It doesn't demand one.

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

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes.

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

Again,, no existing civilian market for the system.

Nonsense edited out for Post Count.  

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.

Yes, the Armalite Rifle 15 was designed to fire at 3x the speed of a .22.  But it wasn't a .22.  Also, the fastest, as I have already posted for you was  the 270 Winchester was the high velocity “champ” at 3290.  A civilian rifle.  
https://www.rifleshootermag.com/editori ... eed/392248

This is the link to my previous posted.  

viewtopic.php?p=2119234#p2119234

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes.

Explain the 270 Winchester. Or even this from 1912.

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes.

 

There ya go.  
 
 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:05 am

I explain my citations and understand them. You know what needs to be done.  You really are incapable of doing it.  You can strike thru for the next 14 hours.  Nothing will change.  

Fifth time.  

You first have to explain, in your own words, what that citation means, I am not obligated to acknowledge anything.  You must show YOU understand the citation. 

As noted before the velocity of the .22 ranged from that as a low upwards of 3000 FPS

Show me an example of you doing so.

Because I can demonstrate that your comprehension sucks.

 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am

There ya go.

I go what?

How does that make your case, loser?
 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am

There ya go.

Yes, the Armalite Rifle 15 was designed to fire at 3x the speed of a .22.  But it wasn't a .22. 

WTF does this mean?

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:11 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:07 am

There ya go.

Yes, the Armalite Rifle 15 was designed to fire at 3x the speed of a .22.  But it wasn't a .22. 

WTF does this mean?

 

Sorry, you didn't seem to have a problem with that when I first posted it.  It means the round tested was not a .22 round.  Consider that another answered question.

Now, explain your citation to prove you understand it AND acknowledge I provided an example of me explaining a citation. Attack all you like.  It shows your an idiot.