Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 12:08 pm

The General admitted it.

I did not say anything about a General.  I said a Colonel lied about what the capabilities of the 5.56/.223.  If there is some General you wish to discuss you can always start a thread.  

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 12:28 pm

I did not say anything about a General.  I said a Colonel lied about what the capabilities of the 5.56/.223.  If there is some General you wish to discuss you can always start a thread.

Just sayin'

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 12:26 pm

No, I did not.

Maybe not in the retelling.

What do you recall?
 

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 12:39 pm

Maybe not in the retelling.

What do you recall?

You are probably better off attempting to change the subject.  You did not do well with the topic of the thread.  Particularly the part about what the Colonel said AND the fact the M 16 and that round were chosen because of weight.  

GHETTOBLASTER » 19 Feb 2024, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 2:55 pm

Are you  comparing a very low power .22LR rifle round to a .223...?      

These are the type of people that say, "What's the difference?"

He would call these two things "bullets" and that funny box on sticking out underneath a "clip".

(The scene in Pulp Fiction where the two hitmen get shot at and are missed by every bullet is not as far from reality as some might think. Put up an 18" square and panic-shoot six rounds from a double action revolver. See how many actually go into the square at 20 feet.)

These are the types that help the propagandists.
 

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 12:43 pm

You are probably better off attempting to change the subject.  You did not do well with the topic of the thread.  Particularly the part about what the Colonel said AND the fact the M 16 and that round were chosen because of weight.

That's what you are doing now.

But I'm perfectly comfortable remaining consistent with my citations.
 

DeezerShoove » 20 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm

These are the type of people that say, "What's the difference?"

He would call these two things "bullets" and that funny box on sticking out underneath a "clip".

(The scene in Pulp Fiction where the two hitmen get shot at and are missed by every bullet is not as far from reality as some might think. Put up an 18" square and panic-shoot six rounds from a double action revolver. See how many actually go into the square at 20 feet.)

These are the types that help the propagandists.

If you enter this on a duck duck go search...future black felon baby names.....this thread pops up as one of the top search results....  

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:16 pm

That's what you are doing now.

But I'm perfectly comfortable remaining consistent with my citations.

Citations you can't explain.  

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Feb 2024, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:22 pm

If you enter this on a duck duck go search...future black felon baby names.....this thread pops up as one of the top search results....

Seems strange.
The algorithms must be AI creations. Heavy on the "A".

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:16 pm

That's what you are doing now.

But I'm perfectly comfortable remaining consistent with my citations.
 

 

And none of them show that a single 5.56/.223 "is capable of severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation."

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm

And none of them show that a single 5.56/.223 "is capable of severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation."

Unless it is an argument I've made, it's irrelevant.

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:49 pm

Unless it is an argument I've made, it's irrelevant.

 

Not when it is the topic of the thread.  

And remember, the 5.56/.223 is nothing more than an intermediate cartridge that is not high powered.
 

DeezerShoove » 20 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm

Seems strange.
The algorithms must be AI creations. Heavy on the "A".

Did you get the same search result...?
[It would be kind of creepy if it was just me who did....  ] 
 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm

Yammering stool.

The new weapons use 6.8mm rounds as the Army looked for heftier ammo than the current 5.56mm used in the M4 and SAW to better defeat body armor, protective equipment that adversaries are expected to have in future conflicts and gear that is already becoming more commonplace for terror groups

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... rifle.html

So... If the military starts using the 6.8 as their standard combat ammunition, then any firearm that fires the 5.56/.223 will no longer be considered a "weapon of war" will it.

(That was not a question.)

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 20 Feb 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 2:25 pm

So... If the military starts using the 6.8 as their standard combat ammunition, then any firearm that fires the 5.56/.223 will no longer be considered a "weapon of war" will it.

(That was not a question.)

 
 

 

Don't confuse him like that.  He still thinks the intermediate cartridge varmint round is a super round.  

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 2:29 pm

Don't confuse him like that.  
 

That's not hard to do.

 

RedheadedStranger » 20 Feb 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 2:25 pm

So... If the military starts using the 6.8 as their standard combat ammunition, then any firearm that fires the 5.56/.223 will no longer be considered a "weapon of war" will it.

(That was not a question.)

The needs of the Combat Infantry has changed quite a lot from the LRRP squads that spent weeks at a time covering  as much ground as they could to locate and  "flush out" the enemy then  radio the enemy's position for the Field Artillery or for the Air Force to annihilate.
In recent times the Combat Infantry drives around in Humvees or else hunkers down in little sand bag compounds while going out on short winded "day patrols" like it's a 9 to 5 job..
Sooo....they might as well rely on the heavier round for their activities that keep them close to base.....but I would think the lighter round would still be favored by the long range recon troops that need to travel light...?
 
 

Huey » 20 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm

Not when it is the topic of the thread.  

And remember, the 5.56/.223 is nothing more than an intermediate cartridge that is not high powered.

irrelevance topped with yet more irrelevance.

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 2:44 pm

irrelevance topped with yet more irrelevance.

Nah.  More relevance to the OP.  You are really proving you are clueless on the issue of firearms and ammunition.