Liberal Forum

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:19 pm

”have changed the weapon in basic design…” 

They are not 5 times fast than other rifle.     

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:22 pm

Notice how you run from EVERYTHING,  Runny?

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:22 pm

Notice how you run from EVERYTHING,  Runny?

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:24 pm

”have changed the weapon in basic design…” 

I m not running.  If you have a point to make, make it.  I am not obligated to feed your diversion on a discussion I already win.  I’m not here to do your work.  No matter what the FPS is (which is as much a function of the round as the rifle) it doesn’t change the fact there were MU,TIPLE designs.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:35 pm

A better question would have been the cycle rat of fire of the M 16 as compared to the Sporter.

You would see how stupid you are, 1Design.  And there is a reason why.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:38 pm

No, Tiny.

One design, several variants.

It's the PLAIN MEANING of the text....it is CONSISTENTLY confirmed by all sources.

Your "here's a word" is taken entirely out of context.

It was Colt's application to ATF, to allow them to expand the market for their military production line.

The original semi automatic "Colt AR-15 s" were produced in very small numbers (I think it was about 45) by the company as gifts to members of the board. Of course they couldn't hand out assault rifles as mementos, so they MODIFIED the EXISTING DESIGN to eliminate full auto.

Colt wouldn't go through R&D to produce 45 **** units.

ATF would need to be reassured that the "civilian" version wouldn't readily be unmodified, so Colt made some slight changes to the internals, but this - AS THE CITATION MAKES CLEAR - is not a "design", it is a VARIANT.

End of story.

You lose again.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:39 pm

No, it wouldn't.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 10:00 am

Don't. 

Just shut the **** up.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 2:39 pm

@Blackvegetable  

1Design, if there truly was only 1 design there would have been no Colt AR 15 Sporter ATF certification for civilian sale.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 1:41 pm

These words:

”have changed the weapon in basic design…” 

Are taken from letter from what was the ATF at the time.  I see you did not scroll far enough to actually see the Letter.

Strike two.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 2:41 pm

False.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm

Look up the origins of the SP1.

Furthermore, it is included in the family described in what you insist is your citation.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm

Look up the origins of the SP1.

Furthermore, it is included in the family described in what you insist is your citation.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 9:32 am

Blackvegetable » 18 Nov 2022, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022, 9:38 pm

Define "Variant"...or shut the **** up.

This is more than a modification.  It is a whole new internal design: 

To prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, several features were changed. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass, the buffer spring is heavier. On the select-fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when the automatic fire is selected.[54] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option (this requires a registered part with the ATF). Lower receivers that are select-fire are identified by a pinhole above the safety/mode selection switch.[55][56][57][58] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select-fire components.[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#:~:text=As%20of%20September%2019%2C%202019,rifle%20across%20the%20firearms%20industry.

Game.  Set.  Match.

 

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 2:51 pm

Look up the origins of the SP1.

Furthermore, it is included in the family described in what you insist is your citation.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 3:42 pm

Umm, I posted the link with Origins of the SP1 yesterday.  BUT you used strike thru so that is on you.  I refuse to repost on dammed because you’re a moron.

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 3:47 pm

No, Tiny...

I'm perfectly good. 

You're ignorant.

Huey » 19 Nov 2022, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 3:56 pm

Actually, you are,  this thread shows.  Not only did I crush your 1Design idiocy I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not read info already given to you.

Epic Failure in your part.  Just to remind you:

As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select-fire components

Blackvegetable » 19 Nov 2022, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Nov 2022, 4:00 pm

Yes...I'm good...so is your citation, whether or not you understand why.