Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
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. Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the less expensive ARs... ![]() much. It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU I got rid of the front sight post and shaved down the gas block, among other mods. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:17:38 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: 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. === And cereal killers. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/23/15 2:35 AM, Califbill wrote:
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. Same bolt on the Colt 6721, the model I have. Also, mine now has a free-floated barrel...the stock military Colts do not, and a low-pro gas block, and some ambi features and a different stock, 12" fore-end, trigger, iron sights, et cetera. Unfortunately, a silencer for these rifles is about a grand...yikes! ![]() -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hank - RC Aircraft and Boats | General | |||
It's really a boat, not an aircraft | General | |||
More aircraft terror | General | |||
Greater lift for aircraft | ASA | |||
Questions on 9/11 aircraft. | ASA |