arma virumque cano (et alia)
That's exactly what the military needs; another brand new weapons system. Mikeb30200:Didn't you put up another video by the same guy about a smaller gun and round not too long ago? You don't suppose this fella is being wined and dined by folks like Ronnie Barrett and then pushing their agenda, do you? Nah, of course not, that would be improper.
Keep this video in mind when we talk about how puny the .223 is but some anti-gun schmuck says you can take down elephants with it.Democommie: “You don't suppose this fella is being wined and dined by folks like Ronnie Barrett and then pushing their agenda, do you? Nah, of course not, that would be improper.”I’d suppose his first priority is to hype up his own television show.
"I’d suppose his first priority is to hype up his own television show."Exactly.He "pushes the agenda" of every gun manufacturer on his show, thus negating any benefits of "pushing an agenda".
If I were a gun owner, I'd want one. How about you?
Yeah, mikeb30200, I'd want one too. Never can tell when you're gonna have to lnock down a solid steel target or shoot a would be home invader at 400 yards.
Do you guys realize there isn’t some modern breakthrough in technology that suddenly allows the manufacture of cartridges sized *between* the 5.56 and 7.62x39? And you realize that standard infantry cartridges have been *decreasing* in power through history. The 30-06 and 7.62x51 will knock down those plates harder than this new Barrett.
TS:Yes, I know that round used by Barret's newest weapon is similar to, if not the same as, understand that the M1 was a powerul rifle, just like the old Springfield. Volume of fire was apparently deemed more important than accuracy at some point after WWII, hence the development. I've read that the M14 was a really inefficient design, combining the worst of the M1's deficiencies without being a better weapon in other ways. Gee whillikers, I just watched the last minute or so of the video. That new toy comes from the factory with the barrel already threaded to take a suppressor. What more could a boy ask f--, oh, wait, ain't them things dislegal?
"What more could a boy ask f--, oh, wait, ain't them things dislegal?"Only in the more "socialistic" states of the country. Those of us who live in free states can own them, but only after an extensive background check and paying a $200 tax.
I guess I've lived a sheltered life. And when someone can explain why anyone who is defending his home and family requires a suppressor--with a straight face--I'll be listening.This sort of blows that theory of Lott's about just showing people a weapon being a disincentive to commit a crime. I thought a person who was defendind themselves and their GOD given right to waste people who fuck with them and their Type 2A rights were all about being noticed. Do any of the guys who have to have their coffee with a sidearm think that the suppressors are necessary so that folks won't hear that the gun is being fired?
"Keep this video in mind when we talk about how puny the .223 is but some anti-gun schmuck says you can take down elephants with it."Why? I brought this up a while back and the one response to it was to along the lines of "yeah, sure, it could happen, but it probably doesn't.".Since you folks aren't, apparently hunting elephants--and most of you claim a fair degree of expertise in the use of firearms--are you saying that an M-16/AR-15 style weapon isn't good enough to use for "Whack a perp; the home invasion game!". If so, you'd better get that ne3ws out to mikey, the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine was his weapon of choice for home defense not too long ago. He is gonna feel so, like, "last war".
Democommie: “Volume of fire was apparently deemed more important than accuracy at some point after WWII, hence the development.”More like weight of ammo for soldiers to carry vs. range. .223 is very accurate, but not as good long range as 7.62 and 30-06. Plus the realization that an injured soldier is more of a burden to the enemy than a dead soldier.Democommie: “And when someone can explain why anyone who is defending his home and family requires a suppressor--with a straight face--I'll be listening”Suppressors are highly exaggerated by Hollywood. Hearing protecting is still required while using one. It wouldn’t be a big deal if they were not regulated as they are, but it is not a fight worth fighting. The best benefit they’d have is being courteous to your neighbors while target practicing on your own property. But that doesn’t mean a threaded barrel is equivalent to a suppressor itself. Threaded barrels are nice for swapping muzzle brakes, or maybe harmonic dampening. Plus it is not like tooling dies are regulated. The topic of “threaded barrels” is classic gun control strategy: first ban something, then ban anything it could possible attach to.Democommie: “Since you folks aren't, apparently hunting elephants--and most of you claim a fair degree of expertise in the use of firearms--are you saying that an M-16/AR-15 style weapon isn't good enough to use for "Whack a perp; the home invasion game!".Elephants are a lot bigger than humans.
TS:Barret himself says that the barrel is threaded to accept a suppressor--this is, apparently, a selling point in his mind.I'm quite well aware of the difference in scale between elephants and humans. It is interesting to me that not too long ago a lot of people who wanted M-16/AR-15 style weapons were touting their efficacy as hunting rifles. I know a number of people who hunt deer with bows and various shotguns and muzzle loaders. Most of them have told me that if they could have a rifle they would go with something other than an M-16. And, yes, I knew about the difference in how much ammo a soldier could carry in the smaller caliber round.
I guess I've lived a sheltered life. And when someone can explain why anyone who is defending his home and family requires a suppressor--with a straight face--I'll be listening.REQUIRES?It's not about need. Also, I'd love to be able to save my hearing with a suppressed .22 or 9mm at the range. “Since you folks aren't, apparently hunting elephants--and most of you claim a fair degree of expertise in the use of firearms--are you saying that an M-16/AR-15 style weapon isn't good enough to use for "Whack a perp; the home invasion game!".An M-16 is not the same thing as an AR-15. The terms are not interchangable.The effectiveness of AR15's chambered in .223/5.56 is dependent upon a multitude of different factors. This is especially true for AR's in said caliber.In some configurations & with some ammo the AR-15 would be a less than ideal choice for home defense. In other configurations, with the correct ammo it is an ideal home defense gun.A standard 16" AR loaded with 62gr. or 75 gr. Hornady TAP would be an excellent choice. OTOH an AR configured as a 10.5" SBR & loaded with M855 would be terrible in comparison.
And, yes, I knew about the difference in how much ammo a soldier could carry in the smaller caliber round.It's more than just weight of ammo. An M4 or M16 is significantly lighter and more manuverable than an M1 Garand. It can easily accomodate soliders of different sizes. What fits a 6'5" 250 lb. man isn't going to fit a 5ft, 115 lb. woman. It's also significantly easier to lug around all day than previous infantry rifles.The nature of conflict is also a major factor. Heavy, full-power battle rifles with limited capacity don't make as much sense in urban combat at shorter distances. M4's with M855 don't make much sense if most engagements are taking place outside of a few hundred yards.We've seen the latter become an issue in Afghanistan, which is why we're seeing more use of 75 and 77gr. OTM rounds as well as a shift away from short M4's so that soldiers can get a greater effective range out of the M-16 platform. (not to mention the use of M14's)
"I guess I've lived a sheltered life. And when someone can explain why anyone who is defending his home and family requires a suppressor--with a straight face--I'll be listening."I'm still waiting for a good reason why a cop would need a suppressor.
"An M-16 is not the same thing as an AR-15. The terms are not interchangable."http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/registeredreceiver.htmhttp://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.htmlhttp://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146191seem to disagree with you, mikey.this:"1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams."is from here; http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htmI'm just guessing, but I think that none of these links are polluted by commiethink like that you associate with the Brady or VPC folks. It's a puzzler, mikey. Otoh, you're a genius and nobody else knows anything about guns; otoh, you appear to be in serious disagreement with people who, by the looks of things know an awful lot about the various iterations of the AR=15/M16 weapons system. It would seem that you're basically full of shit, which does not come as a surprise. Quick, go tell Mikeb that I'm being mean to you again!
"And when someone can explain why anyone who is defending his home and family requires a suppressor--with a straight face--I'll be listening."Have you ever fired a gun indoors without hearing protection? Even a .22 caliber rifle fired indoors is loud enough to deafen you for a good 10-20 seconds. So a suppressed firearm is best for home defense. It protects your hearing and helps you maintain situational awareness. And if you think an AR-15 is the same as an M-16, I dare you to challenge the BATFE on that one. Your efforts will more than likely be rewarded with a 10 year vacation at club Fed.
Also interchangeable:Ford Taurushttp://forum.avtoindex.com/foto/data/media/37/Ford_Taurus_1992-95_30.jpgFord Taurushttp://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/images/f/ford_taurus-2319.jpg
Aztec Red:Glad to see that you've already got the memo from the NRA about how to make sure that the issue of a suppressor being used on a weapon that is specifically touted as being capaable of killing people at a much greater distance than an M-16 is NOW a home defense tool. Your ProGunastics (Pro Gun(gym)nastics are, like, totally a "10", dude!It appears that you think that home invasions by armed and dangerous thugs are inevitable so will you be keeping a loaded Barrett M468, complete with suppressor, under your bed?Actually I have fired my trusty Jamerco .22 stud driver, in doors, many, many times--you can take that away from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers!--and no, I don't always have ear plugs or muffs handy. Yet, somehow, I still have my hearing and was never incapacitated by the noise when working.You say:"And if you think an AR-15 is the same as an M-16, I dare you to challenge the BATFE on that one. Your efforts will more than likely be rewarded with a 10 year vacation at club Fed."To what I must assume was my original comment:"are you saying that an M-16/AR-15 style weapon isn't good enough to use for "Whack a perp; the home invasion game!"."You did notice the "M-16/AR-15"? I did not say the weapons were the same (although a lot of your fellow Type 2A's think that both weapons are quite similar). mikey not being able to control himself from his usual knee jerk burning stoopid wants to "school" me on my ignorance in the subject of firearms. I knew the difference between the weapons before mikey was born. The fact that the M16's overall design is not just similar to the AR-15's but is, actually, based on the design of the AR-15 makes them "similar" weapons. The fact that your fellow Type 2A's have been arguing about this very topic for quite some time indicates that mikey's (and your) position is not shared by some of your fellow gunnerz.Since I don't plan on acquiring either of those weapons, the distinction is moot, for me. Rest assured, I do know the difference between semi-auto and full auto firing. I seen lotsa war pictures and I know that the guys with the "trench brooms" will always win the day!
Demo shows his unbelievable ignorance once again.AR-15 and M-16 are not interchangable terms, despite your claim that they are. But hey, you're demonstratably wrong almost everytime you speak about guns or firearms law, so why not here too?The Feds will bust you for "constructive possession of a machine gun" for even having an AR-15 AND certain M-16 parts in your possession, even though you can't just stick those M-16 parts in your AR and make a machine gun.An AR-15 is the same as an M-16 in the same way a Pontiac Fiero kit car with Ferrari body parts is an actual Ferrari.Of course this is the same guy who thinks #1 Brady Ranked California has "relatively lax gun laws" so his sense of objective reality and ability to think critically are more than a little deficient.Demo may not think a .22 fired indoors damaged his hearing, but it most certainly did. (I know, I've done it)
mikey:You're a moron. You think that my latest audiology test was rigged, shit-for-brains. My aural acuity, at 60, is fine. I can still hear as well as I did when I was im my twenties.And you're a moron again, for beating that "demo doesn't know his ass from his elbow about guns and I'm a GENIUS!". Slice it anyway you want to, your statement is still a turd sandwich. Tellyawhat, you get all of the other gunguyz to refute their opinions about whether AR-15's and M16's are similar weapons (the latter being a redesign of the former)--and not just the few that I linked to. When you're done with that projec--and don't forget to show your work--you might want to go down to that school in MS that just held a prom, especially for teh GAY girl and the "special needs" students--while having the REAL prom for all those KKKool KKKristian KKKiddies at another location. I mean, I know how anxious you are to spend at least as much of your time and energy defending the rights of gays as you do defending the rights of gunguyz. Git'erdone!
Geez, mikey:I almost forgot to congratulate you for not bringing up that tired ass comment of yours about "lax Calfornia gun laws" which you seem to think is somehow equivalnet to your lie about supporting GAY rights.
Thank you democommie for yet again ignoring information and discussion, choosing instead to remain ignorant and attack the messenger.As for shooting without hearing protection, a .22lr is well above the "safe" range decibal wise and will cause hearing damage.http://www.m1911.org/loudness.htmBut of course our idiot politicians won't allow us to purchase mufflers for guns.
BTW demo what's your problem with Gays? Homophobic much?
mikey:Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with gays. You think that accusing me of being homophobic will get you off the hook for lying about your support for them? It is what, about three months now, since you told that lie about "supporting gay rights as much as gun rights"? When asked for proof, you evade. It's okay with me, I like to have people out themselves as liars. What, you haven't managed to convince all those other folks out there to back off on their characterization of the AR-15 and M16 as being similar weapons. Oh, too bad, so sad. mikey makes himself look like a boob again.
Thanks democommie for yet again ignoring information and discussion, choosing instead to remain ignorant and attack the messenger
I noticed Democommie was basically asking why we'd need a Gun like this in protecting our homes.....Well, Ya just might need to start shooting before the enemy gets close to ya......Say some new Gun law passes and they try to take my guns for example......they'd probably send quite a few agents and I'd need to start firing before they Got close if I wanted to sufficiently protect my right to own guns......You did know that the 2nd amendment was instated in order to give the people the means to defend themselves from a tyrannical Government didn't ya?The ability to defend our rights is one of the best ways to keep anyone from trying to take them.....get it?
Yeah, I get it, Chris.