Well either it’s bedtime at the Sunnyvale Home for the Terminally Bewildered, or else Jerry Springer/Oprah/Rikki Lake is on the television so we’ll hear little more from the ‘expert’ for a while.
As I’ve got a deserved half day off tomorrow I might also have an early night.
But I agree with Bas, it is a game of ‘chase the tail’ when it comes to getting yes or no answers from the ‘gentleman.’
(I use that last term in the loosest possible context.)
As you have seen, the M1 Carbine is not a child design of the M1 Garand. You read the proof but still try to argue. I say this in all honesty, I truly am not trying to be a smartmouth:
You are one of the most immature persons I have encountered in all of my years. Truly. Even in the face of proof from the mouth of the weapon’s manufacturer (one of them), you still deny thier words are fact. You truly, truly are a very childish person. You should simply kindly admit your error, as I have on a couple of occasions, and let it go. It does not serve you in any way to not do so. You are not, with your childish arguments, going to change those facts or the proof that has been provided and read by all.
I don’t know. Who? All I know is you quoted me making comments about the weapon as if they were incorrect (they aren’t), then you say this?
:?:
I guess that weapon ain’t got a freaking thing to do with my commnts on the MP44 anyway, eh? DOAH freaking DOAH.
:roll:
It does not say in that quote about the Medal of Honor Recipient that he “held the trigger down”.
Well, I don’t know the statistics of it, but I do find it unbelievable that a military man (as you claim to be) would not know that a self-loading weapon uses the energy of the previous cartridge for the loading process. Seriously, you did not know this?
Cuts thinks self-loading firearms have magic dust in them. Cuts, have you never had to go to a gun store and buy some “Magic Reloading Dust” for a gun??? Sure sounds like you didn’t know that, but if by some strange, eirie circumstance you did, it is proof enough that you don’t realize that a 9mmp does not have so much power that an antuique auto might have a jam problem using it, that…
…you lie alright. You’re not in the Military. What an imposter. Not too bright for revealing that to us in that way either. You know, it’s against the law to impersonate a member of the armed forces, in the US at least.
Could I possible do more to show what an idiot you are than you do yourself?
Dude, you’ve already proven that you are not in the military, but are instead an wee imposter. Get real already.
Out of my sence of descency, I removed a rather unkind commentary here. I am a gentleman. I am trying to be.
I’m going out on a limb here, and I hope everyone will read this.
I propose that we go back to square one. Now to be sure, I am not making any concessions here, for I have none to make. But I am trying to do a wee noble thing here. For the good of this forum, let us put all of the bickering aside and pretend that we have no dissagreements.
I am sure that the forum moderators are not pleased at all with what has transpired. And in fact, nobody is.
Let me say this:
I like Britain. Honestly. I have admired the British in several ways all of my life. Britain has an awesome military, and they are a highly intelligent, ingeniuos people. History proves that. I hope that nobody thinks that I am anti-British, for I most certainly am not. Quite the opposite. In my opinion, and this may sound trivial to some, but it is my opinion that the English language is one of the most ingenious developments of mankind.
Please ladies and gentlemen, let us start anew. Let’s pretend that up to this moment there have been no posts whatsoever by myself or anyone that has posted in negative response to me. Let us be inclined to say, “It is my opinion that…” and be respectful of those opinions, and present information in a pleasant and informative light, as opposed to other, more incitive responses to each other’s posts, myself included.
I know that what I am asking is a bit much, considering this is an Internet forum, and the nature of forums itself leds to heated debate. But we must at least try to be above that.
I extend to all my apologies for any inconsiderate commentary that I may have made, and any made toward me, I forgive. Please, let’s try it. Let’s start anew and pretend, at least until it be possible that any wounds we have created are healed, and we may somehow consider each other friends, if by no other means than the effects of time and courtesy. Let’s try to accept that we all, myself included, at times may be improperly informed or make improper assumptions, and that we can learn something from each other.
That is my hope, and my proposal, and I will try to conduct myself according to this credo henceforth. I hope that all will do the same.
Out of date info, Ironman - look at the bottom of that page:
Source: Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - State Laws And Published Ordinances - Firearms (23rd Edition – 2001)
And the law changed with effect 9 Sept 2003 - 2 years after your source was written. Here again is the summary from packing.org:
HB 102, took effect June 11, 2003 and changes Alaska Statute 11.61.220 to allow anyone who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit if 21 years of age or older. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may still obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states or want to continue to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms. The effective date of this law change is September 9th, 2003. For more information contact the Permits & Licensing Unit at 907 269-0392
You can read the text of the law yourself at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/23/Bills/HB0102B.PDF
So you’re wrong.
OK ironman I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You started with your classification of what an AR should be,
To be an assault rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:
- carbine - short length barrel
- selective fire - semi or fully automatic
- magazine fed
- more than 10 round capacity
- rifle ammunition
- light weight
I believe that both you an I have agreed that the M1 for a number of reasons falls out of the AR class. So I will only refer to the M2.
First why must an AR have a carbine barrel and what, as you understand it, is the barrel length that dictates it to be a carbine as opposed to a rifle or SMG?
His criteria are bunk, and disagree with the accepted definition - particularly his bizarre introduction of the carbine length barrel!
This would mean that the following assault-rifles (universally accepted as such) most definitely fall outside the definition!
M16
Steyr AUG
SA-80
G36
Stg. 90 (SIG 550)
FN FNC
FN CAL
China type 68
Galil
FAMAS
und so weiter…
I dont know, is that a cease fire! well what now, is this a stale mate or a surrender?if it is a surrender I would like to quote “A Bridge Too Far” and inform IRONAWANKEEBOYJIZZCHOPSMAN that
We do not have the facilities to take you all prisoner
If it is a stalemate, I suggest we have superior numbers, superior knowledge ammunition intellect and references and we press home our advantage and ravage the WINKER
[b]READ MY FIRST FCUKING POST YOU RETARD!! WHAT DID IT SAY??
I said, and I quote:
I never said:
Up yours. Judging by your spelling and grammar you didn’t graduate High School
I grant you that, I seem to have been in error, it wasn’t part of the Yalta Agreement. It was nonetheless agreed that the Soviets would have primacy of economic influence in Eastern Europe; see the percentages agreement in my next post.
No sunshine, I won’t. Why don’t you follow my links and check out the texts to which I have directed you.
Why not? That’s all we’ve had to respond to all the time you have been on this board.
EDITED to make format clearer for the hard of understanding.
not to intrude in this complicated debate about effectiveness of assualt rifles, but I beleive this is about manzanar. you seem to have scattered this debate topic all over this Forum, maybe you can thrash “IRONMAN” “IRONINGPAN” “TINWALT” “IRONAWANKEEBOYJIZZCHOPSMAN” somewhere else. Anyway, hasnt that guy finally realised that it is true in modern times that some assualt rifles are effective at 600 yards?
*edited because of slight spelling error
I think you will find for the most part, It is IRONINGMAN that has endeavoured to bring the carbine into every single thread and avoid the best machine gun thread where it started!
but yes I do see your point and have therefore contented myself with my little thread called Wlather War machines big book of soldier knowledge.
Im like the old lady that smells of wee in the library Im nto doing anything jsut pottering and listening to the other conversations
As you have seen, the M1 Carbine is not a child design of the M1 Garand.[/quote]
Look at them, in reality.
Read ‘War Baby’
(My italics)
True, that would require intelligent comment about the subject.
You really do let yourself down when you rant, strip the weapons.
I don’t know. Who? All I know is you quoted me making comments about the weapon as if they were incorrect (they aren’t), then you say this?
:?:
I guess that weapon ain’t got a freaking thing to do with my commnts on the MP44 anyway, eh? DOAH freaking DOAH.
:roll:
[/quote]
It was your link to an airsoft site that mentioned this, it brought up the G/K-43 as a sniper rifle.
The question you avoided was germane in that it would have given the readers of this site an idea of your expertise on the subjects discussed.
It does not say in that quote about the Medal of Honor Recipient that he “held the trigger down”.[/quote]
No, but your previous assertion posted at 291803ZAPR ,viz:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Elicited the response of you quoting yourself and bringing the Congressional Medal of Honour winner’s actions as supportive a reply to the above quote, and therefore is salient.
Well, I don’t know the statistics of it, but I do find it unbelievable that a military man (as you claim to be) would not know that a self-loading weapon uses the energy of the previous cartridge for the loading process. Seriously, you did not know this? [/quote]
You seem to be a googlemeister, can’t one of your airsoft or computer game sites help you ?
Ridiculous assertion with no basis in fact.
Which antique 9mm weapons are you talking about ?
I would find it interesting to know which one(s) will ‘jam’ due to the lack of ‘power’ in a 9mm.
Yet another unfounded allegation.
Enough people here know me to make your silly assertions dilute your posts still further, if that indeed is possible.
As I am not impersonating a member of the armed forces of any country this is again totally redundant.
The only person in this debate who seems to assume that I am an ‘idiot’ is yourself, and your assumptions are not based on fact (qv).
Dude, you’ve already proven that you are not in the military, but are instead an wee imposter. Get real already.[/quote]
Please look up the word ‘proven’ and ‘proof’ in a dictionary, you will find it does not coincide with your tenuous grasp of reality.
I suggest you try harder, and get some assistance while you do so.
Also some psychological help to rid you of the paranoia you exhibit.
You are correct that my law information was out of date. However, since that discussion was about military personel carrying a loaded assault weapon concealed on the back seat of a car while off duty in the US, I submit that my contention was correct, regardless of how you slice it. Here is why:
In most states of the US, it is illegal to carry a weapon that is loaded in a vehicle unless it is placed in the trunk or glove compartment of the vehicle, regardless of whether or not they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
In all states of the US, it is illegal for military personel to carry their issued weapons while off-duty and not on military premesis.
Since the one who made the claim had made no stipulation as to what state in which it would be legal to do such, I contend that they were incorrect for that reason alone as well.
I will call that a tie - (well suggest you do) its not worth chasing the tail on that one, I suggest we press for a recognition over the innefiectivity at 600 yard claim.
OK ironman I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You started with your classification of what an AR should be,
To be an assault rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:
- carbine - short length barrel
- selective fire - semi or fully automatic
- magazine fed
- more than 10 round capacity
- rifle ammunition
- light weight
I believe that both you an I have agreed that the M1 for a number of reasons falls out of the AR class. So I will only refer to the M2.
First why must an AR have a carbine barrel and what, as you understand it, is the barrel length that dictates it to be a carbine as opposed to a rifle or SMG?
2nd Foot,
The criteria I gave was spoken to me by a member of the US Navy a few years ago. However, he could be incorrect. I think that it is important to know, however, that the definition of an assault rifle varies from one source to another. It has been my contention that this weapon qualifies as an assault rifle when used for such a role, partly because it fits the role and it fits a generalized description of assault rifles.
Some sources in fact state emphatically that that the M1 Carbine was an assualt rifle, while others state that it was a predecessor of an AR and comes close to but not quite up to the standards of being an AR. There are many conflicting opinions, most from reliable or at least educated sources.
I offer the following:
"An assault weapon is most frequently defined as a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol with a combination of the following characteristics:
“Large” or “High” capacity detachable magazine, usually defined as holding more than 10 rounds;
Military-style appearance, including semi-automatic replicas of military fully-automatic assault rifles;
Folding or telescoping stock;
A grenade launcher;
On rifles and shotguns, those with pistol-type grips;
A bayonet mount;
Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor (aka silencer);
Weapons that include a barrel shroud or other covering that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
On pistols, those on which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol grip;
Any rifle chambered to fire the .50 BMG cartridge. (In California)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Currently, the term “assault weapon” is usde more than AR to describe these weapons. By this criteria, some current AR’s would not be AR’s at all because they do not have:
a) a folding stock
b) a greneade launcher
c) flash supressor fitting
Other sources provide the following definition of an AR, by which an M2 Carbine would indeed be an AR:
“A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres”.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Other sources state this definition of an AR:
“Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles.”
http://www.biography.ms/Assault_rifle.html
The Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security states the following:
“ASSAULT RIFLE: This term was coined during World War II. It is a
translation of the German “Sturmgewehr.” Two key
characteristics that identify “assault rifles” are
full automatic fire and detachable magazines with
a capacity of 20 or more cartridges. These weapons
were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of
full automatic fire. While some assault rifles
offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e.,
single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at
least fully automatic.”
However, it is curious that in the same document, they list the M1 Carbine as a “semi-automatic assualt rifle”!:
"ASSAULT RIFLE FACT SHEET #2
QUANTITIES OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC "ASSAULT RIFLES"
OWNED IN THE UNITED STATES
RIFLES OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURE
Colt AR-15 caliber .223 to date 279,600
Springfield Armory Inc. M14A caliber .308 to date 60,000
Springfield Armory Inc. R3 (Copy of HK91) cal. .308 to date 1,000
Springfield Armory Inc. FAL caliber .308 to date 6,000
Springfield Armory Inc. BM59 caliber .308 to date 500
Ruger Mini-14 caliber .30 to date 500,000+
Commercial and surplus US M1 .caliber .30 to date 700,000+
US Government sales and GI souvenirs US M1 cal. .30 to date 1,500,000+ est."
Other sources cite the M1 or M2 Carbine in their description of the development of the AR without discrediting them, which implies at least, that they could be considered AR’s.
"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat. "
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/assault%20rifle
Since some have stated that the M1/2 Carbines are not AR’s because of their weaker round, I contend that this does not disqualify them as being AR’s circa WWII:
Assault rifles cause injuries more often than death. Doctrines vary concerning this effect. The U.S. military states that this is an intentional goal.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Assault_rifle
If you applied the modern def. of an AR, I would say that the M1 Carbine is not an AR because it does not have the range to compare to modern weapons and it lacks selective fire.
Clearly, the definition of an AR varies, even from one government or military organization to another! I have contended, and continue to contend, that because the M1 Carbine (and certainly the M2) meet not only a generalized definituion of an AR, and because they meet the larger number of characteristics of such weapons by most varying definitions, that they are indeed AR’s, at least when used in such a role, because they were well suited for that task in the era in which they were designed.
You’ve confused an “assault rifle” with the legalistic definition “assault weapon” from the 1994 act. This term was devised purely to confuse people to think that the 1994 act related to select-fire weapons, which are “NFA weapons” in US legal parlance. Not one “assault rifle” fell within the definition of “assault weapon” from the 1994 act, since true assault rifles are selective-fire.
You were warned about doing this a few days ago, and now you’ve done it. Congratulations. Mong.
The first definition, I am lead to believe is actually a legal defintion to do with possessing such a weapon in a domestic situation.
We being of a more military inclination are referingto the military classification of an “assault rifle”
Is it that this is your grounds for complaint,
Secondly - this is the first time you have mentioned your friend in the navy, and though he is conspicuous by his absence I respect you for now bringing this information to the discussion, though it is bizarre that you rate one mans word over at least 14 others!
Still I grant that this could have lead to the confusion.
But I did not state that the M1 Carbine is an assult rifle because of or by the definition of an “assualt weapon”. I stated that it is my opinion that it qualifies because it meets the characteristics of “most” definitions of such weapons and because it was effective in that role (and was in fact used and chosen for that role countless times in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam).
I did not use the term “assualt weapon” in my explaination of my opinion. Furthermore, it is folly to compare a WWII era assualt rifle to the modern standards of such weapons. For a WWII era race care is still a race car if it was used for racing and met the characteristics of one in the era in which it was first manufactured, even if it coes not meet the modern definition of any official racing association of a “race car”.
I’m sure that in time, current assault rifles will not meet the future definition of such a weapon as well. However, that does not mean that today they are not assualt rifles!
And you, Sir, are welcome to your opinion, no matter how incorrect it may be. You may privately think that black is white for all I care, provided that you keep it to youreself, or that England is somewhere near Milwakee.
However, on the point in question, you have been presenting your unqualified and un-researched opinion as God’s Honest Truth, despite the weight of well-qualified and well-considered and well-researched opinion against you.
I think you’ll find that “most”, if not “all” definitions include select-fire… Except yours.
Some definitions include an effective range of at least 300m, some specify “intermediate” cartridge (not stretched & souped-up pistol cartridge).