On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

The M16 is simply a military version of an AR15. The AR15 was designed to be, and is, a "military" rifle. Besides, it is entirely plausible, if not likely, that his rifle never even saw active battle use. It was most likely a training rifle that lived its life in an armory until being released for sale to the public.

My conjecture is as valid as yours.