57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 05:06 pm
@oralloy,
I disagree with your circular reasoning. It is my understanding all pistol grips do is to make a shooter more comfortable. There are no studies that can confirm nor deny its effectiveness as to either safety protocols or enhanced shooting capability.

Therefore, I disagree the pistol grip falls under the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It's not an arm. Hell, it's not even a finger.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 05:09 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
I disagree with your circular reasoning.

No such circular reasoning.


neptuneblue wrote:
I disagree the pistol grip falls under the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It's not an arm.

Guns are arms.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 05:12 pm
@oralloy,
Pistol grips are not guns.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 05:13 pm
@neptuneblue,
They are components of guns.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 05:43 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
izzythepush wrote:
Do you only sleep during daylight hours?

What is this sleep thing that you speak of?

Don't you realize that World of Warcraft has just released official classic vanilla servers?

Sleep? Seriously?!

I've been awake for quite some time now.

To all nosy leftists who are eagerly tracking my sleep schedule: I'm about at the limit of what my body can take, so will be falling into a deep coma pretty soon.

I'll be back awake and back in Azeroth before you know it.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 08:27 pm
@Glennn,
You mean other than the US Army thought it was when they adopted it?

As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 inch caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[27] The 5.56 mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[51]

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the Armalite AR-10, named ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[52][53][54] In the late 1950s, designer Eugene Stoner was completing his work on the AR-15. The AR-15 used .22-caliber bullets, which destabilized when they hit a human body, as opposed to the .30 round, which typically passed through in a straight line. The smaller caliber meant that it could be controlled in autofire due the reduced recoil. Being almost one-third the weight of the .30 meant that the soldier could sustain fire for longer with the same load. Due to design innovations, the AR-15 could fire 600 to 700 rounds a minute with an extremely low jamming rate. Parts were stamped out, not hand-machined, so could be mass-produced, and the stock was plastic to reduce weight.[26]
ArmaLite AR-15

In 1958, the Army's Combat Developments Experimentation Command ran experiments with small squads in combat situations using the M14, AR-15, and another rifle designed by Winchester. The resulting study recommended adopting a lightweight rifle like the AR-15. In response, the Army declared that all rifles and machine guns should use the same ammunition, and ordered full production of the M-14.[26] However, advocates for the AR-15 gained the attention of Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis Lemay. After testing the AR-15 with the ammunition manufactured by Remington that Armalite and Colt recommended, the Air Force declared that the AR-15 was its 'standard model' and ordered 8,500 rifles and 8.5 million rounds.[26] Advocates for the AR-15 in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency acquired 1,000 Air Force AR-15s and shipped them to be tested by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The South Vietnam soldiers issued glowing reports of the weapon's reliability, recording zero broken parts while firing 80,000 rounds in one stage of testing, and requiring only two replacement parts for the 1,000 weapons over the entire course of testing. The report of the experiment recommended that the U.S. provide the AR-15 as the standard rifle of the ARVN, but Admiral Harry Felt, then Commander in Chief, Pacific Forces, rejected the recommendations on the advice of the U.S. Army.[26]

Throughout 1962 and 1963, the U.S. military extensively tested the AR-15. Positive evaluations emphasized its lightness, "lethality", and reliability.[26] However, the Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at longer ranges and lack of penetrating power at higher ranges.[52][46][26] In early 1963, the U.S. Special Forces asked, and was given permission, to make the AR-15 its standard weapon. Other users included Army Airborne units in Vietnam and some units affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency. As more units adopted the AR-15, Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance ordered an investigation into why the weapon had been rejected by the Army. The resulting report found that Army Materiel Command had rigged the previous tests, selecting tests that would favor the M14 and choosing match grade M14s to compete against AR-15s out of the box.[26] At this point, the bureaucratic battle lines were well-defined, with the Army ordnance agencies opposed to the AR-15 and the Air Force and civilian leadership of the Defense Department in favor.[26]

In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production.[52][46] In late 1963, the Defense Department began mass procurement of rifles for the Air Force and special Army units. Secretary McNamara designated the Army as the procurer for the weapon with the Department, which allowed the Army ordnance establishment to modify the weapon as they wished. The first modification was the additions of a "manual bolt closure," allowing a soldier to ram in a round if it failed to seat properly. The Air Force, which was buying the rifle, and the Marine Corps, which had tested it both objected to this addition, with the Air Force noting, "During three years of testing and operation of the AR-15 rifle under all types of conditions the Air Force has no record of malfunctions that could have been corrected by a manual bolt closing device." They also noted that the closure added weight and complexity, reducing the reliability of the weapon. Colonel Howard Yount, who managed the Army procurement, would later state the bolt closure was added after direction from senior leadership, rather than as a result of any complaint or test result, and testified about the reasons: "the M-1, the M-14, and the carbine had always had something for the soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something."[26][55]

After modifications,[53] the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16 Rifle.[1][52][46] "(The M16) was much lighter compared to the M14 it replaced, ultimately allowing soldiers to carry more ammunition. The air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle was made of steel, aluminum alloy and composite plastics, truly cutting-edge for the time. Designed with full and semi-automatic capabilities, the weapon initially did not respond well to wet and dirty conditions, sometimes even jamming in combat. After a few minor modifications, the weapon gained in popularity among troops on the battlefield."[46][56][57]
An M16A1

Despite its early failures the M16 proved to be a revolutionary design and stands as the longest continuously serving rifle in US military history.[1][52] It has been adopted by many US allies and the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge has become not only the NATO standard, but "the standard assault-rifle cartridge in much of the world."[52][58][59] It also led to the development of small-caliber high-velocity service rifles by every major army in the world.[52] It is a benchmark against which other assault rifles are judged.[52][60][61]

M16s were produced by Colt until the late 1980s, when FN Herstal began to manufacture them.[62]
Adoption

In July 1960, General Curtis LeMay was impressed by a demonstration of the ArmaLite AR-15. In the summer of 1961, General LeMay was promoted to U.S. Air Force, Chief of Staff, and requested 80,000 AR-15s. However, General Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised President John F. Kennedy that having two different calibers within the military system at the same time would be problematic and the request was rejected.[63] In October 1961, William Godel, a senior man at the Advanced Research Projects Agency, sent 10 AR-15s to South Vietnam. The reception was enthusiastic, and in 1962 another 1,000 AR-15s were sent.[64] United States Army Special Forces personnel filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping-power of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption.[46]

The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 turn in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[46][63] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet. The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by bullet fragmentation created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[65] These wounds were so devastating, that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.[66]

However, despite overwhelming evidence that the AR-15 could bring more firepower to bear than the M14, the Army opposed the adoption of the new rifle.[52][46] U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara now had two conflicting views: the ARPA report[67] favoring the AR-15 and the Army's position favoring the M14.[46] Even President Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army reported that only the M14 was suitable for service, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used; the Inspector General confirmed that the testers were biased towards the M14.

In January 1963, Secretary McNamara received reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces and ordered a halt to M14 production.[46] At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could fulfill a requirement of a "universal" infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered its adoption, despite receiving reports of several deficiencies, most notably the lack of a chrome-plated chamber.[68][1]
101st Airborne trooper cleans his XM16E1 during the Vietnam War in 1966
Front cover – The M16A1 Rifle – Operation and Preventive Maintenance by Will Eisner

After modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[53] the new redesigned rifle was renamed the Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16.[1][52] Inexplicably, the modification to the new M16 did not include a chrome-plated barrel. Meanwhile, the Army relented and recommended the adoption of the M16 for jungle warfare operations. However, the Army insisted on the inclusion of a forward assist to help push the bolt into battery in the event that a cartridge failed to seat into the chamber. The Air Force, Colt and Eugene Stoner believed that the addition of a forward assist was an unjustified expense. As a result, the design was split into two variants: the Air Force's M16 without the forward assist, and the XM16E1 with the forward assist for the other service branches.

In November 1963, McNamara approved the U.S. Army's order of 85,000 XM16E1s;[46][69] and to appease General LeMay, the Air Force was granted an order for another 19,000 M16s.[70][71] In March 1964, the M16 rifle went into production and the Army accepted delivery of the first batch of 2,129 rifles later that year, and an additional 57,240 rifles the following year.[1]

In 1964, the Army was informed that DuPont could not mass-produce the IMR 4475 stick powder to the specifications demanded by the M16. Therefore, Olin Mathieson Company provided a high-performance ball propellant. While the Olin WC 846 powder achieved the desired 3,300 ft (1,000 m) per second muzzle velocity, it produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the M16s action (unless the rifle was cleaned well and often).

Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 09:13 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
There are no studies that can confirm nor deny its effectiveness as to either safety protocols or enhanced shooting capability.

Yeah, that's what I thought.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 09:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
You mean other than the US Army thought it was when they adopted it?

Yeah, I've read all that. You're still going to have to cite something to show that the Army thought that a semiautomatic rifle would be a great assault rifle.

Army didn't use a semiautomatic AR-15, did they?
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 10:23 pm
@Glennn,
And some how that makes you feel oh so much safer or smarter than the rest of us?

GMAFB.

MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 11:05 pm
@neptuneblue,
You're getting nowhere. That's the problem. You'll just go round and round and nothing eill penetrate. You'll just get the same stupid arguments posted over and over in reply.
glitterbag
 
  6  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 11:25 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:


Yeah, I've read all that. You're still going to have to cite something to show that the Army thought that a semiautomatic rifle would be a great assault rifle.

Army didn't use a semiautomatic AR-15, did they?


I'm confused, are you saying that the military doesn't know their ass from their elbow about weapons????? Unfortunately I do know about the M-16 (I won't repeat the story because a few find it tiresome). The military doesn't make distinction between pea shooters and weapons of war........peas shooters don't win battles.....those folks have been around the block a few or more times, they know pea shooters are not weapons that can rapidly fire bullets.

Maybe it's time to bring back the draft. If more men and women actually served this country perhaps we wouldn't worry about the significance or insignificance of 'pistol grips' or other red herrings that minimize the slaughter of children in schools. I don't know, I just wish my grand daughter didn't have to participate in those drills where they have to hide and be quiet so the bad guys can't find them.

Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 11:52 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
Maybe it's time to bring back the draft. If more men and women actually served this country perhaps we wouldn't worry about the significance or insignificance of 'pistol grips' or other red herrings that minimize the slaughter of children in schools. I don't know, I just wish my grand daughter didn't have to participate in those drills where they have to hide and be quiet so the bad guys can't find them.
I've got all my knowledge about arms as a conscript (18 months active duty plus 10 years in the "alarm reserve" with four weeks duty every year.)
So I was trained from small calibre rifle to 40 mm gun. (For the "Badge of Marksmanship" pistol, assault ("battle") rifle, machine pistol and machine gun).
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 12:00 am
Guns were a joke for a sailor on a destroyer, in the 60s. In Bootcamp, we marched with guns that did not work and were allowed to shoot one clip with a 22 rifle. Aboard ship, we only carried forty-five pistols when doing drills with the nuclear weapon that may or not be on board (they never let us know the truth).
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 12:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No. This is a grave violation of our civil liberties.

How so?

Restrictions on a fundamental right are allowed only if the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

What compelling government interest was served in the restriction of automatic weapons?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 12:17 am
@edgarblythe,
That was different on a small ship like the minesweeper I was on: we had pistols and battle rifles (I even had my pistol at home for some weeks during my period as a reserve officer).

In the first months of my time, "bootcamp", we were taught even to shoot with rifle grenades.
The only times when the crew had to be "fully armed" on board, was during the "tactical close surveillance".
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 04:17 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
You mean other than the US Army thought it was when they adopted it?

The US Army adopted a weapon with full-auto capability. Glennn was referring to a semi-auto-only gun.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 04:18 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You're getting nowhere. That's the problem. You'll just go round and round and nothing will penetrate.

What else do you expect when you take a position that is backed by neither facts nor logic?


MontereyJack wrote:
You'll just get the same stupid arguments posted over and over in reply.

Pointing out that you are wrong is hardly a stupid argument.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 04:22 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
I'm confused, are you saying that the military doesn't know their ass from their elbow about weapons?????

It sounds more to me like Glennn is saying that you guys are factually incorrect.


glitterbag wrote:
The military doesn't make distinction between pea shooters and weapons of war

They don't? Then why don't they use pea shooters?


glitterbag wrote:
........peas shooters don't win battles.....those folks have been around the block a few or more times, they know pea shooters are not weapons that can rapidly fire bullets.

So I guess they do make a distinction.

This could be why the military never backs you guys up when you wrongly refer to pea shooters as weapons of war.


glitterbag wrote:
Maybe it's time to bring back the draft. If more men and women actually served this country perhaps we wouldn't worry about the significance or insignificance of 'pistol grips' or other red herrings that minimize the slaughter of children in schools.

That it is wrong for you guys to commit grave violations of people's civil liberties is hardly a red herring.

These attempts to violate people's civil liberties for fun have nothing to do with minimizing any slaughter.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 04:23 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
What compelling government interest was served in the restriction of automatic weapons?

Full-auto weapons allow someone with malicious intent to do a huge amount of lethal damage very quickly.

The potential for wanton slaughter is much higher than with a lever- or pump-action weapon.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 06:41 am
@oralloy,
so controlling the rate of fire is a desirable thing in your mind?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 08:52:22