Liberal politician embarrasses self in "gun quote"

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 05:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Good.

Let's establish the rates of fire first.  What are they?

Anbody can easily goggle a TM and establish whatever they wish. Just type in M-4 TM.

Why don't we start with "cyclical" fire and you can explain to me what that is.

As I have explained: the weapon could cycle (cyclic) that many times per minute under the non-existant modifiers I provided.

...or you could give your comments on the politician's claim that the gun used in the Orlando terrorist act is capable of firing 700 rounds per minute.

[XenoMorph]

(06-14-2016, 11:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not pushing for gun control.  I point out the efficiency of assault rifles because there are people who still seem to think "motivation to be evil and a hammer" are every bit as dangerous.  If you don't think a hammer or a car is as capable of killing 50 people in a short span of time then I'm not arguing with you.

random stabbing attacks are on the rise around the world too,...

and just as deadly as a gun just no as efficient  as it takes more time to stab than send a bullet flying. 

But the results are the same.

I wonder after a mass stabbing occurs here if a politician will call for kitchen knife reform.

Cars are definitely killing machines.

[GMDino]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anbody can easily goggle a TM and establish whatever they wish. Just type in M-4 TM.

Why don't we start with "cyclical" fire and you can explain to me what that is.

As I have explained: the weapon could cycle (cyclic) that many times per minute under the non-existant modifiers I provided.

...or you could give your comments on the politician's claim that the gun used in the Orlando terrorist act is capable of firing 700 rounds per minute.

It's a simple question, what are the rates of fire?  If anyone can google it then why do you seem to be having so much trouble giving me the answer?  "Cyclical" is the same as "goggle," an error.  I am giving you my comments on his claim beginning with establishing the rates of fire.  It is important to establish the rates of fire to make a comparison like he did.  Rates of fire are Skill Level 1 stuff.  A rifleman with mosquito wings should be able to regurgitate the rates of fire for me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 12:54 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I wasn't going to say much more on it, but screw it....
Don't you think M855's would go through more than one person ?
I know you get the tumble, but most of the victims seemed pretty fit and had a small amount of mass to travel through.

It's not supposed to pass through-and-through because 5.56 causes less cavitation than 7.62, but their have been reports/complaints from Iraq and Afghanistan the rounds are passing through.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 12:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's a simple question, what are the rates of fire?  If anyone can google it then why do you seem to be having so much trouble giving me the answer?  "Cyclical" is the same as "goggle," an error.  I am giving you my comments on his claim beginning with establishing the rates of fire.  It is important to establish the rates of fire to make a comparison like he did.  Rates of fire are Skill Level 1 stuff.  A rifleman with mosquito wings should be able to regurgitate the rates of fire for me.

So you think I should provide you with answer before you answer the question? It doesn't work that way. You feel free to establish what ever rate of fire you wish: cyclic, "cyclical", rapid, sustained, ect... and then give your thoughts on the politician's comments that the weapon used in the Orlando terror attack was capable of firing 700 rounds per minute. Keep in mind one would have to change the magizine 24 times (given a fully loaded 30 round clip) or 35 times if he used a 20 round clip.

You can either give you opinion of the comments or continue you dance; it's just you'll have to find a more willing dance partner.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 12:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you think I should provide you with answer before you answer the question? It doesn't work that way. You feel free to establish what ever rate of fire you wish: cyclic, "cyclical", rapid, sustained, ect... and then give your thoughts on the politician's comments that the weapon used in the Orlando terror attack was capable of firing 700 rounds per minute. Keep in mind one would have to change the magizine 24 times (given a fully loaded 30 round clip) or 35 times if he used a 20 round clip.

You can either give you opinion of the comments or continue you dance; it's just you'll have to find a more willing dance partner.

Just avoiding the question, what is the cyclic rate of fire listed in the TM for the M4 and M16A2?

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 12:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's not supposed to pass through-and-through because 5.56 causes less cavitation than 7.62, but their have been reports/complaints from Iraq and Afghanistan the rounds are passing through.

Yeah, I had read about through and throughs at close range and small targets.

I can't remember where I read it, but here's the Wikipedia notes.

Quote:An M855 from an M4 has a muzzle velocity of 2,970 ft/s (910 m/s), but that is reduced to 2,522 ft/s (769 m/s) by 150 meters. Even if it impacts at optimum speeds, 70 percent of 5.56 mm bullets will not begin to yaw until 4.7 in (120 mm) of tissue penetration. 15 percent more begin to yaw after that distance, so up to 85 percent of rounds that hit do not start to fragment until nearly 5 in of penetration. Against small statured or thin combatants, the M855 has little chance of yawing before passing through cleanly and leaving a wound cavity no bigger than the bullet itself. The factors of impact angle and velocity, instability distance, and penetration before yaw reduce the round's predictable effectiveness considerably in combat situations.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 01:18 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yeah, I had read about through and throughs at close range and small targets.

So inside a bar, you're talking really close ranges, CQB close.  If a 5.56 round is going to pass through it would be under those kind of conditions.

The wiki quote only mentions permanent cavitation.  There is also temporary cavitation that also causes tissue destruction.  Again, 5.56 has less compared to 7.62 because it isn't supposed to pass through (ideally).

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2016, 11:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just posted this in another thread:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Blunt objects (hammers) are more deadly. 

To me, the use of a blunt object to kill another person screams weapon of convenience. Handguns and knives can go either way, but the use of a long gun speaks to pre-meditation. I think this is why you get so much focus on that topic when these things crop up.

[*Nately120*]

(06-15-2016, 12:27 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: random stabbing attacks are on the rise around the world too,...

and just as deadly as a gun just no as efficient  as it takes more time to stab than send a bullet flying. 

But the results are the same.

I wonder after a mass stabbing occurs here if a politician will call for kitchen knife reform.

Cars are definitely killing machines.

The results are not the same.  Getting stabbed is not the same as getting shot with a high-powered rifle.  This man probably does't kill 50 people if he were using a knife to carry out his mission.  I don't understand why people have such a hard time admitting that guns make killing people a lot easier.  

Additionally, if I have a handgun I have a better chance of stopping a criminal with a hammer or knife than one with an assault weapon.  What is so hard to admit about this?  If weapons don't matter and the results are all the same why don't we just let our enemies amass nuclear weapons?  They'll just stab us to death if they really want to, anyways.  Do you see a man or woman get a concealed carry for a handgun and say "You know, you could just carry a knife for protection!  Same thing!"  Do people hunt with rifles or with hammers?  Why?  So on and so forth.

Guns don't kill people, they just make it a lot easier.  I know a person who defended his home and his family from an intruder who was wielding a metal bat.  He shot that person, and I'm glad he had a gun because stopping a man with a bat when you yourself have something less powerful and efficient than a gun seems less effective and more dangerous to me.  Basically, I would feel like a moron if I told this guy (who was none too happy about having to shoot someone) that he could have just used a knife or something. Why did he need a gun? Wasn't he motivated enough to defend his family with a hammer?

Anyways, it seems admitting guns are more dangerous than toothpicks means I want Obama to come take your gun so I'll just leave people to assume I'm some super libtard because I think guns are better at killing people than whiffle ball bats.

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 01:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So inside a bar, you're talking really close ranges, CQB close.  If a 5.56 round is going to pass through it would be under those kind of conditions.

The wiki quote only mentions permanent cavitation.  There is also temporary cavitation that also causes tissue destruction.  Again, 5.56 has less compared to 7.62 because it isn't supposed to pass through (ideally).

Yep.
Wasn't trying to argue or anything, just supporting my thought process.
Also agreed on the temporary wound cavities.
It is the result of transferred energy.
The 7.62 has a larger surface area to distribute that energy, especially with any tumble.
The mass carries it through though.

I intend to get a new upper in .300 AAC Blackout.
Given I have a Colt AR and an SAR-1 AK, I might as well have the crossbreed that performs well subsonically.
(Yes, I plan on a tax stamp to suppress)

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 02:07 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yep.
Wasn't trying to argue or anything, just supporting my thought process.
Also agreed on the temporary wound cavities.
It is the result of transferred energy.
The 7.62 has a larger surface area to distribute that energy, especially with any tumble.
The mass carries it through though.

I intend to get a new upper in .300 AAC Blackout.
Given I have a Colt AR and an SAR-1 AK, I might as well have the crossbreed that performs well subsonically.
(Yes, I plan on a tax stamp to suppress)

Hell it looks like an AR15 wasn't used afterall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/14/the-gun-the-orlando-shooter-used-was-not-an-ar-15-that-doesnt-change-much/

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell it looks like an AR15 wasn't used afterall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/14/the-gun-the-orlando-shooter-used-was-not-an-ar-15-that-doesnt-change-much/

Whoa... piston drive.
If suppressed, that thing would hum !
It makes more sense, now.

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2016, 02:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Whoa... piston drive.
If suppressed, that thing would hum !
It makes more sense, now.

Yeah. While I will say many times over that I see no need for civilian ownership of these weapons, I can't argue that they are fun as hell to shoot, and I love some of the rifles with an exterior design similar to the AR-15 but using a piston instead of DI. I love the tappet system, but that comes from me being an H&K fan with their 416/417 and G36.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 02:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Whoa... piston drive.
If suppressed, that thing would hum !
It makes more sense, now.

What makes more sense?

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 03:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah. While I will say many times over that I see no need for civilian ownership of these weapons, I can't argue that they are fun as hell to shoot, and I love some of the rifles with an exterior design similar to the AR-15 but using a piston instead of DI. I love the tappet system, but that comes from me being an H&K fan with their 416/417 and G36.

Yes Sir.
I was kind of hoping our military would give H&K the contract and start using the proposed 416 modular system.
Ever see the intervals of the G11 ?
Wowsers !

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 03:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What makes more sense?

The higher rate of fire.

Am I mistaken concerning a piston system with a suppressor firing at a higher rate ?
(I know that no mention of a suppressor was in the article. It was my own suggestion)
Granted, that would change the through and through discussion.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 03:40 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: The higher rate of fire.

Am I mistaken concerning a piston system with a suppressor firing at a higher rate ?
(I know that no mention of a suppressor was in the article. It was my own suggestion)
Granted, that would change the through and through discussion.

What determines the rate of fire with a semi-auto?  Any semi-auto.

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 03:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What determines the rate of fire with a semi-auto?  Any semi-auto.

The pressurised gas, cycling the system.