06-23-2016, 07:30 PM
(06-23-2016, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, please "prove" where I started any such confrontation. I do freely admit I have used in in response. For example in another thread someone tried to prove a point that i was mistaken on the capabilities of a weapon. That person, in an attempt to "stump the chump" asked a question about the cyclical rate of fire and feigned surprise that I was unaware of where someone could find such information. I shared with him that the correct term was cyclic.
So yes, please provide "proof" that I just correct folk’s grammar without provocation. I may have done it once or twice; however, none immediately come to mind. I guess I just don’t obsess about my posts as much as others do.
(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.
I'm still surprised you can't answer the question. Also, that wasn't "feigned surprise," that was sarcasm. Additionally, am I supposed to pretend you don't know what Google is because you spelled it goggle to play along with your charade?
