(06-15-2016, 06:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm still wondering the same thing.
..and you received your answer in post 26. If you wanted to make a point you simply could have like you were invited to do in post in post #8 instead of playing 20 questions in an attempt to illustrate something that I was sure someone would try; as I touched on in post #5.
I re-watched the interview and did not see where the Politician compared rates of fire (cyclic, effective, whatever). But at least Pat thinks you are graceful.
(06-14-2016, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF you could modify an AR-15 sear release to make it fully automatic and designed it to be belt-fed, and manage to link together a 700 round belt of ammo, then technically it could most likely fire 700 rounds per minute. In fact it could probably do so about twice before the barrel became too deformed too compromised firing.
This in no way take away from the ridiculous statement the Politician made about the gun used it this terror attack, just pointing it out before someone says "well technically it can".
Fred was most likely talking about the quote from the board member; however that board member's and this politician's motoves were the same and equally humorous.
Actually, you'd get a barrel flame out well before 700 rounds of continuous fire. Probably in the 300-400 round range.
(06-14-2016, 10:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Army has these things called TMs. Technical manuals. They contain technical information like cyclical rate of fire, sustained rate of fire, max effective ranges, muzzle velocity, etc, etc. Surprised you seem to be unaware. Why don't you look in the TM for the M4 and tell us what cyclical rate of fire is listed in the TM? Then tell us the max effective rate of fire and the sustained rate of fire. Finally, explain the difference. Thanks in advance.
While I appreciate the means of attack in this post you and I both know that the cyclic rate and the rate a gun can fire and continue to function are not the same thing. Yes, I know you mentioned that.
(06-15-2016, 06:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and you received your answer in post 26. If you wanted to make a point you simply could have like you were invited to do in post in post #8 instead of playing 20 questions in an attempt to illustrate something that I was sure someone would try; as I touched on in post #5.
I re-watched the interview and did not see where the Politician compared rates of fire (cyclic, effective, whatever). But at least Pat thinks you are graceful.
You never told me the rate of fire, you wrote I could establish any rate of fire I wanted. You could have explained everything I have. Before I explained it. And I gave you ample opportunity to do so. But, you didn't. Why?
You didn't see the rate of fire comparison? Okay . . .
Q: How many rounds did he claim an AR-15 could fire a minute?
A: 700 rpm
Q: For an AR-15, 700 rpm would be the ________ rate of fire.
A: Cyclic
Q: What other weapon did he compare an AR-15 to?
A: A Glock.
Q: He claimed a Glock would kill how many people in the same scenario?
A: Two or three. (I might be fuzzy on that one because I only watched the video once, but I'm 99% confident I quoted the correct numbers.)
Q: Why would a Glock only kill 2 or 3 victims compared to a rifle with a cyclic rate of fire of 700 rpm?
A: Because he assumes a Glock's rate of fire is less than 700 rpm.
Q: Is the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 less than the cyclic rate?
A: Yes.
Q: Is the effective rate of fire of a Glock less than the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15?
A: Yes.
Q: If you have an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine and a Glock with an extended 15 round magazine, the effective rate of fire is going to be pretty similar because that rate is determined by the operator's skill level. There isn't going to be a difference of more 600 rpm. So did he compare the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 to the effective rate of fire for a Glock?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Did he make a misleading comparison based upon a false equivalency of the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15 and the effective rate of fire of a Glock?
A: Yes.
Since you prefer spoon feeding, I answered the questions for you ahead of time. You're welcome.
(06-15-2016, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, you'd get a barrel flame out well before 700 rounds of continuous fire. Probably in the 300-400 round range.
While I appreciate the means of attack in this post you and I both know that the cyclic rate and the rate a gun can fire and continue to function are not the same thing. Yes, I know you mentioned that.
Let's say I have a M240B, I hold the trigger to the rear for 30 seconds and let it fire as fast as it can. What is the rate of fire? Cyclic. You don't have to fire the entire minute to be firing at the cyclic rate.
If I hold the trigger while I say, "Kill a family of 6-8" then release the trigger, wait 4-5 seconds then repeat and keep repeating for the next 30 seconds my rate of fire is sustained.
If I do the same with only a pause of 2-3 seconds between bursts my rate is rapid.
This type of fire control could apply to a point ambush for an infantry platoon. The PL could direct the guns to initiate on his signal at a cyclic rate for 15 seconds then drop down to rapid or sustained.
(06-15-2016, 07:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's say I have a M240B, I hold the trigger to the rear for 30 seconds and let it fire as fast as it can. What is the rate of fire? Cyclic. You don't have to fire the entire minute to be firing at the cyclic rate.
If I hold the trigger while I say, "Kill a family of 6-8" then release the trigger, wait 4-5 seconds then repeat and keep repeating for the next 30 seconds my rate of fire is sustained.
If I do the same with only a pause of 2-3 seconds between bursts my rate is rapid.
This type of fire control could apply to a point ambush for an infantry platoon. The PL could direct the guns to initiate on his signal at a cyclic rate for 15 seconds then drop down to rapid or sustained.
(06-15-2016, 07:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You never told me the rate of fire, you wrote I could establish any rate of fire I wanted. You could have explained everything I have. Before I explained it. And I gave you ample opportunity to do so. But, you didn't. Why?
You didn't see the rate of fire comparison? Okay . . .
Q: How many rounds did he claim an AR-15 could fire a minute?
A: 700 rpm
Q: For an AR-15, 700 rpm would be the ________ rate of fire.
A: Cyclic
Q: What other weapon did he compare an AR-15 to?
A: A Glock.
Q: He claimed a Glock would kill how many people in the same scenario?
A: Two or three. (I might be fuzzy on that one because I only watched the video once, but I'm 99% confident I quoted the correct numbers.)
Q: Why would a Glock only kill 2 or 3 victims compared to a rifle with a cyclic rate of fire of 700 rpm?
A: Because he assumes a Glock's rate of fire is less than 700 rpm.
Q: Is the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 less than the cyclic rate?
A: Yes.
Q: Is the effective rate of fire of a Glock less than the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15?
A: Yes.
Q: If you have an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine and a Glock with an extended 15 round magazine, the effective rate of fire is going to be pretty similar because that rate is determined by the operator's skill level. There isn't going to be a difference of more 600 rpm. So did he compare the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 to the effective rate of fire for a Glock?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Did he make a misleading comparison based upon a false equivalency of the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15 and the effective rate of fire of a Glock?
A: Yes.
Since you prefer spoon feeding, I answered the questions for you ahead of time. You're welcome.
This is silly. He compared no rates of fire. If he did the tell me what rate of fire he used for the glock when he said 2-3 (unless you are suggesting that's the effective rate of a glock?).
I know the reason for his statements and I pointed it out long before you thought you had the answer. If you look at post #9 I stated his statements were to elicit a response (to fool someone into thinking how much more lethal the long rifle was compared to the pistol)
I must admit I have zero idea where you have tried to go with this; unless it was to fulfill what I said when I asserted someone will say technically he is right (post #5). Nor do I know what you have pointed out that I had not prior. And I definitely do not know what has been "spoon fed".
(06-15-2016, 07:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's say I have a M240B, I hold the trigger to the rear for 30 seconds and let it fire as fast as it can. What is the rate of fire? Cyclic. You don't have to fire the entire minute to be firing at the cyclic rate.
If I hold the trigger while I say, "Kill a family of 6-8" then release the trigger, wait 4-5 seconds then repeat and keep repeating for the next 30 seconds my rate of fire is sustained.
If I do the same with only a pause of 2-3 seconds between bursts my rate is rapid.
This type of fire control could apply to a point ambush for an infantry platoon. The PL could direct the guns to initiate on his signal at a cyclic rate for 15 seconds then drop down to rapid or sustained.
What does that have to do with what has been discussed to date?
(06-15-2016, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is silly. He compared no rates of fire. If he did the tell me what rate of fire he used for the glock when he said 2-3 (unless you are suggesting that's the effective rate of a glock?).
I know the reason for his statements and I pointed it out long before you thought you had the answer. If you look at post #9 I stated his statements were to elicit a response (to fool someone into thinking how much more lethal the long rifle was compared to the pistol)
I must admit I have zero idea where you have tried to go with this; unless it was to fulfill what I said when I asserted someone will say technically he is right (post #5). Nor do I know what you have pointed out that I had not prior. And I definitely do not know what has been "spoon fed".
Okay . . .
So you explain why he thinks a Glock would only kill 2-3 people compared to a rifle that fires 700 rpm since you don't believe it is related to the rate of fire.
So you explain why he thinks a Glock would only kill 2-3 people compared to a rifle that fires 700 rpm since you don't believe it is related to the rate of fire.
Firstly, because he is ignorant of what he is talking about. Secondly, because he wants folks to think that these "assault rifles" are much more deadly than hand guns.
You didn't answer which rate of fire he was using when he said the glock could kill 2-3 per minute. He was comparing rates of fire remember.
(06-15-2016, 08:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I know, but I have Narcissistic Tendencies.
I was at work when I posted, but upon revisiting this you could probably go a bit over 700 before barrel failure or the like. However, as we both know, no civilian AR is firing at the cyclic rate. I'd love to own one but transferable full autos are rarer than hen's teeth.
(06-15-2016, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was at work when I posted, but upon revisiting this you could probably go a bit over 700 before barrel failure or the like. However, as we both know, no civilian AR is firing at the cyclic rate. I'd love to own one but transferable full autos are rarer than hen's teeth.
(06-15-2016, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was at work when I posted, but upon revisiting this you could probably go a bit over 700 before barrel failure or the like. However, as we both know, no civilian AR is firing at the cyclic rate. I'd love to own one but transferable full autos are rarer than hen's teeth.
As a LEO, are you allowed to own modified weapons ?
If so, you could always go the lightning link route.
(06-15-2016, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Firstly, because he is ignorant of what he is talking about. Secondly, because he wants folks to think that these "assault rifles" are much more deadly than hand guns.
What did he mention about an AR-15 which might make someone believe they are more deadly than a hand gun? Did me mention AR-15s fire rounds the size of Volkswagons that kill 20 people at a time? No, so it wasn't the caliber. Did he mention the rounds travel really, really, super duper fast penetrating everything in their path so they are able kill about 20 people per round? No, so it wasn't muzzle velocity. Did he mention they fire HE rounds that explode in midair creating multiple fragments killing about 20 people? No, so it wasn't the ammunition. He did mention something though . . . what was it? He mentioned the weapon could fire 700 rounds per minute. What do we call the number of rounds a weapon fires in a given time period? We call that a rate of fire. So the only characteristic he mentioned was the enormously high rate of fire of 700 rpm, but you don't think he was talking about the rate of fire even though that was the only characteristic he mentioned?
Hint: Title of the article reads, "Democrat Grayson: AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds a Minute." After reading that title, is there anything that jumps out at you? Anything at all? Take your time. Think. If you heard him mention another characteristic of that weapon, please feel free to share.
You've got to be shittin' me right now.
Quote:You didn't answer which rate of fire he was using when he said the glock could kill 2-3 per minute. He was comparing rates of fire remember.
Yes, I did. But, even if I didn't it only takes a lick of common sense to figure it out. So I'm going to explain how to figure it out for yourself one more time so afterwards you can claim you weren't spoon fed the answer. Ya ready?
Okay, if we are comparing lethality (which we are) what rate of fire do you think would be the most lethal rate of fire? Would it be the fastest or maximum rate of fire possible yet still allow you to effectively engage targets simultaneously? What do you think we would call that rate of fire?
M_X_M_M _FF_CT_V_ R_T_
Now, do you wanna try taking a stab at solving the puzzle or do you wanna buy a vowel?
For my next trick, I'm going to pull a previously mention rate of fire out of my ass . . . which you claim I didn't specify.
ABRACADABRA!
POOF
(06-15-2016, 04:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Next he compared the cyclic rate for an AR-15 to the (implied) max effective rate for a Glock.
HOLY SHITBALLS!!! MAGIC!!!!
If you don't understand I was talking about the maximum effective rate for the Glock after I wrote "max effective rate for a Glock" I'm not surprised you don't understand any of the other shit. I don't know how much more explicit I can make it for you to understand. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. You're gonna need to meet me halfway.
Why does almost every conversation with you feel like I've unlocked a secret circle of Hell from Dante's Inferno?
(06-16-2016, 01:08 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: As a LEO, are you allowed to own modified weapons ?
If so, you could always go the lightning link route.
Not in CA. I can own standard capacity pistol mags, but not rifle mags. I'm also roster exempt, which is a big deal in CA. I love this state, I was born here, but the gun laws here are inane.
(06-16-2016, 01:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not in CA. I can own standard capacity pistol mags, but not rifle mags. I'm also roster exempt, which is a big deal in CA. I love this state, I was born here, but the gun laws here are inane.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
