This time make sure it is not articles about Automatic rifles.Mrkelly » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Funny looking “L”
[img]blob:ba6f03c8-0474-483c-8e8d-551f61162210[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg
[img]blob:c22b7c66-9216-40de-ae47-41bb0eb92637[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1983.jpg
[img]blob:a99fc019-51b0-43d1-bd30-8de36684b314[/img]
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91b ... _QL80_.jpg
Want more ?
why?
Blackvegetable » Today, 4:45 am » wrote: ↑ Coozie,
Show me a post that you believe best represents your professed ideals.
You may choose from your archive or Vegas'...
There must be a plethora.
Mrkelly » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ why?
I was proving you wrong
they were marketed as “assault rifles”![]()
and that’s where the gun grabbers got the term … they didn’t come up with it
*Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups,[4][5][6] and the media.[7] It is sometimes used interchangeably with the term assault rifle,[8] which refers to selective fire rifles that use intermediate cartridges.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... %5D%20This
Coozie,DeezerShoove » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No, no...
This is all about your favorite subject: You.
Relish the moment.
"Re-designed" again?*Huey » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I know. THe manufacture told you it was redesigned. The NATF told you it was changed in basic design. Wiki listed the redesign in of the internal workings of the lower.
Yet, you seem to think you, a guy who has NO experience with either weapon, knows more about it than they do.
Keep running.
BV's Sporter Loss https: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
Mrkelly » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Cool story Cletus
I was talking about this reply from you
”No, it was marketed as a Semi Automatic rifle:”
*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I posted one of the original Sporter advertising fliers. No mention of Assault Weapon/Rifle. The anti gun crowds use of the term predates your magazines.
You have seen this many times before:
That doesn't answer the question...it just debunks your fiction.*Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You have seen this many times before:
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.[76] 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.[77][78][79][80] 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. The pivot pin may also be slightly larger in diameter.[81][82]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15%E2%80%93style_rifle#:~:text=To%20prevent%20a,%5B82%5D
Actually, I'm not. But by all means, keep posting. This is highly entertaining.Mrkelly » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑OK
SO … the gun manufacturers ran with it![]()
yur embarrassing yourself![]()
By all means, debunk it:Blackvegetable » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑ That doesn't answer the question...it just debunks your fiction.
You just did.*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ By all means, debunk it:
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
Everything I posted supports a new design.
*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Actually, I'm not. But by all means, keep posting. This is highly entertaining.
Yes...you certainly are..*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Actually, I'm not. But by all means, keep posting. This is highly entertaining.
You won't easily exhaust Quimmie's supply of Bold Yaps...
Blackvegetable » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You just did.
And your cowardice confirms it..
Just another citation from which you are running.
Only in your "re-interpretations".*Huey » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The manufacturer says you are wrong.
The military says you are wrong.
The BATF says your are wrong.
The source of the citation I gave you says you are wrong.
Blackvegetable » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Only in your "re-interpretations".
You continue to labor the issue of "re-designed".....of what are these alleged "redesigns"?
if something is DESIGNED for a specific purpose, why would there ever be talk of RE-design?