Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Sgt. Sandbags
()
Date: January 27, 2013 11:13AM
Here's a great example of why Democrats can't understand anything
let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
Click the link for full story and the video.
On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New York argued that assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be “easier for a woman” to use.
WATCH (via WFB):
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-women-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assault-weapons/
let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
Click the link for full story and the video.
On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New York argued that assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be “easier for a woman” to use.
WATCH (via WFB):
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-women-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assault-weapons/
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
mo barry
()
Date: January 27, 2013 11:22AM
What do you expect. You have Egypt in total unrest so Obama sends them twenty F16 fighter jets.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Sgt. Sandbags
()
Date: January 27, 2013 12:04PM
mo barry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you expect. You have Egypt in total unrest
> so Obama sends them twenty F16 fighter jets.
Typical Obamabot logic but it's a good thing Carolyn McCarthy isn't on the House Armed Services Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you expect. You have Egypt in total unrest
> so Obama sends them twenty F16 fighter jets.
Typical Obamabot logic but it's a good thing Carolyn McCarthy isn't on the House Armed Services Committee.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
mo free barry stuff
()
Date: January 27, 2013 02:07PM
oh yeah obama sent them to his muslim brotherhood buddies at no cost. remember that when you pay your income taxes this year.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Know your place
()
Date: January 27, 2013 02:27PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
U R a Moron
()
Date: January 27, 2013 03:15PM
Sgt. Sandbags Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a great example of why Democrats can't
> understand anything
> let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
>
>
> Click the link for full story and the video.
>
> On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon
> Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active
> combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New
> York argued that assault weapons are actually
> difficult for women to handle and should therefore
> be banned.
>
> Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for
> women serving in military combat roles —
> appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday
> to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued
> that women should use traditional rifles rather
> than assault rifles because the former would would
> be “easier for a woman” to use.
>
> WATCH (via WFB):
>
> http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-wo
> men-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assaul
> t-weapons/
Did you even read the bullshit article that you're quoting? This what she actually said:
" I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use [for home security]. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that."
She wasn't talking about the role of assault weapons in combat, you idiot. You can't misconstrue a quote and apply it to a totally different issue.
Try and follow. McCarthy supports a ban on assault weapons FOR CIVILIANS, not military personnel. And do you know why she supports a ban? Because her husband was killed and her son severely injured by the Long Island railroad killer twenty years ago.
Honestly, you people are too fucking stupid to own any guns, let alone an assault rifle.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a great example of why Democrats can't
> understand anything
> let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
>
>
> Click the link for full story and the video.
>
> On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon
> Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active
> combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New
> York argued that assault weapons are actually
> difficult for women to handle and should therefore
> be banned.
>
> Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for
> women serving in military combat roles —
> appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday
> to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued
> that women should use traditional rifles rather
> than assault rifles because the former would would
> be “easier for a woman” to use.
>
> WATCH (via WFB):
>
> http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-wo
> men-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assaul
> t-weapons/
Did you even read the bullshit article that you're quoting? This what she actually said:
" I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use [for home security]. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that."
She wasn't talking about the role of assault weapons in combat, you idiot. You can't misconstrue a quote and apply it to a totally different issue.
Try and follow. McCarthy supports a ban on assault weapons FOR CIVILIANS, not military personnel. And do you know why she supports a ban? Because her husband was killed and her son severely injured by the Long Island railroad killer twenty years ago.
Honestly, you people are too fucking stupid to own any guns, let alone an assault rifle.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
beans
()
Date: January 27, 2013 03:34PM
"A rifle is more accurate"
a weapon is only as accurate as the person firing it
a weapon is only as accurate as the person firing it
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
PissMorgan
()
Date: January 27, 2013 03:36PM
U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sgt. Sandbags Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a great example of why Democrats can't
> > understand anything
> > let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
> >
> >
> > Click the link for full story and the video.
> >
> > On the very same day that Defense Secretary
> Leon
> > Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in
> active
> > combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from
> New
> > York argued that assault weapons are actually
> > difficult for women to handle and should
> therefore
> > be banned.
> >
> > Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent
> for
> > women serving in military combat roles —
> > appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight
> Thursday
> > to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> > assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy
> argued
> > that women should use traditional rifles rather
> > than assault rifles because the former would
> would
> > be “easier for a woman” to use.
> >
> > WATCH (via WFB):
> >
> >
> http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-wo
>
> >
> men-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assaul
>
> > t-weapons/
>
> Did you even read the bullshit article that you're
> quoting? This what she actually said:
>
> " I will tell you, if you talk to professionals,
> hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell
> you that’s not the gun to use [for home
> security]. A rifle is more accurate. It’s
> certainly easier for a woman to be able to do
> that."
>
> She wasn't talking about the role of assault
> weapons in combat, you idiot. You can't
> misconstrue a quote and apply it to a totally
> different issue.
>
> Try and follow. McCarthy supports a ban on assault
> weapons FOR CIVILIANS, not military personnel. And
> do you know why she supports a ban? Because her
> husband was killed and her son severely injured by
> the Long Island railroad killer twenty years ago.
>
> Honestly, you people are too fucking stupid to own
> any guns, let alone an assault rifle.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for self defense. "assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned". I guess women in the military aren't able to handle them in combat either.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sgt. Sandbags Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a great example of why Democrats can't
> > understand anything
> > let alone the military and the 2nd Amendment.
> >
> >
> > Click the link for full story and the video.
> >
> > On the very same day that Defense Secretary
> Leon
> > Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in
> active
> > combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from
> New
> > York argued that assault weapons are actually
> > difficult for women to handle and should
> therefore
> > be banned.
> >
> > Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent
> for
> > women serving in military combat roles —
> > appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight
> Thursday
> > to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> > assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy
> argued
> > that women should use traditional rifles rather
> > than assault rifles because the former would
> would
> > be “easier for a woman” to use.
> >
> > WATCH (via WFB):
> >
> >
> http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-wo
>
> >
> men-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assaul
>
> > t-weapons/
>
> Did you even read the bullshit article that you're
> quoting? This what she actually said:
>
> " I will tell you, if you talk to professionals,
> hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell
> you that’s not the gun to use [for home
> security]. A rifle is more accurate. It’s
> certainly easier for a woman to be able to do
> that."
>
> She wasn't talking about the role of assault
> weapons in combat, you idiot. You can't
> misconstrue a quote and apply it to a totally
> different issue.
>
> Try and follow. McCarthy supports a ban on assault
> weapons FOR CIVILIANS, not military personnel. And
> do you know why she supports a ban? Because her
> husband was killed and her son severely injured by
> the Long Island railroad killer twenty years ago.
>
> Honestly, you people are too fucking stupid to own
> any guns, let alone an assault rifle.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for self defense. "assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned". I guess women in the military aren't able to handle them in combat either.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
U R a Moron
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:15PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for
> self defense. "assault weapons are actually
> difficult for women to handle and should therefore
> be banned". I guess women in the military aren't
> able to handle them in combat either.
You are quoting the Blaze (lol) article, not the Congresswoman, you idiot. Contrary to what your role models have taught you, you can't just make shit up. And when you people have no valid arguments, you nitpick the definition of an assault rifle.
-------------------------------------------------------
> An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for
> self defense. "assault weapons are actually
> difficult for women to handle and should therefore
> be banned". I guess women in the military aren't
> able to handle them in combat either.
You are quoting the Blaze (lol) article, not the Congresswoman, you idiot. Contrary to what your role models have taught you, you can't just make shit up. And when you people have no valid arguments, you nitpick the definition of an assault rifle.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
so tell me
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:28PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for
> self defense.
So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self defense. It would be a shitty choice for home defense. You might claim that it could be used for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and were able to actually use it properly as the optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it protect property or farmland from animals that may intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast, zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't be the best choice.
I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be banned or not but what I am saying is that your argument is invalid.
-------------------------------------------------------
> An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used for
> self defense.
So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self defense. It would be a shitty choice for home defense. You might claim that it could be used for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and were able to actually use it properly as the optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it protect property or farmland from animals that may intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast, zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't be the best choice.
I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be banned or not but what I am saying is that your argument is invalid.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
PissMorgan
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:40PM
so tell me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> > semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used
> for
> > self defense.
>
>
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
>
>
> I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be
> banned or not but what I am saying is that your
> argument is invalid.
I own some rural property and find the AR to be an excellent rifle for hunting
coyotes and groundhogs. However, if I choose to use it for self defense that's
my choice and not Carolyn McCarthys. It's also an excellent firearm for holding
off looters if that should be the case. Also, in a survival situation that's
outside I'd like to have some firepower. It's a very versatile firearm.
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> > semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used
> for
> > self defense.
>
>
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
>
>
> I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be
> banned or not but what I am saying is that your
> argument is invalid.
I own some rural property and find the AR to be an excellent rifle for hunting
coyotes and groundhogs. However, if I choose to use it for self defense that's
my choice and not Carolyn McCarthys. It's also an excellent firearm for holding
off looters if that should be the case. Also, in a survival situation that's
outside I'd like to have some firepower. It's a very versatile firearm.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
PissMorgan
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:45PM
Get a load of this AR-15 pistol. I'll bet women could even handle this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM57Bg2decI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM57Bg2decI
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
uni
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:47PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
However, if I choose to use it for self defense that's my choice
based on the second amendment can i bear grenades if it is my choice?
-------------------------------------------------------
However, if I choose to use it for self defense that's my choice
based on the second amendment can i bear grenades if it is my choice?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
dp
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:50PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get a load of this AR-15 pistol. I'll bet women
> could even handle this one.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM57Bg2decI
that wouldn't be suitable in a combat situation. you would have to physically swap the stock whereas with an M-4 it is collapsable and able to be extended quickly in combat
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get a load of this AR-15 pistol. I'll bet women
> could even handle this one.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM57Bg2decI
that wouldn't be suitable in a combat situation. you would have to physically swap the stock whereas with an M-4 it is collapsable and able to be extended quickly in combat
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
PissMorgan
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:53PM
uni Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> However, if I choose to use it for self defense
> that's my choice
>
>
> based on the second amendment can i bear grenades
> if it is my choice?
No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from civilian ownership under the
National Firearms Act of 1934.
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> However, if I choose to use it for self defense
> that's my choice
>
>
> based on the second amendment can i bear grenades
> if it is my choice?
No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from civilian ownership under the
National Firearms Act of 1934.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
dajd
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:55PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from
> civilian ownership under the
> National Firearms Act of 1934.
Oh, so there should be some limit to the second amendment then huh?
-------------------------------------------------------
> No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from
> civilian ownership under the
> National Firearms Act of 1934.
Oh, so there should be some limit to the second amendment then huh?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:58PM
Sgt. Sandbags Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for
> women serving in military combat roles —
> appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday
> to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued
> that women should use traditional rifles rather
> than assault rifles because the former would would
> be “easier for a woman” to use.
The "traditional rifle" is unsuitable for use on the modern battlefield outside of sniping roles. It's also far heavier than the M16 or the M4.
------------------------------------------------------
> Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for
> women serving in military combat roles —
> appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday
> to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s
> assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued
> that women should use traditional rifles rather
> than assault rifles because the former would would
> be “easier for a woman” to use.
The "traditional rifle" is unsuitable for use on the modern battlefield outside of sniping roles. It's also far heavier than the M16 or the M4.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 05:59PM
so tell me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
The argument of "effective range" is absolute nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is effective up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty well built.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
The argument of "effective range" is absolute nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is effective up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty well built.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Do as I say
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:02PM
so tell me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> > semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used
> for
> > self defense.
>
>
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
>
>
> I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be
> banned or not but what I am saying is that your
> argument is invalid.
May not be the best choice for some but certainly not a "shitty choice" as you present it. In fact, many law enforcement groups have switched over to AR-type weapons for close-quarters use over shotguns. Faster handling, less recoil and faster follow-up shots, less potential for collateral injuries, less unintended penetration of walls, etc. with the proper ammo, etc., etc. An AR carbine set up for self defense is a whole lot easier to handle and shoot than many typical home defense shotguns and sporting rifles.
Probably wouldn't be my first choice either, but I'm sure not going to try to decide that for someone else via mandate guided largely by ideology as McCarthy is. And as far as I know McCarthy has no particular quals or expertise with respect to personal defense.
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a
> > semi-automatic sporting rifle that can be used
> for
> > self defense.
>
>
> So tell me...how would you use an AR-15 for self
> defense. It would be a shitty choice for home
> defense. You might claim that it could be used
> for "self defense" if you had a lot of land and
> were able to actually use it properly as the
> optimal range of an AR-15 to be effective is
> 400–600 meters. Good luck telling a judge that
> it was self-defense. Or you could claim to use it
> protect property or farmland from animals that may
> intrude...like foxes, coyotes, bears, wildebeast,
> zebra, lions, ect...but the AR-15 still wouldn't
> be the best choice.
>
>
> I'm not saying either way that AR-15s should be
> banned or not but what I am saying is that your
> argument is invalid.
May not be the best choice for some but certainly not a "shitty choice" as you present it. In fact, many law enforcement groups have switched over to AR-type weapons for close-quarters use over shotguns. Faster handling, less recoil and faster follow-up shots, less potential for collateral injuries, less unintended penetration of walls, etc. with the proper ammo, etc., etc. An AR carbine set up for self defense is a whole lot easier to handle and shoot than many typical home defense shotguns and sporting rifles.
Probably wouldn't be my first choice either, but I'm sure not going to try to decide that for someone else via mandate guided largely by ideology as McCarthy is. And as far as I know McCarthy has no particular quals or expertise with respect to personal defense.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
sdaasj
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:03PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument of "effective range" is absolute
> nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is effective
> up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum
> range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty
> well built.
except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable for close range which is why the effective range is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16 as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the stock is collapsed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The argument of "effective range" is absolute
> nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is effective
> up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum
> range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty
> well built.
except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable for close range which is why the effective range is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16 as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the stock is collapsed.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:04PM
sdaasj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The argument of "effective range" is absolute
> > nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is
> effective
> > up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum
> > range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty
> > well built.
>
>
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
So the stock length determines effective range huh? lmao
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The argument of "effective range" is absolute
> > nonsense for the most part. The AR-15 is
> effective
> > up to a MAXIMUM range. There isn't a minimum
> > range. The rifle is deadly accurate and pretty
> > well built.
>
>
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
So the stock length determines effective range huh? lmao
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
sdf
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:10PM
Derps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the stock length determines effective range
> huh? lmao
the M4 trumps the M16s close quarter combat performance due to its small size.
as the AR-15 has an exterior mirror image of an M16, it is not suitable for home defense.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the stock length determines effective range
> huh? lmao
the M4 trumps the M16s close quarter combat performance due to its small size.
as the AR-15 has an exterior mirror image of an M16, it is not suitable for home defense.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
PissMorgan
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:15PM
dajd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from
> > civilian ownership under the
> > National Firearms Act of 1934.
>
>
> Oh, so there should be some limit to the second
> amendment then huh?
I haven't heard of any calls to repeal the National Firearms Act. Have you?
-------------------------------------------------------
> PissMorgan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No you cannot. Grenades are prohibited from
> > civilian ownership under the
> > National Firearms Act of 1934.
>
>
> Oh, so there should be some limit to the second
> amendment then huh?
I haven't heard of any calls to repeal the National Firearms Act. Have you?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
pokgf
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:18PM
PissMorgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't heard of any calls to repeal the
> National Firearms Act. Have you?
i have heard the current appeals which are basically adding to it which is what you are against.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't heard of any calls to repeal the
> National Firearms Act. Have you?
i have heard the current appeals which are basically adding to it which is what you are against.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
BioHazard
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:18PM
Y'all a bunch a flametard trolls.
Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and seriously - Just STFU.
Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and seriously - Just STFU.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:20PM
sdf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So the stock length determines effective range
> > huh? lmao
>
>
> the M4 trumps the M16s close quarter combat
> performance due to its small size.
> as the AR-15 has an exterior mirror image of an
> M16, it is not suitable for home defense.
Which has little to nothing to do with effective range.
People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types of variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols and SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to full-blown race guns that look like some sort of outer space ray guns. Do you really not understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror the M-4 and not the M-16?
And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to and she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go for it. lol
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So the stock length determines effective range
> > huh? lmao
>
>
> the M4 trumps the M16s close quarter combat
> performance due to its small size.
> as the AR-15 has an exterior mirror image of an
> M16, it is not suitable for home defense.
Which has little to nothing to do with effective range.
People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types of variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols and SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to full-blown race guns that look like some sort of outer space ray guns. Do you really not understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror the M-4 and not the M-16?
And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to and she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go for it. lol
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
asdas
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:21PM
BioHazard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'all a bunch a flametard trolls.
> Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and
> seriously - Just STFU.
got a class 3 and silencers
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'all a bunch a flametard trolls.
> Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and
> seriously - Just STFU.
got a class 3 and silencers
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
asfpokd
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:22PM
Derps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which has little to nothing to do with effective
> range.
>
> People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types of
> variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols and
> SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to
> full-blown race guns that look like some sort of
> outer space ray guns. Do you really not
> understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror the
> M-4 and not the M-16?
>
> And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to and
> she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type
> rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go for
> it. lol
do you own an AR-15?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which has little to nothing to do with effective
> range.
>
> People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types of
> variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols and
> SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to
> full-blown race guns that look like some sort of
> outer space ray guns. Do you really not
> understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror the
> M-4 and not the M-16?
>
> And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to and
> she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type
> rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go for
> it. lol
do you own an AR-15?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:24PM
sdaasj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's still the third best battle rifle in the world, behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
-------------------------------------------------------
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's still the third best battle rifle in the world, behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
jsaodp
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:26PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the
> hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is
> far superior.
that's a crock of shit
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the
> hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is
> far superior.
that's a crock of shit
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:26PM
asfpokd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which has little to nothing to do with
> effective
> > range.
> >
> > People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types
> of
> > variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols
> and
> > SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to
> > full-blown race guns that look like some sort
> of
> > outer space ray guns. Do you really not
> > understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror
> the
> > M-4 and not the M-16?
> >
> > And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to
> and
> > she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type
> > rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go
> for
> > it. lol
>
> do you own an AR-15?
Several in various configurations. All of which btw my wife and daughter handle just fine. Much better than they do some others that I have.
Any point or just curious?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which has little to nothing to do with
> effective
> > range.
> >
> > People use the term AR-15 to refer to all types
> of
> > variants of the same basic rifle, from pistols
> and
> > SBRs to M-16-style retro-styled guns, to
> > full-blown race guns that look like some sort
> of
> > outer space ray guns. Do you really not
> > understand that most AR-type rifles now mirror
> the
> > M-4 and not the M-16?
> >
> > And I guess McCarthy's comments only apply to
> and
> > she's only talking about restricting AR-15-type
> > rifles that mirror the M-16? Good to know! Go
> for
> > it. lol
>
> do you own an AR-15?
Several in various configurations. All of which btw my wife and daughter handle just fine. Much better than they do some others that I have.
Any point or just curious?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:28PM
jsaodp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> the
> > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16
> is
> > far superior.
>
>
> that's a crock of shit
Absolutely. Especially given specific changes to the M4 which lessen the tendency to jam versus the older.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> the
> > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16
> is
> > far superior.
>
>
> that's a crock of shit
Absolutely. Especially given specific changes to the M4 which lessen the tendency to jam versus the older.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
pkoj
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:30PM
Derps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Any point or just curious?
i wanted to see if you'd answer as i acutally don't want the law passed either. i just like arguing with you fucks because all of you gun nuts get really heated.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Any point or just curious?
i wanted to see if you'd answer as i acutally don't want the law passed either. i just like arguing with you fucks because all of you gun nuts get really heated.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:30PM
jsaodp Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> that's a crock of shit
"In fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.[27] The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233."
882 stoppages/10 rifles=88.2 stoppages per rifle.
6000/88.2=One stoppage every 68 rounds. That's a lot of jamming.
------------------------------------------------------
> that's a crock of shit
"In fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.[27] The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233."
882 stoppages/10 rifles=88.2 stoppages per rifle.
6000/88.2=One stoppage every 68 rounds. That's a lot of jamming.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:33PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jsaodp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > that's a crock of shit
>
>
> "In fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against
> three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at
> Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler &
> Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat
> Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416.
> Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000
> rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per
> rifle type.[27] The M4 suffered far more stoppages
> than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring
> an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest
> stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones,
> followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the
> HK416 with 233."
>
> 882 stoppages/10 rifles=88.2 stoppages per rifle.
>
>
> 6000/88.2=One stoppage every 68 rounds. That's a
> lot of jamming.
Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16. Pulling some reference to a specific test in specific conditions versus other guns NOT including the M16 doesn't help your case.
-------------------------------------------------------
> jsaodp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > that's a crock of shit
>
>
> "In fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against
> three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at
> Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler &
> Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat
> Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416.
> Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000
> rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per
> rifle type.[27] The M4 suffered far more stoppages
> than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring
> an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest
> stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones,
> followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the
> HK416 with 233."
>
> 882 stoppages/10 rifles=88.2 stoppages per rifle.
>
>
> 6000/88.2=One stoppage every 68 rounds. That's a
> lot of jamming.
Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16. Pulling some reference to a specific test in specific conditions versus other guns NOT including the M16 doesn't help your case.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
hogh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:34PM
Derps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16.
> Pulling some reference to a specific test in
> specific conditions versus other guns NOT
> including the M16 doesn't help your case.
derps FTW!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16.
> Pulling some reference to a specific test in
> specific conditions versus other guns NOT
> including the M16 doesn't help your case.
derps FTW!!!
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:36PM
pkoj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Any point or just curious?
>
>
> i wanted to see if you'd answer as i acutally
> don't want the law passed either. i just like
> arguing with you fucks because all of you gun nuts
> get really heated.
Who's getting heated? Just pointing out the dumb shit that you ignorant anti-gun nuts actually believe. lol
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Any point or just curious?
>
>
> i wanted to see if you'd answer as i acutally
> don't want the law passed either. i just like
> arguing with you fucks because all of you gun nuts
> get really heated.
Who's getting heated? Just pointing out the dumb shit that you ignorant anti-gun nuts actually believe. lol
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:38PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the
> hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is
> far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's
> still the third best battle rifle in the world,
> behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
You realize that the M4 is just the carbine version of the M16 right?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The M4's "effective range" is based solely on the
> hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16 is
> far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's
> still the third best battle rifle in the world,
> behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
You realize that the M4 is just the carbine version of the M16 right?
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:40PM
BioHazard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'all a bunch a flametard trolls.
> Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and
> seriously - Just STFU.
You have to apply for a permit each time you want to purchase a Class III firearm. It's not like a concealed carry permit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'all a bunch a flametard trolls.
> Get a Class III permit, any weapon you want, and
> seriously - Just STFU.
You have to apply for a permit each time you want to purchase a Class III firearm. It's not like a concealed carry permit.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:42PM
sdaasj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
Not all M4s have collapsible buttstocks, that is just an accessory.....and the buttstock, no matter what type, does not determine range.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> except for the fact that it is huge and unsuitable
> for close range which is why the effective range
> is 400-600 meters and this is also the reason why
> the military went with the M-4 instead of the M-16
> as the M-4 has a closer effective range when the
> stock is collapsed.
Not all M4s have collapsible buttstocks, that is just an accessory.....and the buttstock, no matter what type, does not determine range.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:43PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> the
> > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16
> is
> > far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's
> > still the third best battle rifle in the world,
> > behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
>
>
>
>
> You realize that the M4 is just the carbine
> version of the M16 right?
For the most part, the M4 is very similar to the M16. However, they do differ in a few ways.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> the
> > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The M16
> is
> > far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging. It's
> > still the third best battle rifle in the world,
> > behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
>
>
>
>
> You realize that the M4 is just the carbine
> version of the M16 right?
For the most part, the M4 is very similar to the M16. However, they do differ in a few ways.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:44PM
hogh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16.
> > Pulling some reference to a specific test in
> > specific conditions versus other guns NOT
> > including the M16 doesn't help your case.
>
>
> derps FTW!!!
The M16 forces the use of less ammunition. Since we don't believe in marksmanship, that's a huge plus.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Derps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fail. Your claim was re the M4 vs the M16.
> > Pulling some reference to a specific test in
> > specific conditions versus other guns NOT
> > including the M16 doesn't help your case.
>
>
> derps FTW!!!
The M16 forces the use of less ammunition. Since we don't believe in marksmanship, that's a huge plus.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
jfasfdasj
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:48PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M16 forces the use of less ammunition. Since
> we don't believe in marksmanship, that's a huge
> plus.
except for the fact that the m16 wasn't included in that test and therefore your findings are invalid. the m4 is far superior. i have shot both. although on full auto any gun will jam.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M16 forces the use of less ammunition. Since
> we don't believe in marksmanship, that's a huge
> plus.
except for the fact that the m16 wasn't included in that test and therefore your findings are invalid. the m4 is far superior. i have shot both. although on full auto any gun will jam.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
hfdshfidsh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:50PM
jfasfdasj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
although on full auto any gun will jam.
same goes for three round burst
-------------------------------------------------------
although on full auto any gun will jam.
same goes for three round burst
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:51PM
jfasfdasj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> except for the fact that the m16 wasn't included
> in that test and therefore your findings are
> invalid. the m4 is far superior. i have shot
> both. although on full auto any gun will jam.
The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine, the M16 is far superior.
-------------------------------------------------------
> except for the fact that the m16 wasn't included
> in that test and therefore your findings are
> invalid. the m4 is far superior. i have shot
> both. although on full auto any gun will jam.
The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine, the M16 is far superior.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Derps
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:52PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> > the
> > > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The
> M16
> > is
> > > far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging.
> It's
> > > still the third best battle rifle in the
> world,
> > > behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You realize that the M4 is just the carbine
> > version of the M16 right?
>
> For the most part, the M4 is very similar to the
> M16. However, they do differ in a few ways.
Yeah, like the improved feed ramps, buffer design, etc. that are specific design improvements over the older M16 to improve reliability. lol
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > The M4's "effective range" is based solely on
> > the
> > > hope that it won't jam. It jams a lot. The
> M16
> > is
> > > far superior. Unfortunately, it is aging.
> It's
> > > still the third best battle rifle in the
> world,
> > > behind the AK-47 and the H&K G3.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You realize that the M4 is just the carbine
> > version of the M16 right?
>
> For the most part, the M4 is very similar to the
> M16. However, they do differ in a few ways.
Yeah, like the improved feed ramps, buffer design, etc. that are specific design improvements over the older M16 to improve reliability. lol
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
haudhasdh
()
Date: January 27, 2013 06:54PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine, the
> M16 is far superior.
are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones? actual M4s are definately far superior.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine, the
> M16 is far superior.
are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones? actual M4s are definately far superior.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 27, 2013 10:12PM
haudhasdh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine,
> the
> > M16 is far superior.
>
>
> are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones?
> actual M4s are definately far superior.
In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior choice. Of course, we can safely say that both suck as combat weapons. The M14 is a fine weapon; it wasn't suited for the Vietnam War.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine,
> the
> > M16 is far superior.
>
>
> are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones?
> actual M4s are definately far superior.
In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior choice. Of course, we can safely say that both suck as combat weapons. The M14 is a fine weapon; it wasn't suited for the Vietnam War.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
dfgfdg
()
Date: January 27, 2013 10:17PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior
> choice. Of course, we can safely say that both
> suck as combat weapons.
in your opinion. in mine the m4 is a fine combat weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior
> choice. Of course, we can safely say that both
> suck as combat weapons.
in your opinion. in mine the m4 is a fine combat weapon.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
OMS
()
Date: January 28, 2013 11:22AM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> haudhasdh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine,
> > the
> > > M16 is far superior.
> >
> >
> > are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones?
>
> > actual M4s are definately far superior.
>
> In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior
> choice. Of course, we can safely say that both
> suck as combat weapons. The M14 is a fine weapon;
> it wasn't suited for the Vietnam War.
Depends on the terrain you were in. I'd been in the Army 3 years
before going to Nam and loved the M-14. When I was sent off to
familiarize with the M-16 it felt like a toy. I wanted my M-14
back all year long. Sweet rifle and a Hell of a lot better for
bayonet drill too.
-------------------------------------------------------
> haudhasdh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The M4 is superior in your opinion. In mine,
> > the
> > > M16 is far superior.
> >
> >
> > are you talking the fake M4/AR or the real ones?
>
> > actual M4s are definately far superior.
>
> In your opinion. In mine, the M16 is the superior
> choice. Of course, we can safely say that both
> suck as combat weapons. The M14 is a fine weapon;
> it wasn't suited for the Vietnam War.
Depends on the terrain you were in. I'd been in the Army 3 years
before going to Nam and loved the M-14. When I was sent off to
familiarize with the M-16 it felt like a toy. I wanted my M-14
back all year long. Sweet rifle and a Hell of a lot better for
bayonet drill too.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 28, 2013 03:23PM
OMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on the terrain you were in. I'd been in the Army 3 years
> before going to Nam and loved the M-14. When I was sent off to
> familiarize with the M-16 it felt like a toy. I wanted my M-14
> back all year long. Sweet rifle and a Hell of a lot better for bayonet drill too.
The M-14 wasn't suitable for the jungles of Vietnam. It was supposedly horrible on full-auto, according to a DoD study. In many ways, however, it was better made, far more reliable, and far more accurate than the M-16. It's beginning to make a comeback because of the horrible conditions in Afghanistan and the underpowered nature of the 5.56.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on the terrain you were in. I'd been in the Army 3 years
> before going to Nam and loved the M-14. When I was sent off to
> familiarize with the M-16 it felt like a toy. I wanted my M-14
> back all year long. Sweet rifle and a Hell of a lot better for bayonet drill too.
The M-14 wasn't suitable for the jungles of Vietnam. It was supposedly horrible on full-auto, according to a DoD study. In many ways, however, it was better made, far more reliable, and far more accurate than the M-16. It's beginning to make a comeback because of the horrible conditions in Afghanistan and the underpowered nature of the 5.56.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: January 28, 2013 07:20PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M-14 wasn't suitable for the jungles of
> Vietnam. It was supposedly horrible on full-auto,
> according to a DoD study. In many ways, however,
> it was better made, far more reliable, and far
> more accurate than the M-16. It's beginning to
> make a comeback because of the horrible conditions
> in Afghanistan and the underpowered nature of the
> 5.56.
According to the guys that were in Vietnam, without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt and humidity for a weapon designed with such close tolerances.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The M-14 wasn't suitable for the jungles of
> Vietnam. It was supposedly horrible on full-auto,
> according to a DoD study. In many ways, however,
> it was better made, far more reliable, and far
> more accurate than the M-16. It's beginning to
> make a comeback because of the horrible conditions
> in Afghanistan and the underpowered nature of the
> 5.56.
According to the guys that were in Vietnam, without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt and humidity for a weapon designed with such close tolerances.
Attachments:
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 28, 2013 07:28PM
Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> According to the guys that were in Vietnam,
> without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt
> and humidity for a weapon designed with such close
> tolerances.
The original M16s fielded in Vietnam used low quality magazines and filthy ammunition. Both of these affected reliability greatly.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> According to the guys that were in Vietnam,
> without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt
> and humidity for a weapon designed with such close
> tolerances.
The original M16s fielded in Vietnam used low quality magazines and filthy ammunition. Both of these affected reliability greatly.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
barry farms
()
Date: January 28, 2013 07:42PM
The simple SKS was far better. Sure less capacity but a far sight more reliable. They used to sell them at the gun show for fifty bucks, not they run up to $400.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: January 28, 2013 07:50PM
barry farms Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple SKS was far better. Sure less capacity
> but a far sight more reliable. They used to sell
> them at the gun show for fifty bucks, not they run
> up to $400.
It will be interesting to see where the SKS fits in various assault weapons bans, since it only holds 10 rounds and doesn't have a detachable magazine.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple SKS was far better. Sure less capacity
> but a far sight more reliable. They used to sell
> them at the gun show for fifty bucks, not they run
> up to $400.
It will be interesting to see where the SKS fits in various assault weapons bans, since it only holds 10 rounds and doesn't have a detachable magazine.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 28, 2013 09:09PM
Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the guys that were in Vietnam,
> without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt
> and humidity for a weapon designed with such close
> tolerances.
Oh, I totally agree. The M14 had the issue that it was 1. made of wood and 2. horrible on full auto. In many cases, the Army simply locked the M14 on semi-auto. It didn't work out too well against the AK-47 or Type 56.
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the guys that were in Vietnam,
> without LSA the M-16 was useless. Too much dirt
> and humidity for a weapon designed with such close
> tolerances.
Oh, I totally agree. The M14 had the issue that it was 1. made of wood and 2. horrible on full auto. In many cases, the Army simply locked the M14 on semi-auto. It didn't work out too well against the AK-47 or Type 56.
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 28, 2013 09:11PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The original M16s fielded in Vietnam used low
> quality magazines and filthy ammunition. Both of
> these affected reliability greatly.
The original M16 was called a "self-cleaning" weapon. Our troops weren't issued cleaning kits until briefly before a Congressional probe. Yay for our beloved military-industrial complex!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The original M16s fielded in Vietnam used low
> quality magazines and filthy ammunition. Both of
> these affected reliability greatly.
The original M16 was called a "self-cleaning" weapon. Our troops weren't issued cleaning kits until briefly before a Congressional probe. Yay for our beloved military-industrial complex!
Re: Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat but shouldn't use assault weapons
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: January 28, 2013 09:12PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will be interesting to see where the SKS fits
> in various assault weapons bans, since it only
> holds 10 rounds and doesn't have a detachable
> magazine.
Same with the M-1 Carbine. I can't imagine it'll be banned, but with the clowns we have in Washington, nobody knows.
It does hold 15 rounds and have a detachable box though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2013 09:12PM by Young Curmudgeon.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will be interesting to see where the SKS fits
> in various assault weapons bans, since it only
> holds 10 rounds and doesn't have a detachable
> magazine.
Same with the M-1 Carbine. I can't imagine it'll be banned, but with the clowns we have in Washington, nobody knows.
It does hold 15 rounds and have a detachable box though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2013 09:12PM by Young Curmudgeon.