Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 10:57 am

No, it isn't..

It's debunked, AGAIN, by your citation.

No, my citation, that you have clearly states that the design of SP model was changed in basic design when compared to a completely different firearm.  You did not read the citation.  You skimmed it and misunderustood it.  Remember the title?

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tP0HqLLI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 10:59 am

It isn't "crux"

It's ****..

You are not smart enough to see that it is.  
 
 
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:01 am

You are not smart enough to see that it is.

You're so "smart", every time you cite something it eats you up and spits you out.

And then you put it in your sig.

And I send you running.

That's "not smart"
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am

No, my citation, that you have clearly states that the design of SP model was changed in basic design when compared to a completely different firearm.  You did not read the citation.  You skimmed it and misunderustood it.  Remember the title?

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tP0HqLLI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

To what weapon does the snippet in your sig refer?


(It's, like, a starter pistol)
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:15 am

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am

No, my citation, that you have clearly states that the design of SP model was changed in basic design when compared to a completely different firearm.  You did not read the citation.  You skimmed it and misunderustood it.  Remember the title?

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tP0HqLLI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

To what weapon does the snippet in your sig refer?


(It's, like, a starter pistol)
 

 

If you had read my citation in full as well as the below post you would not ask such stupid questions.  

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:00 am

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 10:57 am

No, it isn't..

It's debunked, AGAIN, by your citation.

No, my citation, that you have clearly states that the design of SP model was changed in basic design when compared to a completely different firearm.  You did not read the citation.  You skimmed it and misunderustood it.  Remember the title?

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tP0HqLLI
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
 

 

 

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:18 am

If you had read my citation in full as well as the below post you would not ask such stupid questions.

Run

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:34 am

Run

It has only been posted 2037 times.  Still waiting on you case and all this "gun" knowledge you possess.  

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 11:35 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:35 am

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 11:34 am

Run

It has only been posted 2037 times.  Still waiting on you case and all this "gun" knowledge you possess.  

 

You've never posted it....except in passing.

Because you lose the moment you do.



 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 12:12 pm

You've never posted it....except in passing.

Because you lose the moment you do.

I have straihgt up posted and in passing also qualifies as posting it.  Hell, you bust yourself for lying in one post.

Run.....

Or you can post your argument and declare victory.  I will then embarrass you further.  That is why you won't post an argument.  Youre a coward.  

 

error
 

@Blackvegetable  

This should help you:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tPLYHEzf
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

You sure you know which rifle came first?  

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 12:26 pm

@Blackvegetable  

This should help you:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7tPLYHEzf
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

You sure you know which rifle came first?

Look up "M16 Air Force 1962"

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 12:21 pm

I have straihgt up posted and in passing also qualifies as posting it.  Hell, you bust yourself for lying in one post.

Run.....

Or you can post your argument and declare victory.  I will then embarrass you further.  That is why you won't post an argument.  Youre a coward.

I have straihgt up posted and in passing also qualifies as posting it. 

after you post the answer, post the rule

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 12:56 pm

Look up "M16 Air Force 1962"

You can do it.  

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 12:57 pm

after you post the answer, post the rule

I have already posted the answer over the years.  I have made my case.  Waiting on yours.  On all this knowledge you claim to possess. 

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 1:43 pm

I have already posted the answer over the years. I have made my case.  Waiting on yours.  On all this knowledge you claim to possess.

You're lying.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-h ... force-m16/
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 1:57 pm

You're lying.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-h ... force-m16/

While not relevant, here is more.  

However, LeMay’s request to order the AR-15 was denied by Congress. Adopting a rifle with a new cartridge would be problematic for military acquisitions and logistics. Additionally, the Army was still against the adoption of the ArmaLite Rifle in favor of keeping its own armories turning out M14s. In 1962, as Air Force Chief of Staff, LeMay eventually got a small order of AR-15s approved and sent them to Vietnam for use by Air Police, now known as Security Forces.  

(Air Police were not on the battlefield)

In addition to the Air Force, the AR-15 was adopted by Army Special Forces working with South Vietnamese forces for testing and evaluation. Along with pressure from LeMay and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was also a fan of the AR-15, Special Forces reports praising the rifle’s performance eventually pushed the Army to replace the M14 with the AR-15 as the M16. In November 1963, Colt received a $13.5 million contract for 104,000 M16s, 19,000 of which were slated for the Air Force.

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm

While not relevant, here is more.  

However, LeMay’s request to order the AR-15 was denied by Congress. Adopting a rifle with a new cartridge would be problematic for military acquisitions and logistics. Additionally, the Army was still against the adoption of the ArmaLite Rifle in favor of keeping its own armories turning out M14s. In 1962, as Air Force Chief of Staff, LeMay eventually got a small order of AR-15s approved and sent them to Vietnam for use by Air Police, now known as Security Forces.  

(Air Police were not on the battlefield)

In addition to the Air Force, the AR-15 was adopted by Army Special Forces working with South Vietnamese forces for testing and evaluation. Along with pressure from LeMay and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was also a fan of the AR-15, Special Forces reports praising the rifle’s performance eventually pushed the Army to replace the M14 with the AR-15 as the M16. In November 1963, Colt received a $13.5 million contract for 104,000 M16s, 19,000 of which were slated for the Air Force.

Did you just suggest that the fact that the AF ordered the weapon MORE THAN A YEAR before Colt modified it is irrelevant?
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2023, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 2:51 pm

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm

While not relevant, here is more.  

]However, LeMay’s request to order the AR-15 was denied by Congress. Adopting a rifle with a new cartridge would be problematic for military acquisitions and logistics. Additionally, the Army was still against the adoption of the ArmaLite Rifle in favor of keeping its own armories turning out M14s. In 1962, as Air Force Chief of Staff, LeMay eventually got a small order of AR-15s approved and sent them to Vietnam for use by Air Police, now known as Security Forces.  

(Air Police were not on the battlefield)

In addition to the Air Force, the AR-15 was adopted by Army Special Forces working with South Vietnamese forces for testing and evaluation. Along with pressure from LeMay and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was also a fan of the AR-15, Special Forces reports praising the rifle’s performance eventually pushed the Army to replace the M14 with the AR-15 as the M16. In November 1963, Colt received a $13.5 million contract for 104,000 M16s, 19,000 of which were slated for the Air Force.

Did you just suggest that the fact that the AF ordered the weapon MORE THAN A YEAR before Colt modified it is irrelevant?

FIFY
It is irrelevant in the context of the argument.  

Notice the request was shot down by congress and that only a small order was was approved for AF Cops.  I took the ST away so you can read it.  That is also not an M 16.  It is an original Armalite Design.  Note the position of the charging handle for instances and the lack of a forward assist.



Now, that is not the same weapon as the Sporter.  Same deal with the charging handle and a much different lower.  Two different designs 

 
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023, 2:58 pm

FIFY
It is irrelevant in the context of the argument.  

Notice the request was shot down by congress and that only a small order was was approved for AF Cops.  I took the ST away so you can read it.  That is also not an M 16.  It is an original Armalite Design.  Note the position of the charging handle for instances and the lack of a forward assist.



Now, that is not the same weapon as the Sporter.  Same deal with the charging handle and a much different lower.  Two different designs

Basta