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.

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.

Indeed, sensitivity is nice. Try it sometime.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

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.

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.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

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.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would not
find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto rifle.


Other than the trigger setup and the select fire switch, is almost the
same. Different bolt and bolt face. But is very close.

On 1/22/2015 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.


What's it matter... so harry has a toy that wasn't up to military use?
Probably why he's so jealous.

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.