Liberal Forum

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p
 

Hey Dairy Queer Dickhead....trying to play man up?...good luck with that!

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p

That's a long way for a 5.56.  Better hope who ever yer shooting at doesn't shoot back.     

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p
 

 

You are still butt hurt over that, ROTC.

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:53 am

You are still butt hurt over that, ROTC.

You never posted a case...


I destroyed it in utero....

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:57 am

You never posted a case...


I destroyed it in utero....

 

If I never posted a case there was nothing to destroy.  WHat you did is play slippery eel slithering away from the case at every move.  

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:03 am

If I never posted a case there was nothing to destroy.  WHat you did is play slippery eel slithering away from the case at every move.

Articulate the case you believe you made


 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:19 am

Articulate the case you believe you made


 

 

It is already a matter of recor.

Butt here it is in a nuitshell:

1.  Someone post that that the round was high powered.

2.  I then posted sourced info that it is a it was in the category of INTERMEDIATE charged cartridge.

3.  You then butted in and posted ****.

4.  I said the military is going to a larger round because the round isn't that good.

5.  I then posted that even the military and military experts said it was not a good round and sourced it.  You basically said a retired Major who shot the thing in combat was full of **** as were the accounts he put in his article.

 

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:25 am

It is already a matter of recor.

Butt here it is in a nuitshell:

1.  Someone post that that the round was high powered.

2.  I then posted sourced info that it is a it was in the category of INTERMEDIATE charged cartridge.

3.  You then butted in and posted ****.

4.  I said the military is going to a larger round because the round isn't that good.

5.  I then posted that even the military and military experts said it was not a good round and sourced it.  You basically said a retired Major who shot the thing in combat was full of **** as were the accounts he put in his article.

What is the CASE?

The weapon is clearly high powered if it will kill you at 1000 yds.
 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:33 am

What is the CASE?

The weapon is clearly high powered if it will kill you at 1000 yds.
 

 

It's not.  

As my citations showed.  You provided nothing.  

The case ******* is the 556 Nato round is classified as an intermediate powered cartridge.    Go argue with the military, Mr. Expert.

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:45 am

It's not.  

As my citations showed.  You provided nothing.  

The case ******* is the 556 Nato round is classified as an intermediate powered cartridge.    Go argue with the military, Mr. Expert.

There's the cartridge and the weapon.

As my citations showed.  You provided nothing.  

What about the video showing the actual results of taking this "intermediate cartridge" at a distance of 1,000 yards?

The case ******* is the 556 Nato round is classified as an intermediate powered cartridge. 

It is an entirely irrelevant factoid 
 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p

Either A, B, C, or D.

Let me break this down for your dumb ***. You see the 4 options to the question? Every option includes your definition, but only one is an example of survivorship bias. Your definition was half assed. Like all of your content.

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.

or

"Sampling error"

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Vegas » 25 Jun 2025, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 12:32 pm

Either A, B, C, or D.

Let me break this down for your dumb ***. You see the 4 options to the question? Every option includes your definition, but only one is an example of survivorship bias. Your definition was half assed. Like all of your content.

or

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

You did it again. As always, you refuse to answer questions while demanding yours gets answered.  

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 12:23 pm

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 11:45 am

It's not.  

As my citations showed.  You provided nothing.  

The case ******* is the 556 Nato round is classified as an intermediate powered cartridge.    Go argue with the military, Mr. Expert.

There's the cartridge and the weapon.

As my citations showed.  You provided nothing.  

What about the video showing the actual results of taking this "intermediate cartridge" at a distance of 1,000 yards?

The case ******* is the 556 Nato round is classified as an intermediate powered cartridge. 

It is an entirely irrelevant factoid 
 

 

I have already proven that the 556 the 556 NATO round is categorized as an intermediate powered cartridge.  That is a fact. 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p

It's cringeworthy whenever some cowardly POS  who never served uses derogatory military terms like REMF
What YOU are is a CPOSWNS.....  
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 25 Jun 2025, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 1:42 pm

It's cringeworthy whenever some cowardly POS  who never served uses derogatory military terms like REMF
What YOU are is a CPOSWNS.....  
 

 

I call him ROTC as in Run Off to Canada.
 

*Huey » 25 Jun 2025, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 1:47 pm

I call him ROTC as in Run Off to Canada.

 
YEP.
Actually the term REMF should only be used by the men who  earned the right to use it...the guys who served in the Line Units.
It's a form of Stolen Valor and so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tampon Tim has thrown that term around too.

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 10:25 am

Firing an AR-15 at distances of 600 to 1000 yds.

Go to 27 mins for the results at 1,000 yds.

https://youtu.be/oUWvdHxEJfo?si=T4_Ar84-2Lp02-9p

I never understood the point of trying to make an AR-15 into a 1000 yard, slow-fire rifle.  Its not designed for that.  There are better rounds and better rifles for that. Like a bolt-action 22-250.
 
 

Skans » 25 Jun 2025, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 2:22 pm

I never understood the point of trying to make an AR-15 into a 1000 yard, slow-fire rifle.  Its not designed for that.  There are better rounds and better rifles for that. Like a bolt-action 22-250.
 

 Completely misses the point.

If only the little coward wasn't so vague
 
 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jun 2025, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2025, 2:43 pm

 Completely misses the point.

If only the little coward wasn't so vague
 
 

 

Dude, you stepped into some else's conversation, had no clue what it was about, got curb stomped, and whined about it.