The Gun Forum Primer

[TurtleDude]

Are you asking me? Haha. Some WWII ammunition had corrosive primers. It is therefore necessary to clean the gun after each shooting session to preserve the rifling in the barrel. Modern ammo doesn't have that issue.
A percussion cap? That's pretty ancient history isn't it?

One of the early advantages of the MI Carbine was -iirc -that all the ammo issued for it-unlike the MI Garant-was noncorrosive primed ammo. Which made the weapon very popular in the wet environments of the pacific in WWII and then nam (corrosive primed ammo have salts that attract moisture which causes corrosion to the bore-which is why the COMBLOC rifles that used mainly corrosive ammo, were usually fitted with Chrome lined bores since those were more resistant to rusting from the corrosive Berdan primed Warsaw Pact ammo)

 

[jet57]

Attempt to deflect from your statements and address the fallacies contained in them noted......you didnt just move the goal post, you launched it into orbit.

No, just slapping down nonsense. I've proved the difference in the ammunition; I don't care what pingy says, he hasn't proved anything. So I moved nothing. The facts I've posted still stand as well as the fact that "gun expertise" has nothing to do with policies.

 

[jet57]

No, you said, "Nobody uses them anymore."

Changing that to "We don't use them anymore." is a goalpost move.

(chuckle)



US issue and Brazil issue, the old US issue that I have is an antique.

Being picky only shows that your argument is extremely weak. What "expertise" do you have that will change regulation policies voted in by people who don't care what your expertise is... The OP was designed to show exactly how "gun experts" work by moving the goal posts around because they have nothing credible do defeat facts concerning ongoing policies. The OP exposes the rabbit hole you guys try to drag people into because your arguments are silly.

So - let's settle it -

Which of the founders who wrote, debated and passed the second amendment were "experts" in firearms?

 

[jet57]

I bet you wish you never claimed to owning those particular couple weapons of war.

Couple? What couple? A pistol and an antique? Or a modern combat weapon? Of those I own none.

 

[pinqy]

(chuckle)

View attachment 67256656

US issue and Brazil issue, the old US issue that I have is an antique.

Being picky only shows that your argument is extremely weak. What "expertise" do you have that will change regulation policies voted in by people who don't care what your expertise is... The OP was designed to show exactly how "gun experts" work by moving the goal posts around because they have nothing credible do defeat facts concerning ongoing policies. The OP exposes the rabbit hole you guys try to drag people into because your arguments are silly.

So - let's settle it -

Which of the founders who wrote, debated and passed the second amendment were "experts" in firearms?

From the site where you likely got the picture: The IMI Magal .30M1 carbine reloaded -The Firearm Blog
“While the original 30-round M1 Carbine magazine could be used, IMI also offered a fully-compatible 27-round unit which kept the bolt open after the last shot fired. Other than that, changes were mainly in the aesthetics/ergonomic department. The all-steel machined upper receiver and each part of the firing mechanism were housed within a one-piece polymer lower, which included the pistol grip, full hand size trigger guard, magazine housing and handguard, this featuring an orifice below the barrel for the addition of a flashlight.”

So what exactly makes the older version less deadly than the Magal?

 

[TurtleDude]

No, just slapping down nonsense. I've proved the difference in the ammunition; I don't care what pingy says, he hasn't proved anything. So I moved nothing. The facts I've posted still stand as well as the fact that "gun expertise" has nothing to do with policies.

NO you didn't-and you are unable to understand that a fast light bullet-that has more Muzzle energy than a slow heavier bullet-is not necessarily more lethal and is often less likely to kill since much of that energy is not transferred to the body of the target. That is why a 45 ACP-which has less energy than most 9mm cartridges (which shoot 115 grain bullets around 1200 FPS versus 230 grain bullets at about 850 FPS) is far more likely to cause one shot stops.

 

[TurtleDude]

Couple? What couple? A pistol and an antique? Or a modern combat weapon? Of those I own none.

IS this an antique





or is this an antique



what is the difference in terms of function? One was made over 100 years ago, the other recently

 

[pinqy]

IS this an antique


View attachment 67256674


or is this an antique

View attachment 67256675

what is the difference in terms of function? One was made over 100 years ago, the other recently

And it’s a weapon of war. We still had the 1911’s in our arms room as late as 1991.

 

[TurtleDude]

And it’s a weapon of war. We still had the 1911’s in our arms room as late as 1991.

My Green Beret LtC nephew-when he was a Captain in the Rangers doing house clearing in Iraq, had several of his men packing 1911s-either older military issue or newer (Kimbers were popular) ones since they worked better for that than the M9s with FMJ 9mm.

 

[jet57]

You confuse the size of a cartridge with the size of a bullet. And you are apparently ignorant of the fact that a fast light bullet might not transfer near as much terminal energy to a live target than a slower fatter bullet (that is far less likely to exit the target)

I confused nothing.

 

[jet57]

IS this an antique


View attachment 67256674


or is this an antique

View attachment 67256675

what is the difference in terms of function? One was made over 100 years ago, the other recently

The top one is for sure; it's pitted enough and has wear marks all over it. The other is something that somebody with no computer skills put together and has just too lousy a quality, I mean the whole thing: it's a mess, so could be a squirt gun; you must have- what, 200 of 'em? A guess would tell me that you're trying to regurgitate some more banal legal fantasy by asking the same old question from a completely different angle like you're going to get a different answer.

And what does any of that have to do with sound gun policies by people who don't give damn how the "functions" work.

 

[jet57]

NO you didn't-and you are unable to understand that a fast light bullet-that has more Muzzle energy than a slow heavier bullet-is not necessarily more lethal and is often less likely to kill since much of that energy is not transferred to the body of the target. That is why a 45 ACP-which has less energy than most 9mm cartridges (which shoot 115 grain bullets around 1200 FPS versus 230 grain bullets at about 850 FPS) is far more likely to cause one shot stops.

Yep, I did. I'll slap it around again too:

Watch -

I proved it and you can't.

 

[jet57]

And it’s a weapon of war. We still had the 1911’s in our arms room as late as 1991.

The first projectile tool was a weapon of war - what's your point? So would you rather have a sling shot, or an AR15.

I wonder how you're going to answer that.

 

[TurtleDude]

I confused nothing.

The rest of us disagree.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep, I did. I'll slap it around again too:

Watch -

I proved it and you can't.

You seem to be in the minority here. NO one else is agreeing with the nonsense you post

Can you make an effort to tell us why calling a firearm as something "designed for military combat" has any legal relevance? You seem enamored with trying to support an idiotic yearning to ban rifles you are not trusted to own in your state by labeling them-falsely-as weapons for "warfare" yet you cannot tell us why that means anything in terms of the current legal standards.

we are waiting for you tell explain why there is any value in your rather dishonest labels you apply to guns you cannot own, and thus don't want anyone else to be able to own.

 

[TurtleDude]

The top one is for sure; it's pitted enough and has wear marks all over it. The other is something that somebody with no computer skills put together and has just too lousy a quality, I mean the whole thing: it's a mess, so could be a squirt gun; you must have- what, 200 of 'em? A guess would tell me that you're trying to regurgitate some more banal legal fantasy by asking the same old question from a completely different angle like you're going to get a different answer.

And what does any of that have to do with sound gun policies by people who don't give damn how the "functions" work.

IN other words, you aren't able to tell us why one is different than the other.

 

[RF667799]

The top one is for sure; it's pitted enough and has wear marks all over it. The other is something that somebody with no computer skills put together and has just too lousy a quality, I mean the whole thing: it's a mess, so could be a squirt gun; you must have- what, 200 of 'em? A guess would tell me that you're trying to regurgitate some more banal legal fantasy by asking the same old question from a completely different angle like you're going to get a different answer.

And what does any of that have to do with sound gun policies by people who don't give damn how the "functions" work.

Is your M1 carbine pitted? Mine isn't. You should take better care of your stuff.

 

[RF667799]

Couple? What couple? A pistol and an antique? Or a modern combat weapon? Of those I own none.

Both the M1 carbine and the M1911 you claim to own are weapons of war. Have you abandoned that label? "Modern combat weapon" will serve you no better.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is your M1 carbine pitted? Mine isn't. You should take better care of your stuff.

years ago, I had Fulton Armory build me an MI carbine. I wanted one as "new" as possible but genuine GI. They did using a like new but military receiver with unused barrel etc. Cost me about 750. I also have bought a few from the DCM that were military arsenal rebuilds and I have one of the reimports from Korea. Years and years ago, I had a Universal Carbine built on then (circa 1980) new parts that were not mil-spec surplus. It worked but was not as good a gun as my Fulton Armory (built on Inland made parts) or the Rockola, Winchester, Saginaw and other military DCM carbines. Inland-a division of GM in the WWII era, is now an ongoing operation (not the original enterprise) making NEW MI Carbines based on the military contract guns of 75 years ago or so.

 

[pinqy]

The first projectile tool was a weapon of war - what's your point? So would you rather have a sling shot, or an AR15.

I wonder how you're going to answer that.

It actually depends on the circumstances. You do know that slings are still used as weapons? A sling can be used for indirect fire with explosive or incendiary projectiles...an AR-15 can not. As a main or only weapon? I’d prefer an M4 to an AR15. Ar15 were designed for civilian use.

But it was you who have been claiming that being a “weapon of war” is something no civilian should have.
I’m not claiming that “weapon of war” is a meaningful concept when talking about gun control.

 

[TurtleDude]

It actually depends on the circumstances. You do know that slings are still used as weapons? A sling can be used for indirect fire with explosive or incendiary projectiles...an AR-15 can not. As a main or only weapon? I’d prefer an M4 to an AR15. Ar15 were designed for civilian use.

But it was you who have been claiming that being a “weapon of war” is something no civilian should have.
I’m not claiming that “weapon of war” is a meaningful concept when talking about gun control.

I have asked him over a dozen times what legal significance can be attached to him erroneously calling AR 15s "weapons for warfare" or "designed for military combat". As you can see, he has been unable or afraid to actually address that most cogent point.

 

[RF667799]

years ago, I had Fulton Armory build me an MI carbine. I wanted one as "new" as possible but genuine GI. They did using a like new but military receiver with unused barrel etc. Cost me about 750. I also have bought a few from the DCM that were military arsenal rebuilds and I have one of the reimports from Korea. Years and years ago, I had a Universal Carbine built on then (circa 1980) new parts that were not mil-spec surplus. It worked but was not as good a gun as my Fulton Armory (built on Inland made parts) or the Rockola, Winchester, Saginaw and other military DCM carbines. Inland-a division of GM in the WWII era, is now an ongoing operation (not the original enterprise) making NEW MI Carbines based on the military contract guns of 75 years ago or so.

The first gen Universal carbines are the ones to seek out. They're mil-spec and use about 99% GI parts. Later, Universal decided to "improve" on the design and used less and less GI parts and went to a dual mainspring setup.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have asked him over a dozen times what legal significance can be attached to him erroneously calling AR 15s "weapons for warfare" or "designed for military combat". As you can see, he has been unable or afraid to actually address that most cogent point.

Yep, but what other than "weapons of war" are suitable for militia use?

 

[jet57]

You seem to be in the minority here. NO one else is agreeing with the nonsense you post

Can you make an effort to tell us why calling a firearm as something "designed for military combat" has any legal relevance? You seem enamored with trying to support an idiotic yearning to ban rifles you are not trusted to own in your state by labeling them-falsely-as weapons for "warfare" yet you cannot tell us why that means anything in terms of the current legal standards.

we are waiting for you tell explain why there is any value in your rather dishonest labels you apply to guns you cannot own, and thus don't want anyone else to be able to own.

I didn't label anything, the designers did. There IS a difference between a 30-06 and a BAR wouldn't you say? Which one was specifically designed for heavy combat? A 30-06 could be used as sniper rifle, but in a heavy fire fight, it'd be kind of slow wouldn't it. So of the two, which one do you think the Vegas shooter would have used if he'd been able to get several BARs? He chose the AR15 though didn't he. There's your legal precedent right there. Moreover, the 1994 assault weapons ban set a legal precedent as well. THAT'S the part of this entire thing that spoils your "technicalities argument". These silly rabbit holes you try and take everybody down is exactly what inspired this thread: your nonsense means nothing against sound rational argument of effects and policies that arise from them. You can't prove anything dude; you can'tr answer the simple of questions that make a mockery of your entire case. So I'll ask you again: what got in the way of sound legal gun regulations that have passed muster in this country and the several states since our founding? Which of the founders who wrote, debated and passed the second amendment were "gun experts? THEY decided policy and law, so name the gun experts.

You can'y do it, and that's my point.

 

[prometeus]

There IS a difference between a 30-06 and a BAR wouldn't you say?

Yes, one is a cartridge caliber the other is a firearm. So much for your knowledge on the topic.