HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » cafe owner has AR-15 to d...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:06 PM

cafe owner has AR-15 to defend Obama mural

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

regardless how we feel about pretend military rifles, the Breakfast Club is the first eatery I'm going to next time I'm in Houston.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/50895550#50895550

Right on Mr. Davis

86 replies, 7211 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply cafe owner has AR-15 to defend Obama mural (Original post)
gejohnston Feb 2013 OP
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #1
rdharma Feb 2013 #2
gejohnston Feb 2013 #4
rdharma Feb 2013 #11
gejohnston Feb 2013 #12
rdharma Feb 2013 #14
gejohnston Feb 2013 #15
rdharma Feb 2013 #16
gejohnston Feb 2013 #17
rdharma Feb 2013 #18
gejohnston Feb 2013 #19
rdharma Feb 2013 #20
gejohnston Feb 2013 #21
rdharma Feb 2013 #22
gejohnston Feb 2013 #23
rdharma Feb 2013 #24
gejohnston Feb 2013 #25
rdharma Feb 2013 #27
gejohnston Feb 2013 #28
rdharma Feb 2013 #29
gejohnston Feb 2013 #30
rdharma Feb 2013 #31
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #34
rdharma Feb 2013 #36
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #37
rdharma Feb 2013 #39
gejohnston Feb 2013 #40
rdharma Feb 2013 #41
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #44
rdharma Feb 2013 #45
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #80
rdharma Feb 2013 #81
oneshooter Feb 2013 #82
rdharma Feb 2013 #84
Clames Feb 2013 #83
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #86
Clames Feb 2013 #46
rdharma Feb 2013 #48
Clames Feb 2013 #51
rdharma Feb 2013 #53
rdharma Feb 2013 #68
Clames Feb 2013 #69
rdharma Feb 2013 #70
Clames Feb 2013 #73
rdharma Feb 2013 #75
Clames Feb 2013 #79
Clames Feb 2013 #85
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #65
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #47
rdharma Feb 2013 #49
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #50
rdharma Feb 2013 #52
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #54
rdharma Feb 2013 #55
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #56
rdharma Feb 2013 #57
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #58
rdharma Feb 2013 #61
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #63
rdharma Feb 2013 #67
Clames Feb 2013 #71
rdharma Feb 2013 #72
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #76
rdharma Feb 2013 #77
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #78
ThatPoetGuy Feb 2013 #3
gejohnston Feb 2013 #5
slackmaster Feb 2013 #7
oneshooter Feb 2013 #43
slackmaster Feb 2013 #6
gejohnston Feb 2013 #8
bluedigger Feb 2013 #9
oneshooter Feb 2013 #10
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #35
rdharma Feb 2013 #13
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #59
rdharma Feb 2013 #62
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #64
slackmaster Feb 2013 #26
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #60
slackmaster Feb 2013 #74
alabama_for_obama Feb 2013 #32
rrneck Feb 2013 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #42
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #38
ileus Feb 2013 #66

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:27 PM

1. And he didn't kill anyone? Pshaw.

Seriously, that's great. He made an excellent point about how you can support someone without necessarily agreeing with all of their policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:27 PM

2. pretend military rifles?

 

What do you mean by that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:35 PM

4. unless it is select fire and issued to some military

it's not. IMHO, its a more accurate description than "assault weapon" unless you have a better one. Ersatz assault rifle works too.
I borrowed the term borrowed from someone else
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=59396

Something like the TEC 9 would be a mall ninja special.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:58 PM

11. Other than the auto-sear....it's a military rifle

 

Don't tell me that BS. I've built, owned, and used these weapons in their civilian and military versions.

A select fire version would not even be a desirable feature for someone intent on school house or theater mayhem. Full auto is even very seldom employed in military applications!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:05 PM

12. I know full auto is seldom used. I've used both versions as well

but these shooters don't actually know that much if anything at all beyond the "tacticool" looks. None of the features wouldn't matter either. If the Joker used firebombs in the movie, Holmes would have used firebombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:18 PM

14. "tacticool" looks

 

No difference in performance or function. A semi-auto AR is just as efficient weapon for a "schoolyard shooting enthusiast" as an M-4.

Evidently the "joker's" firebombs didn't work to well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:26 PM

15. so is a pump shotgun

or a mini 14. He didn't use them you missed the point. We used to have an "anti" that claimed he could field strip a 1911 under water. He was amusing sometimes.
He didn't use any. Read closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:33 PM

16. He didn't use any

 

I pointed that out! Scroll down and look at my post #13!

Check the time of posting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:39 PM

17. you changed it to the "joker" as in Holmes

has nothing to do with this guy, and you missed the point. Didn't say he shot anyone. Have you expanded reading list yet or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:50 PM

18. Fire bombs?

 

What's wrong? Are you the only one allowed to use red herrings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:54 PM

19. Oh, you were calling a fellow Dem a joker for not wanting his murals trashed

when you used the term joker, I thought you changed the subject to Holmes, I pointed out why he used the weapons he did instead of an alternate. Please try to think out of the box and keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:09 PM

20. What weapons are you talking about.......

 

....joker?!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:14 PM

21. so much to explain, so little time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:25 PM

22. Holmes tried fire bombs

 

Failed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:29 PM

23. tear gas

the bombs were at his apartment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:37 PM

24. No......... Fire bombs.

 

FAIL! He wasn't THAT crazy that he would choose home made fire bombs over an assault weapon for mass murder.

Keep diggin'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:39 PM

25. I have

yeah he would. The goal of these guys seem to be being going out in a "blaze of glory" not really surviving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:42 PM

27. No, he didn't!

 

Did he?!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:44 PM

28. he used tear gas at the theater and bombs rigged at his apt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:48 PM

29. And a semi-auto AR-15 to kill people in the theater!

 

Killed LOTS of people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:53 PM

30. IIRC, the shotgun did more

because the AR jammed. Do you have a point to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:01 PM

31. No! You've made my point!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:01 PM

34. Are AR-15s issued as the main combat weapon for our troops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:08 PM

36. AR-15s issued to our troops?

 

The M-4 is pretty much the same as commercially available AR-15s.

Differences? Shorter barrel and selector switch.

Other than that ......... they are exactly the same.

Was that your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:49 PM

37. Again. Are AR-15s the chief weapon issued to troops? nc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:25 PM

39. Again....... how does an AR-15 differ from an M-16?

 

I can exchange and fit any part that fits an AR-15 on an M-16 (and visa versa).

They are almost identical. But don't take my word....... I just built these things......... so what do I know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:42 PM

40. how long ago?

just asking. Seems that you could be violating NFA in your builds.
http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:50 PM

41. "violating NFA"

 

Nope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:48 PM

44. So, the AR 15 (a semi-auto) is the main weapon issued our soldiers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:21 PM

45. Being intentionally obtuse? Want me to draw a picture?

 

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Very well........ Here you go!



It seems there has been a real run on certain parts to convert AR-15s to M-16s. I wonder why that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:50 AM

80. So, you are saying the AR15 is biught in marge numbers by civilians...

who then buy kits/parts -- in large numbers -- to convert their arms to ATF-defined "machine guns."

If this is the case, do you have data/sources to support your contention there is a "real run" on these conversion parts?

Since the sale and service of machine guns is highly regulated, BATF should be interested in this "real run." And the sources of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:19 PM

81. "BATF should be interested in this"

 

Possession of these parts is not illegal if not installed on the weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:48 PM

82. WRONG. The mere possesion of a full auto sear is illegal

if you are in possesion of the rifle it fits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:06 PM

84. Citation?

 

Not in 49 U.S.C. 781-788, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 26 U.S.C. 5872

Did your buddy tell you that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:54 PM

83. WRONG.

 

An individual possessing a DIAS/lightning link/conversion kit and also possessing an AR-15 with certain parts (M16 bolt carrier, selector, trigger, or hammer) can be found to be in possession of an unregistered machine gun regardless if the part is not currently installed on the weapon. You can own a registered DIAS if you do not own an AR15 but you can jeopardize your freedom if you have both in a gun safe even if the the parts assembled do not make a functional select-fire weapon. More bullshit misinformation from the resident Google gunsmith...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #81)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:43 AM

86. "these parts:" What is your data on how many have been ordered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:49 PM

46. Start with the trigger group...

 

...then consider that most AR bolt carriers aren't machined to work with M16 sears, Colt/FN military contract rifles that use larger pins, and military uppers are machined differently at the rear to deal with the different shelf in the lower. I would personally not come within a mile of a rifle built by someone so ignorant. Only AR you've ever built had LEGO on the parts..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:27 AM

48. Oh, I love it when the gun nutters call me on technical issues!

 



"then consider that most AR bolt carriers aren't machined to work with M16 sears"

AR-15 carriers can be modified to M-16 configuration. But why go through the problems of modification. They are easily purchased commercially!

"Colt/FN military contract rifles that use larger pins"

Oh? You mean you've never seen those pin adapters?

"and military uppers are machined differently at the rear to deal with the different shelf in the lower"

Oh? Sure you didn't mean the LOWER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:41 AM

51. Love it folks like you prove how full of shit they are.

 

AR-15 carriers cannot be modified to work in a M16, the material in the bolt carrier is not there to modify in the first place.


No, I did not mean the lower. I meant exactly what I said. You obviously don't know what it means to have a high shelf vs low shelf when it comes to how the uppers and lowers are machined. Keep displaying your ignorance oh mighty AR builder...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:03 AM

53. high shelf vs low shelf when it comes to how the uppers and lowers are machined

 

So tell me! This should be good!

PS - M-16 carriers are commercially available and require no paperwork!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #51)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:56 AM

68. "AR-15 carriers cannot be modified to work in a M16"

 

They can't, eh, Mr. Clames? What's this?





Oh, and weren't you going to tell me something about the difference between the M-16 and AR-15 upper receiver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:11 AM

69. LOL...welcome to the 1970's.

 

Absolutely pathetic, that kit does not work with current A2 variant burst sears and A3 auto sears. Keep parading your ignorance. I already told you the difference between the upper receivers, can't figure it out? Google it, just like the rest of your gunsmithing knowledge...


Can't wait for you to post some pics of the AR you imagined you built.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #69)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:25 AM

70. your gunsmithing knowledge

 

Like I said before. You can buy the carrier commercially!

As I recall, they had select-fire M-16s in the '70s.

So much for YOUR gunsmithing "knowledge"!

By your post above, I guess you have figured out your mistake about the uppers!

Keep diggin'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:45 AM

73. Yeah, but you stayed you could easily swap parts between them.

 

But if you didn't know exactly what parts then your argument falls completely on it's face.

No shit they had select fire M16's in the 70's, just like in the 50's and 60's. What you fail to understand is that those are A1's and their auto-sears are different from later versions. So much fail from you... Unlike you, I haven't made a mistak yet. Keep on talking Google gunsmith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #73)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:50 AM

75. if you didn't know exactly what parts

 

I know what parts.

And your gorilla dust keeps flying with your A1 vs. newer models. Really Sherlock? Where did I say they were exactly the same? Please point that out because I forgot typing it!

The Freeper site is not back up? Is that why you are busy here?

More gorilla dust..... please! And tell me about those uppers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #75)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:56 PM

79. Sure you do...

 

...which is why you mistakenly think you can swap in a AR bolt carrier into a M16... Is Google down? Is that why you keep asking a question I've already answered that anyone who knows how to build an AR15 knows? Still trying to dig out of that lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:32 PM

85. I'll let the pictures do the talking. I've found pictures to be more effective when dealing...

 

...with those of limited technical ability. This will serve as a general technical primer for the RKBA group as a whole and help to dispel the ignorant statement of "easily converted" AR15's made by those who don't do their proper research.

This is a picture of a current issued M16A2 lower receiver showing the select-fire trigger group.


This is a picture of a civilian AR15 "high shelf" lower receiver showing the semi-auto only trigger group.


Pay special attention to the areas forward and around of the rear receiver pin. Notice the amount of material left on the sides and in the bottom of the trigger group "well" in the civilian legal AR15. Difficult to tell in the photos but if measured directly the width of the gap allowed for the rear lug of the upper receiver is slightly smaller in the AR15. This means that a M16 upper cannot be simply installed on a civilian AR15 lower without grinding the rear lug narrower. It is also impossible to swap trigger groups without significant and precise machining to the civilian lower receiver. That isn't all though.

This the a picture of the rear section of a M16A2 upper receiver.


This is a picture of a civilian AR15 upper receiver intended to be installed on a civilian AR15 lower.


The difference is in the depth of the rear lug. The M16's is slightly deeper which moves the position of the hole for the pin down relative to the shelf of the upper receiver. You would have to grind the bottom of the lug and wallow out the hole to make it fit on a current civilian AR15 lower resulting in an unstable, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous weapon to use as there will be excessive play from the modifications to the M16 upper. Military contract M16/M4's are sized to have fairly loose tolerances which makes it easier to field strip, correct malfunctions under duress, and facilitate unit level repair by allowing parts to be swapped from weapons made by different contractors. Civilian AR15's are built to closer tolerances for enhanced accuracy and feel and assembling parts usually requires minor to moderate fitting to work properly.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #48)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:00 AM

65. AR-15 bolt carriers from 86-down AR's are shortened for civilian use.

What are you going to do to modify them? Stretch it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:08 AM

47. Pre-1986 that statement is true. Post 1986 it's a felony.

So uh, amazing familiarity with the platform you have there.

I happen to own a pre-86, so your statement applies to MINE, but none made after mine, unless they were made explicitly for Law Enforcement use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:30 AM

49. OR...... Class III nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #49)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:37 AM

50. NFA registry is closed. No more legal class III for non-LEO (or manufacturer's/repair services) Hugh

es amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:53 AM

52. Legal, eh?

 

Was I talking legal? Or was I talking do able?

Sorry I allowed you to distract. AR-15/M-16 same weapon system....... period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:23 AM

54. Wrong again.

If you take components made for a M-16 produced today, and try to put them in ANY commercially produced AR-15 produced today, you will have an unfireable, non-fitting mess. No AR-15 made legally after 1986 will accept M-16 parts.

This is not just a matter of needing to shave the receiver down or adding a hole, you have to ADD metal to it to make things fit. Or in other words, you must machine or forge an entirely new receiver to accept M-16 parts.

Or to put it another way, you must manufacture a new M-16 yourself. (Illegal)
Is it possible? Yes. People break the law all the time. They make new AK-47's and AK-74's that fire full auto as well.

But no, there is no longer any parity between the two platforms due to the compliance with the 1986 law requiring that civilian rifles no longer be convertible to full automatic with a ready availability of replacement parts. Meaning, they cannot accept drop-in components from their military cousins. The receivers are now different.

You are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #54)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:31 AM

55. Is it possible? Yes. People break the law all the time.

 

It's also unnecessary!

If you want a schoolyard enthusiast's dream gun. An AR-15 is as good as an M-16.

Use of the "spray and pray" feature of the M-16 just results in wasted ammo.

Capiche?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #55)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:07 AM

56. I understood your point just fine.

Problem is, what you said earlier was wrong.

Yes, both weapons have the same cyclic rate in semi-auto mode.
So does my Mini-14. A wildly different platform based on the M14 rather than the M16.

A weapon exempted from the proposed new AWB, I might add.
What is your actual, goddamn, relevant point?

Should weapon limits be set by cyclic rate? That would be something productive out of all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:30 AM

57. Actually the Mini-14 is closer to the M-1 Carbine design

 

And the weapon of choice for the mass murderer in Norway (Breivik).

And this back at you.........What is YOUR god damned relevant point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #57)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:48 AM

58. My point is, it weakens your position when you make blatantly inaccurate absolute statements.

No comment on my cyclic rate question?

(The Mini-14 is a .223 variant of the M14 .308, both of which are evolutionary downstream products of the M1/Garand.

"In fact, according to R.L. Wilson’s book, “Ruger & His Guns,” Bill Ruger envisioned the Mini-14 to be, “a miniaturized M14 to take the .223 cartridge…Just like the M1; but it’s scaled way down in proportion to the M14 as the .223 is to the .308 or .30-06.”"

Comparing it to the M1 Carbine is a distinction without a difference.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #58)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:56 AM

61. Comparing it to the M1 Carbine is a distinction without a difference.)

 

Unless you are familiar with both designs.

Like I said........ it 's a "mini-M-1 carbine. But that wouldn't have been a good selling point for old Bill Ruger, eh?!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:16 AM

63. I own the M1 and the mini-14.

Pretty sure I am 'familiar' with both designs, though I do not happen to own an M1 Carbine. (I have fired one) Doesn't take long to review an exploded parts view or compare the three side by side in bing image search.

I don't see why the 'mini-M1 Carbine' would be a 'bad thing' for him, marketing-wise. In both cases, whether you accept the repeated statement by Ruger and observers that the Mini-14 is a scaled down M14, or if it is a scaled down M1 carbine, the marketability is essentially the same. Possibly slightly in favor of the M-14 comparison, with the end result being more powerful than the .30 Carbine cartridge. I don't see any humor-raising qualities here. Fuck, both rifles remain popular to this day.

Tell me, on the M1 Carbine, where is the mag release and safety?
Now, tell me the same for the mini-14

Oh right, same place on the mini-14 as on the M14

Closer to the M1 Carbine my ass.

Way to keep dodging the cyclic rate, which is really the only relevant thing brought up in this entire miserable thread fork. (And it is still curious to me why you are hammering on trivialities of the M1/14 platform, when you made such blatantly inaccurate claims about the modern AR-15/M-16 platform earlier)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #63)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:48 AM

67. Position of mag release and safety?

 

Oh, puhleese. The position of the mag release and safety makes all the difference, eh? Forget about the design of the gas system (the guts).

I think you meant to say you have an M1-A ( the civilian version of the M-14) and not an M1 (Garand). In fact, the M1-A is an almost exact copy of the military M-14.

Strange that you should be trying to make the argument that the civilian versions are SO different from the military versions, but you just keep confirming that they are....... practically identical.

Nothing I said about the AR-15/M-16 is inaccurate.

I guess it must just be frustrating for you to come on DU and argue in favor of your favorite schoolyard shooting enthusiast's weapons when you can't play the "firearms authority".

The AR-15 and the military M-16 are almost identical........ and the more you argue that they aren't........ the deeper you dig yourself in your hole.

BTW - Bill Ruger knew a thing or two about promoting his products. Hence, he knew the Mini-14 handle would work better. He also pushed for the original "assault rifle ban" because he knew it would give him an advantage selling his (exempt) Mini-14.

And gee..... I wonder why Bill Ruger never produced a .308 version? After all, that was the cartridge used in the M-14 and "they are so similar in design",....... right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:31 AM

71. Everything you stayed was inaccurate.

 

Basically regurgitating the technical ignorance of anti-gunners who state that it is "so easy" to convert a semiauto AR into a select-fire military weapon with drop in parts. Hilarious watching you try to weasel your way out of the hole you dig yourself. Technical ignorance had been the downfall of many arguments by you and others here. Bill Ruger produced the Mini-30 in 7.62x39 and didn't feel the need to compete with SA. He knew what he was doing, pity you can't figure that out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #71)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:40 AM

72. didn't feel the need to compete with SA

 

The mini-14 was made to compete with COLT........ not SA.

You just keep getting caught in your errors, my friend.

What I said about the M-16/AR-15 is accurate. That's why you have to keep backpedaling and throwing gorilla dust.

Maybe you should troll somewhere else...... 'cause you've lost all credibility here.

PS - Still waiting to hear about the upper receiver "differences"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #67)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:02 PM

76. Lets count all the shit you are attributing to me, that I didn't say.

"Strange that you should be trying to make the argument that the civilian versions are SO different from the military versions"

Never said that. You said they are the same, I pointed out they are no longer so, and haven't been for 3 decades. I ALSO acknowledged that the semi-auto cyclic rate for both military and civilian weapons are precisely the same.

"The AR-15 and the military M-16 are almost identical........ and the more you argue that they aren't........ the deeper you dig yourself in your hole."

Again, I specified the cyclic rates are the same. I simply dispelled your absolute nonsense bullshit that they are:

"Differences? Shorter barrel and selector switch.

Other than that ......... they are exactly the same."

They are not exactly the same. In semi-auto mode, they PERFORM the same, and share some features, but you cannot swap parts anymore. Not with the 1986 receiver changes to PREVENT easy conversion to F/A with a ready availability of spare parts.

Any AR-15 that CAN, that was produced after 1986 is, in the regulatory eyes of the BATFE, a MACHINE GUN, PERIOD, END OF STORY, even if it has never been in the same room with the M16 parts required to convert it. They are NOT "exactly the same". You are perpetuating an 'easily convertible' meme, whether you realize it or not, that was patched decades ago by federal law.

Yes, the gas piston system on the M1 Carbine and Mini-14 are 'closer' in design than the Mini-14 and the M14 (short stroke piston vs. intermediate piston) but they aren't exactly identical either. The mini-14 borrows considerable design cues from both weapons. You've pointed out the one feature that is 'pretty much' but not quite the same.

When I say Garand, I MEAN Garand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #76)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:32 PM

77. When I say Garand, I MEAN Garand.

 

You didn't say Garand. You said M-1 when we were talking about the M-14 and your claim that the Mini-14 was based on that rifle. Since the M1 Garand is WAY different than the Mini-14, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were referring to the M1-A.

But what the heck. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining weapon design and function.

The fact is the AR-15 and M-16 are basically the same killing machines.

If you want to use the "nu-uh, they aren't" argument to defend your favorite tool of schoolyard shooting enthusiasts......... drive on! Just don't expect anybody that knows better to believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #77)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:12 PM

78. Again, attributing BS I didn't say.

"If you want to use the "nu-uh, they aren't" argument to defend your favorite tool of schoolyard shooting enthusiasts......... drive on! Just don't expect anybody that knows better to believe you."

I pointed out your DESIGN error about the AR-15 versus the M16, post-1986. It remains an error you can't acknowledge for some strange reason. I never said these weapons (AR-15's) couldn't be used to the same devastating effect. I specifically said AT LEAST THREE TIMES the cyclic rate is the same in semi-auto. As has been demonstrated in several tragic shootings.

That cyclic rate is the attribute of the weapon that allows it, combined with a detachable magazine, to be used to injure so many people at once, in examples like the Aurora theater.

"You didn't say Garand."

"The Mini-14 is a .223 variant of the M14 .308, both of which are evolutionary downstream products of the M1/Garand."

"Since the M1 Garand is WAY different than the Mini-14, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were referring to the M1-A."

You know what they say about making assumptions. The M1 Garand is the evolutionary ancestor of the M1a. I own a M1. I said M1/Garand earlier in the conversation, why would you assume I suddenly forgot or something? I said M1, and I fucking MEANT M1. I said nothing to lead you otherwise, you simply invented some meaning I didn't specify hoping to play more semantics games, which you are losing by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:33 PM

3. Cheering for someone who is willing to execute kids for spraypainting. It's appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:36 PM

5. he never said that.

had to listen the conversation closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:44 PM

7. You're defending someone who was willing to risk his life in order to deface someone's property

 

That person is IMO very stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:00 PM

43. Spraypainting?

Looks to me more like a bucket of paint was thrown.

Will you post your address so that someone can repeatedly disfigure your property? We now know that you will not defend your property from being"repainted".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:41 PM

6. That subject line is so ambiguous I have no idea what the story is about

 

Someone did a mural of the President holding an AR-15, and the cafe owner defended the mural?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:47 PM

8. fixed it

I slept through sentence diagramming lessons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:17 PM

9. I thought he made his case very well.

He's a good citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:54 PM

10. The Breakfast Klub

http://thebreakfastklub.com/

Tell the owner what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 02:06 PM

35. Better yet, visit and eat there! I will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:11 PM

13. He didn't use the AR-15!

 

Evidently it wasn't needed to prevent this property crime!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:51 AM

59. Yet.

Also, I doubt he's planning on shooting anyone who throws paint at it. He's probably just carrying it for protection. Shit like that always starts as simple vandalism, but you can be sure that mural is highly unpopular, and if the dirtbags attacking it don't get their way, they are likely to escalate the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #59)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:00 AM

62. AR-15 wasn't carried or used in confrontation. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:17 AM

64. Not then. He's carrying it now, or for the interview anyway.

Odds are good, 'message received' by the dirtbags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:42 PM

26. 25 replies yet I can see only 8 of them

 

Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 02:55 AM

60. I don't block people.

I'd never get anything done if I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #60)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:49 AM

74. I use Ignore User only when I decide that someone and I simply can't communicate with each other

 

Usually because they're constantly rude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:51 AM

32. Chicken and waffles?

I'm definitely going to patronize Mr. Davis' establishment when I go to Houston next month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:10 PM

33. Just don't let Sam Jackson give you a ride over there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:18 PM

42. I like his monologue...

...at the beginning of the movie BASIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:23 PM

38. DU Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 08:29 AM

66. The AR is one of the best defensive long guns citizens can own.

Thanks to it's modular abilities almost anyone can defend their home and family with one lightweight accurate package.

Subtract some barrel length and add a suppressor and it may be the best self defense safety device on the market today.

Simple easy to use controls adds to it's ability to save lives no matter how experienced the operator...good on this Mr. Davis for standing up for his political choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread