Printable View
ummm.....pardon me mr. Second Amendment dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
but what world do you live in where it's acceptable for a small child to be taught how to handle a fucking machine gun.
ever been on the barrel end of one of those? I have. it's no fucking joke when someone's got that pointed at your face.
edit:
here's a prime example of why you're a dumb fuckin goon for thinking that way
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-much-for-her/
for those unfamilar with 5.56/.223 firearms here is a technical point: a firearm chambered in 5.56 Nato can fire the 5.56 Nato and .223 roundQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
however, a firearm chambered in .223 can only fire the .223 round, it can NOT fire a 5.56 Nato round
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLafferummm.....pardon me mr. Second Amendment dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
but what world do you live in where it's acceptable for a small child to be taught how to handle a fucking machine gun.
ever been on the barrel end of one of those? I have. it's no fucking joke when someone's got that pointed at your face.
1) No you haven't.
2)the gun in my pictures is not a machine gun, nor is it an assault rifle.
3)First you have to know what a machine gun is, to actually call it a machine gun. Let me give you a hint - you pretty much cant legally buy a machine gun let alone an assault rifle in this country...unless you get a certain license that is ridiculously hard to get. Pretty much 99.99999999% doesn't obtain this.
4)If you ever actually fired one of these weapons, you would realize why it is a choice weapon for multiple uses. Ridiculously low recoil, ease of modifying...etc etc
EDIT:Oh, by the way, to add to your edit of your previous post, an UZI and an AR-15 are two entirely different things...and it's not even close
Can you run off a list of multiple uses? I hope those rifles are not considered appropriate for huntingQuote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
1) No you haven't.
2)the gun in my pictures is not a machine gun, nor is it an assault rifle.
3)First you have to know what a machine gun is, to actually call it a machine gun. Let me give you a hint - you pretty much cant legally buy a machine gun let alone an assault rifle in this country...unless you get a certain license that is ridiculously hard to get. Pretty much 99.99999999% doesn't obtain this.
4)If you ever actually fired one of these weapons, you would realize why it is a choice weapon for multiple uses. Ridiculously low recoil, ease of modifying...etc etc
EDIT:Oh, by the way, to add to your edit of your previous post, an UZI and an AR-15 are two entirely different things...and it's not even close
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogerfor those unfamilar with 5.56/.223 firearms here is a technical point: a firearm chambered in 5.56 Nato can fire the 5.56 Nato and .223 roundQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
however, a firearm chambered in .223 can only fire the .223 round, it can NOT fire a 5.56 Nato round
Id expect that to be reversed... 5.56 NATO is lower barrel pressure, no?
Congrats on the adaption.
The two cartridges are almost identical in size with the 5.56 slightly biggerQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
Id expect that to be reversed... 5.56 NATO is lower barrel pressure, no?
BUT 5.56 NATO cartridges have more propellant (or are hotter as shooters say) and thus produce more pressure upon ignition...the 5.56 Nato rifles have are built with stronger aand larger ingnition chambers to withstand the pressure. Thus, 5.56 ammo & rifles are more expensive but have greater ranges than the .223 cartridge/rifle...the stronger propellant makes the bullet fly faster and with less arc, hence the range is farther and shooting is more accurate
.223 rifles are not built with ignition chambers as strong or big as 5.56 rifles...thus it is dangerous to put 5.56 rounds in a .223 chambered rifle--the rifle can blow up in the shooter face. Still, the 223 is a relatively inexpensive round, great for plinking at the shooting range or shooting pests such as coyotes, hogs, prairie dogs, etc
the above assumes we are talking about factory manufactured ammunition, which is loaded with carefully selected propellant amounts and bullet weights. there are some shooters that assemble their own cartridges and install propellants that produce pressures above what is available from ammo sold by manufacturers...their goal is greater accuracy/range but there is a risk of exceeding pressure tolerances the rifle was designed for. Best thing for the novice, shoot only factory manufactured ammunition and the cartridge type the firearm was intended for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogerThe two cartridges are almost identical in size with the 5.56 slightly biggerQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
BUT 5.56 NATO cartridges have more propellant (or are hotter as shooters say) and thus produce more pressure upon ignition...the 5.56 Nato rifles have are built with stronger aand larger ingnition chambers to withstand the pressure. Thus, 5.56 ammo & rifles are more expensive but have greater ranges than the .223 cartridge/rifle...the stronger propellant makes the bullet fly faster and with less arc, hence the range is farther and shooting is more accurate
.223 rifles are not built with ignition chambers as strong or big as 5.56 rifles...thus it is dangerous to put 5.56 rounds in a .223 chambered rifle--the rifle can blow up in the shooter face. Still, the 223 is a relatively inexpensive round, great for plinking at the shooting range or shooting pests such as coyotes, hogs, prairie dogs, etc
the above assumes we are talking about factory manufactured ammunition, which is loaded with carefully selected propellant amounts and bullet weights. there are some shooters that assemble their own cartridges and install propellants that produce pressures above what is available from ammo sold by manufacturers...their goal is greater accuracy/range but there is a risk of exceeding pressure tolerances the rifle was designed for. Best thing for the novice, shoot only factory manufactured ammunition and the cartridge type the firearm was intended for.
I thought the collar dimensions were the principle difference and was surprised to read that the 5.56 has lower pressure in the barrel than the .223 exactly because of the collar. Maybe that info was wrong, I dont know... but barrel pressure != foot/pound impact at target so I suppose it could be true? I do appreciate the explanation in any case.
can't find anything re: rifle collars and 5.56 & .223Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
I thought the collar dimensions were the principle difference and was surprised to read that the 5.56 has lower pressure in the barrel than the .223 exactly because of the collar. Maybe that info was wrong, I dont know... but barrel pressure != foot/pound impact at target so I suppose it could be true? I do appreciate the explanation in any case.
but here is an article saying a lot of the same things i said re: difference http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/223-...mmo-in-my-gun/
Thank you GrenadaRoger for bringing some info to the table for the community. It's appreciated.
I will be the first to admit that I for one have much to learn about barrels, pressures, ballistics etc; That being said, my consensus is that it always seems to be a constant learning experience more or less no matter where a person is in the field & what level they are on.
Nothing wrong with having some good commentary & knowledge to clear up some of the hype & misinformation that circulates especially in this day and age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesCan you run off a list of multiple uses? I hope those rifles are not considered appropriate for huntingQuote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
I'm genuinely curious why you hope they are not appropriate for hunting? No really, I am. What do you know about the rifles? I guess I'm trying to see through another persons eyes what they think.
First off, to gain some knowledge on the question you're asking, you could go no further than reading GrenadaRoger's last few posts here.
On that note, to simply answer your question, yes...yes they are good for hunting. I can use this rifle for both defense and hunting small/medium sized game.
I'm curious why you have reservations about it? is it the way it looks? is it the misinformation given by the media? I'm curious...
Will be looking for you to post something like this with results of a successful hog hunt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHx4...ature=youtu.be
I concede your assumption that I reacted without true knowledge of popular hunting gear. I understand that small arms weapons can and are made to imitate more volatile weapons. My question was intended to have you explain your term of "multiple uses". For civilians in my neck of the woods, hunting is the only use for such a weapon, and true hunters don't require a clip, which implies semi automatic action, or the desire to imitate such a machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
I'm genuinely curious why you hope they are not appropriate for hunting? No really, I am. What do you know about the rifles? I guess I'm trying to see through another persons eyes what they think.
First off, to gain some knowledge on the question you're asking, you could go no further than reading GrenadaRoger's last few posts here.
On that note, to simply answer your question, yes...yes they are good for hunting. I can use this rifle for both defense and hunting small/medium sized game.
I'm curious why you have reservations about it? is it the way it looks? is it the misinformation given by the media? I'm curious...
Maybe I'm out of it but dedicated hunters are said to have respect for their prey which includes little or no waste and being humble enough to allow the escape of a target if you burped while pulling the trigger. So what's with the clip?
Has anyone laughed at you as you exit your mini van?
The defense shit is shite. Shotgun would do just fine as would pepper spray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesI concede your assumption that I reacted without true knowledge of popular hunting gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
Answer: This should have been where you left your entire rebuttal.
I understand that small arms weapons can and are made to imitate more volatile weapons.
Answer: Explain how? because they look similar? I don't understand what you are saying about "small arms weapons" vs "more volatile". Do you even know what a small arms weapon is?
My question was intended to have you explain your term of "multiple uses".
Answer:I already explained the multiple uses. This isn't rocket science here.
For civilians in my neck of the woods, hunting is the only use for such a weapon, and true hunters don't require a clip, which implies semi automatic action, or the desire to imitate such a machine.
Answer: Since you want to be technical, The AR-15 doesn't require a clip. I'm not sure how the hell you would even load a clip in a gun that requires a magazine.
Also, I can tell by you're sentence that you have never REALLY hunted or had much experience handling a firearm. Don't act like you are a hunter - you're not...not even close. So don't talk about "true hunters" because you aren't one. If you did, you would know that most firearms DO require a ahem MAGAZINE or "clip" for the uninformed such as yourself. Even my 30.06 hunting rifle has a magazine. I know you Canadians don't ALL use strictly bolt action....so as a result, you're either using a mag or a clip. Educate yourself.
Maybe I'm out of it but dedicated hunters are said to have respect for their prey which includes little or no waste and being humble enough to allow the escape of a target if you burped while pulling the trigger.
Answer: Yes, you're out of it. Since when is my choice of weapon in this instance indicative of what I save or waste on an animal and how I do or don't respect an animal....
ARE YOU DRUNK??
If you actually knew anything about my hunting style that you are criticizing, you would know that I DON'T waste anything....but what the hell does any of this have to do with the topic? you lost me. Go take a nap and sleep it off, and come back and reread everything you wrote so you know how dumb you sound.
So what's with the clip?
Has anyone laughed at you as you exit your mini van?
Answer: again...you're talking about a "clip". You don't even know what in the fuck you are talking about.
The defense shit is shite. Shotgun would do just fine as would pepper spray.
Answer: You are clearly drunk or on drugs
Next time you want to debate me on this topic, come back with some actual knowledge and facts, because you sound like a blithering drunk right now
Good Day.
Here Gordy, what flavour are the windows in your house?
re: similarities of modern hunting rifle to military assault rifles -- both the hunter in the field and the infantry soldier share common burdens to their task: they must often walk for miles carrying their equipment, they may have to shoot at targets quite distant, and having a pistol grip will improve accuracy particularly in rapid fire situations. Thus, as the same conditions are faced, it is natural that a rifle for each would be configured similarly. Indeed, the M-16 was designed with the above goals in mind ...the AR-15, the modern hunting rifle, is the civilian version of the M-16, came afterward when manufacturers realized those features appealed to hunters, particularly veterans familiar with the M-16, and from there its popularity spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
The hunter and soldier differ on auto fire capability plus choice of ammo. Because the hunter's prey can't fire back, there is no need for full auto ability...while the soldier will need that for close in combat...also, the hunter want to kill his prey with minimal suffering, thus he chooses the most destructive ammo type -- hollow point which mushrooms out to cause maximum tissue damage and quicker kill. The soldier would prefer to wound his prey, requiring the opposition to devote resource to evacuating the wounded soldier and then provide medical care--its more economically burdensome to wound than kill. Thus soldiers use solid point full metal jacket ammo, which will not spread/fragment inside the target (although the M-16 round tends to tumble and thus leave a larger wound channel).
Semi auto action is required when hunting in order to get off a second shot if the first shot does not drop the target and the target begins to run...in the time to reload using a bolt or lever action rifle, the prey (hog, coyote, deer) can run 25 or more yards...semi auto action cuts down on the time required to reload...remember the hunters goal is to kill his prey as quickly as possible thereby minimizing the suffering of the animal. A first shot may result in a slow death to the prey, and the hunter may have to search through brush looking for the prey that ran there after being hit...and the animal may not be dead when the hunter finds it, and the animal may attach him then.
re: hunting in general, the program of licensing hunting & fishing has been beneficial for the wildlife. It has provided a source of revenue to fund conservation programs to maintain habitat, stop poaching and manage herd sizes. Were it not for hunting, many of our forests would have gone long ago to agricultural or commercial interests.
Re clip versus magazine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzAQ2uZVHb4&feature=youtu.be
Here's another education video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4NjxAvwca0&feature=youtu.be
I don't feel like multi-quoting all the relevant passages but that instructor that gave an Uzi to a nine year old girl at a shooting range is a fucking retard. The kick from an Uzi is so powerful that you could point it at the ground and you pull the trigger and that bitch will buck up like a wild fucking horse. With an AR at least it is a rifle so you could teach a nine year old girl to shoot on that and it would be much safer because you could make sure they have proper cheek weld and that they seat the rifle butt in their shoulder. You could teach them prone and sitting shooting positions pretty safely. Even if you taught this theoretical nine year old how to shoot standing up there would be much much much less risk than handing them a fucking Uzi. The rifle itself is much easier to handle and control.
It's like I don't want to say I called it but if you would have told me that someone was teaching a nine year old to shoot with an Uzi I would have immediately said that guy is going to get shot. I'm a grown ass man and when I shot off an Uzi it took every ounce of concentration and a bit of strength to control it.
Chillax dude and lock the ammo up. First off, I admitted my Field and Scream subscription lapsed long ago. So, jump on a technical distinction between clip and magazine and file it away as a win. Multiple uses does not mean that you can blow the head off a gopher, sewer rat or a deer, so try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Next time you want to debate me on this topic, come back with some actual knowledge and facts, because you sound like a blithering drunk right now
Good Day.
In your diatribe, you failed to list the multiple uses for this "gun". Yeah I know there are only two (if you're not in the military) but I wondered if you could invent another.
This photo of yours interests me. It's no different than photos from the middle east where the weapon is surrounded by photos of Muslim clerics and the Koran. Real tough.
http://i.imgur.com/6o32Sod.jpg
Do you wrap yourself in the flag when you hunt? If not, then why lay these weapons on such a background?
Congrats on overkill going forward whether it's in the wild or the woods.
Is your blind equipped with heat and a fridge?