https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/ar-15-vs-m16-whats-the-difference/

“AR-15” remains a Colt registered trademark which it uses solely for its line of semi-auto rifles."

But I'm sure that the communists here who wish to see our country turned into a socialist country by disarming it will deny anything and everything contrary to their propaganda that AR15's are military weapons.

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:34:16 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/ar-15-vs-m16-whats-the-difference/
>
> “AR-15” remains a Colt registered trademark which it uses solely for its line of semi-auto rifles."
>
> But I'm sure that the communists here who wish to see our country turned into a socialist country by disarming it will deny anything and everything contrary to their propaganda that AR15's are military weapons.
So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?

On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?

Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.

Here's the reality:

"ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
War. It was known as the M-16.

Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
marketed as the AR-15.

When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
manufacturers began making similar models.

Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
rifles."

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
>
> Here's the reality:
>
> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
> the design to Colt.
>
> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
> War. It was known as the M-16.
>
> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
> marketed as the AR-15.
>
> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
> manufacturers began making similar models.
>
> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
> rifles."

Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.

From Tommy's link:
"Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
"Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S.. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."

On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
>>
>> Here's the reality:
>>
>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
>> the design to Colt.
>>
>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>
>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>
>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>
>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
>> rifles."
>
>
> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>
> From Tommy's link:
> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>

I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
at best unclear.

Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
military version.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
> >> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
> >>
> >> Here's the reality:
> >>
> >> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
> >> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
> >> the design to Colt.
> >>
> >> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
> >> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
> >> War. It was known as the M-16.
> >>
> >> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
> >> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
> >> marketed as the AR-15.
> >>
> >> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
> >> manufacturers began making similar models.
> >>
> >> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
> >> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
> >> rifles."
> >
> >
> > Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
> >
> > From Tommy's link:
> > "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
> > "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
> >
> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
> at best unclear.

No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for the military, with full automatic fire capability. There is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability. Every link posted on this subject states that fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.

>
> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
> military version.

That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt made a version that removed the automatic fire selection and made it marketable to the public. Their patent expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is generic term for that style of weapon.

But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for the military with full automatic fire capability.

On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>
>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>
>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>
>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>
>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>
>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
>>>> rifles."
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>>>
>>> From Tommy's link:
>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>
>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>> at best unclear.
>
> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for the military, with full automatic fire capability. There is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability. Every link posted on this subject states that fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
>
>>
>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>> military version.
>
> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt made a version that removed the automatic fire selection and made it marketable to the public. Their patent expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is generic term for that style of weapon.
>
> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for the military with full automatic fire capability.
>
>
>

My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.

But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
(as opposed to civilian semi models)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>>
>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
>>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>>
>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>>
>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the
>>>>> popularity of
>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
>>>>> rifles."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past
>>>> week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was
>>>> designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank
>>>> tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the
>>>> military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a
>>>> military weapon.
>>>>
>>>>  From Tommy's link:
>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative
>>>> to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and
>>>> the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so
>>>> thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen.
>>>> Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>>
>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>>> at best unclear.
>>
>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for the
>> military, with full automatic fire capability. There is no evidence
>> whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle
>> with _out_ full auto capability. Every link posted on this subject
>> states that fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link - even from
>> any less-than-reputable source - that makes even a vague claim that
>> the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full
>> auto capability.
>>
>>>
>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>>> military version.
>>
>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make the AR-15 its
>> standard weapon, the designation was changed to M-16.  Again, every
>> link posted here states that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In
>> 1962 Colt made a version that removed the automatic fire selection and
>> made it marketable to the public. Their patent expired in 1977 which
>> allowed a variety of manufacturers to make their own AR-15 variants.
>> Today the term AR-15 is generic term for that style of weapon.
>>
>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the contrary, that the
>> AR-15 was developed specifically for the military with full automatic
>> fire capability.
>>
>>
>>
>
> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.

Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that there's no
need for personal memories about this side issue.

> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm (as opposed to
> civilian semi models)

I agree. Which does not justify all the other military-oriented features
of the AR platform for practical civilian use. Light weight, compact
size, pistol grip, readily available high capacity magazines, readily
available folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
firefights.

Again, if these features were not much more deadly than simpler
handguns, the military would not issue guns with such features to
soldiers. They'd give them handguns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 8:46:30 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
> >>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the reality:
> >>>>
> >>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
> >>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
> >>>> the design to Colt.
> >>>>
> >>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
> >>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
> >>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
> >>>>
> >>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
> >>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
> >>>> marketed as the AR-15.
> >>>>
> >>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
> >>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
> >>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
> >>>> rifles."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
> >>>
> >>> From Tommy's link:
> >>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
> >>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
> >>>
> >> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
> >> at best unclear.
> >
> > No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for the military, with full automatic fire capability. There is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability. Every link posted on this subject states that fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
> >
> >>
> >> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
> >> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
> >> military version.
> >
> > That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt made a version that removed the automatic fire selection and made it marketable to the public. Their patent expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is generic term for that style of weapon.
> >
> > But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for the military with full automatic fire capability.
> >
> >
> >
> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>
> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
> (as opposed to civilian semi models)

Yes, up until Colts patent ran out, the main difference between the two was that the civilian version was not capable of full-auto. That happened _after_ the initial mil spec AR-15 was sent for military trials though. The original AR-15s were full auto capable.

On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
>>>>>>> military weapon?
>>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
>>>>>> the AR-15.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
>>>>>> as a military
>>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
>>>>>> the company sold
>>>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
>>>>>> manufacture the automatic
>>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
>>>>>> in the Vietnam
>>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
>>>>>> a semiautomatic
>>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
>>>>>> and the public,
>>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
>>>>>> 1970s, other
>>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
>>>>>> the popularity of
>>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
>>>>>> of AR-15-style
>>>>>> rifles."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
>>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
>>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
>>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
>>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
>>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
>>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
>>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
>>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
>>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
>>>>> military at the time."
>>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
>>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
>>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
>>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>>>
>>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>>>> at best unclear.
>>>
>>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
>>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
>>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
>>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
>>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
>>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
>>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
>>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
>>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
>>>> semi
>>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>>>> military version.
>>>
>>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
>>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
>>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
>>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
>>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
>>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
>>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
>>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
>>> generic term for that style of weapon.
>>>
>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>
> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>
>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>
> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
> firefights.
>
> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>
>

You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.

Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.

*Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
noticeable extent.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:51:06 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a military weapon?
> >> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of the AR-15.
> >>
> >> Here's the reality:
> >>
> >> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military
> >> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold
> >> the design to Colt.
> >>
> >> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic
> >> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam
> >> War. It was known as the M-16.
> >>
> >> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic
> >> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public,
> >> marketed as the AR-15.
> >>
> >> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other
> >> manufacturers began making similar models.
> >>
> >> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of
> >> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style
> >> rifles."
> >
> >
> > Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for the past week, yet certain other rubes here still insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was designed for the military to military specs, sold to and used by the military' as opposed to those who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
> >
> > From Tommy's link:
> > "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S. military at the time."
> > "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
> >
> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
> at best unclear.
>
> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the semi
> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
> military version.

Krygowski Jr. wants to explain to everyone that the AR15 was DESIGNED as a weapon of war. When in fact the M16 not only is NOT the same mechanism but doesn't even look all that much like an AR15 except for those that were designed to LOOK like an M16. The internal mechanism not only is not but cannot be made to operate like an M16 for more than a couple of shots. But Flunky is far more willing to lie about it because he is trying to impress Daddy Krygowski.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
> >>>>>>> military weapon?
> >>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
> >>>>>> the AR-15.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here's the reality:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
> >>>>>> as a military
> >>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
> >>>>>> the company sold
> >>>>>> the design to Colt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
> >>>>>> manufacture the automatic
> >>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
> >>>>>> in the Vietnam
> >>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
> >>>>>> a semiautomatic
> >>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
> >>>>>> and the public,
> >>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
> >>>>>> 1970s, other
> >>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
> >>>>>> the popularity of
> >>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
> >>>>>> of AR-15-style
> >>>>>> rifles."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
> >>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
> >>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
> >>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
> >>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
> >>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
> >>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
> >>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
> >>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
> >>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
> >>>>> military at the time."
> >>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
> >>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
> >>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
> >>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
> >>>>>
> >>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
> >>>> at best unclear.
> >>>
> >>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
> >>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
> >>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
> >>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
> >>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
> >>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
> >>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
> >>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
> >>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
> >>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
> >>>> semi
> >>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
> >>>> military version.
> >>>
> >>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
> >>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
> >>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
> >>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
> >>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
> >>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
> >>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
> >>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
> >>> generic term for that style of weapon.
> >>>
> >>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
> >>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
> >>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
> >
> > Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
> > there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
> >
> >> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
> >> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
> >
> > I agree. Which does not justify all the other
> > military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
> > civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
> > readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
> > folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
> > firefights.
> >
> > Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
> > simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
> > such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
> >
> >
> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>
> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
> diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
> popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
> lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>
> *Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
> hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
> collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
> noticeable extent.

We know that Frank is simply insane and will say anything anti-gun. But Krygowski Jr. is kissing Daddy's ass just like Daddy kissed Jobst's ass and now claims he disagreed with him. He not only didn't disagree with Jobst but he went out of his way to publicly agree with even the most insignificant thing that Jobst would say.

I just received a bunch of texts from people laughing about how kunich was making an idiot of himself again.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-5, tommy the moron wrote:
>
> > Krygowski Jr. wants to explain to everyone that the AR15 was DESIGNED as a weapon of war.

From the official AR-15 field test report from ARPA (the predecessor to DARPA) report from 1962.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0343778.pdf:
"This weapon was developed by the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Corporation to meet the military characteristics for a lightweight rifle utilising the high velocity small caliber principle."

If you have a dispute over that, your dispute is with the ARPA report from 1962, not me.

Besides that, you ignorant twat, you're the one who claimed _all_ guns were designed for the military, are you claiming now they weren't? Maybe you're just doing that to impress your daddy, kitty the trike rider (that anonymous coward).

> When in fact the M16 not only is NOT the same mechanism but doesn't even look all that much like an AR15 except for those that were designed to LOOK like an M16.
> The internal mechanism not only is not but cannot be made to operate like an M16 for more than a couple of shots.

Modern AR-15s are not the same thing as the AR-15 that was qualified and later became the M-16, shitferbrains.

> But Flunky is far more willing to lie about it because he is trying to impress Daddy Krygowski.

Same challenge to you that I issued to kitty which he slinked away from: Provide _any_ link or source that states the AR-15 was _not_ designed to military specifications, or was designed purely as a sport rifle.

As far as trying to impress your daddy, who's the one completely changing his tune and now siding with kitty the tricycle rider that the AR-15 _wasn't_ designed to mil spec? But hey, you're the military genius who came out with such gems as the union army lost every battle before the emancipation proclamation, _all_ US army generals went to west point, and the vietnamese surrendered to the US.

Shut the fuck up tommy.

On 12/10/2022 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>
>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>
>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>
>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>
>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>> firefights.
>>
>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>
> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.

True. I shoot rarely. I'm not a gun fetishist. If I wanted lots of joy
from hitting targets at a distance, I could get that from an air rifle.

> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are diminishing
> generally, pistol grips for carbines are very popular and folding
> stocks* are also trending as they are lighter and store more easily than
> polymer or wood stocks.

I suspect that you're using a restricted definition for "modern
firearm," perhaps purposely excluding the guns used for the majority of
hunting.

John talked about his hunting experience. He didn't use and didn't need
a pistol grip or folding stock on his rifle. He didn't need it to be
lighter weight. Very few hunters do. Almost all use much more
conventional platforms than the AR.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2022 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>>
>>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>>
>>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>>
>>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>>
>>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>>> firefights.
>>>
>>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>>
>> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>
> True. I shoot rarely. I'm not a gun fetishist. If I wanted
> lots of joy from hitting targets at a distance, I could get
> that from an air rifle.
>
>> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
>> diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
>> popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
>> lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>
> I suspect that you're using a restricted definition for
> "modern firearm," perhaps purposely excluding the guns used
> for the majority of hunting.
>
> John talked about his hunting experience. He didn't use and
> didn't need a pistol grip or folding stock on his rifle. He
> didn't need it to be lighter weight. Very few hunters do.
> Almost all use much more conventional platforms than the AR.
>

Ask Mr Slocumb but I gathered that his hunting years were
pre- widespread AR15 availability. Heck, when I was young
rifles had heavy wooden stocks. The M16 was a dramatic
outlier, much discussed at the time (I have never held one)

By 'modern' I would assume 'last 40 years or so' with
extensive use of polymers and the higher quality/lower price
of firearms, as many consumer manufactured goods, from
automated production and metallurgical advances. Like
bicycle parts actually in all those trends.

(p.s. 'hunting' what?
It's like asking about 'best bicycle'.
Birds, deer, coyote are each different and popular game such
as elk and wild boar are in another world for 'adequate
format'.

I am not a hunter but I can't escape the conversations. Like
fishing in that regard.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 15:57:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/10/2022 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>>
>>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>>
>>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>>
>>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>>
>>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>>> firefights.
>>>
>>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>>
>> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>
>True. I shoot rarely. I'm not a gun fetishist. If I wanted lots of joy
>from hitting targets at a distance, I could get that from an air rifle.

Imaginary shooting doesnt count

>> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are diminishing
>> generally, pistol grips for carbines are very popular and folding
>> stocks* are also trending as they are lighter and store more easily than
>> polymer or wood stocks.
>
>I suspect that you're using a restricted definition for "modern
>firearm," perhaps purposely excluding the guns used for the majority of
>hunting.

I suspect that Krygowski has no idea what he's talking about and is
only repeating what he heard from the gun-grabbing Democrats.

>John talked about his hunting experience. He didn't use and didn't need
>a pistol grip or folding stock on his rifle. He didn't need it to be
>lighter weight. Very few hunters do. Almost all use much more
>conventional platforms than the AR.

Krygowski posts his undocumented and unproven opinions as if they were
facts.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
>>>>>>>> military weapon?
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
>>>>>>> the AR-15.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
>>>>>>> as a military
>>>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
>>>>>>> the company sold
>>>>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
>>>>>>> manufacture the automatic
>>>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
>>>>>>> in the Vietnam
>>>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
>>>>>>> a semiautomatic
>>>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
>>>>>>> and the public,
>>>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
>>>>>>> 1970s, other
>>>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
>>>>>>> the popularity of
>>>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
>>>>>>> of AR-15-style
>>>>>>> rifles."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
>>>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
>>>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
>>>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
>>>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
>>>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
>>>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
>>>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
>>>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
>>>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
>>>>>> military at the time."
>>>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
>>>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
>>>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
>>>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>>>>
>>>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>>>>> at best unclear.
>>>>
>>>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
>>>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
>>>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
>>>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
>>>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
>>>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
>>>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
>>>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
>>>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
>>>>> semi
>>>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>>>>> military version.
>>>>
>>>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
>>>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
>>>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
>>>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
>>>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
>>>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
>>>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
>>>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
>>>> generic term for that style of weapon.
>>>>
>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>
>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>
>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>
>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>> firefights.
>>
>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>>
>>
>
>You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>
>Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
>diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
>popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
>lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>
>*Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
>hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
>collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
>noticeable extent.

Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.

"Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..

Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840

Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
Connecticut and was patented in 1860.

I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 1:48:54 PM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 15:57:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/10/2022 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
> >>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
> >>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
> >>>>
> >>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
> >>>
> >>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
> >>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
> >>>
> >>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
> >>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
> >>>
> >>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
> >>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
> >>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
> >>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
> >>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
> >>> firefights.
> >>>
> >>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
> >>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
> >>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
> >>
> >> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
> >
> >True. I shoot rarely. I'm not a gun fetishist. If I wanted lots of joy
> >from hitting targets at a distance, I could get that from an air rifle.
> Imaginary shooting doesnt count
> >> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are diminishing
> >> generally, pistol grips for carbines are very popular and folding
> >> stocks* are also trending as they are lighter and store more easily than
> >> polymer or wood stocks.
> >
> >I suspect that you're using a restricted definition for "modern
> >firearm," perhaps purposely excluding the guns used for the majority of
> >hunting.
> I suspect that Krygowski has no idea what he's talking about and is
> only repeating what he heard from the gun-grabbing Democrats.
> >John talked about his hunting experience. He didn't use and didn't need
> >a pistol grip or folding stock on his rifle. He didn't need it to be
> >lighter weight. Very few hunters do. Almost all use much more
> >conventional platforms than the AR.
> Krygowski posts his undocumented and unproven opinions as if they were
> facts.

Flunky pulls another idiotic BS like when he claimed that there was no inflation under Biden and then cites a government site that SHOWS that in Biden's FIRST year there was an AVERAGE inflation of about 40%. And presently it will more than double. Hey Frank, tell us you don't see any inflation.

Now the ass publishes a citation that SHOWS that the Armalite AR15 wasn't wanted by the military and that Colt developed the M16 only from the initial drawings of the AR15 and the M16 is different in every aspect. Do you suppose that Flunky will ever get tired of making a ass out of himself?

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 06:00:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
>>>>>>>>> military weapon?
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
>>>>>>>> the AR-15.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
>>>>>>>> as a military
>>>>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
>>>>>>>> the company sold
>>>>>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
>>>>>>>> manufacture the automatic
>>>>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
>>>>>>>> in the Vietnam
>>>>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
>>>>>>>> a semiautomatic
>>>>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
>>>>>>>> and the public,
>>>>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
>>>>>>>> 1970s, other
>>>>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
>>>>>>>> the popularity of
>>>>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
>>>>>>>> of AR-15-style
>>>>>>>> rifles."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
>>>>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
>>>>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
>>>>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
>>>>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
>>>>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
>>>>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
>>>>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
>>>>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
>>>>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
>>>>>>> military at the time."
>>>>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
>>>>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
>>>>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
>>>>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>>>>>> at best unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
>>>>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
>>>>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
>>>>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
>>>>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
>>>>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
>>>>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
>>>>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
>>>>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
>>>>>> semi
>>>>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>>>>>> military version.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
>>>>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
>>>>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
>>>>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
>>>>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
>>>>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
>>>>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
>>>>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
>>>>> generic term for that style of weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>>
>>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>>
>>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>>
>>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>>> firefights.
>>>
>>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>>
>>Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
>>diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
>>popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
>>lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>>
>>*Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
>>hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
>>collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
>>noticeable extent.
>
>Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
>flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.
>
>"Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
>very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..
>
>Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
>DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840
>
>Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
>Connecticut and was patented in 1860.
>
>I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.

Pisto grips on hunting rifles... Who knew?

https://mauserfirearms.com/mauser-m12-max-7x64-rifle-m12m000764/

https://tinyurl.com/2h9pgcup

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
> >> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
> >> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
> >> firefights.
> >>
> >> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
> >> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
> >> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
> >
> >You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
> >
> >Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
> >diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
> >popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
> >lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
> Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
> flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.
>
> "Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
> very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..
>
> Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
> DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840
>
> Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
> Connecticut and was patented in 1860.

Come on, John. Describe the rifle you used for hunting when you were a young guy
in New England. Do you have the honesty to do so?

OK, based on your previous posts you'll refuse to answer! But we know it
was something much heavier than an AR. It did not have and could not accept a folding stock,
a magazine of more than 30 rounds, a suppressor, etc. It could not shoot off, say, even 60 rounds
in a minute.

Yet you and the other family members you've described hunted successfully! Somehow you
never needed those and other trendy, macho features!

And you _still_ don't need them! That's the main reason you _still_ don't own an AR,
despite your passionate defense of their sale and use.

Those features, and others designed into the AR, are not very useful for hunting. They are
not even particularly useful for home defense. They are designed for fast and efficient
killing of lots of people. And they get used far too frequently to kill rooms full of innocents.

> I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.

You've still never been able to justify the quick kill features of the AR in civilian hands.
You can't defend your points with logic, so you're resorting to insults. That's low class.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:16:33 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>> >> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>> >> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>> >> firefights.
>> >>
>> >> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>> >> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>> >> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>> >
>> >You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>> >
>> >Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
>> >diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
>> >popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
>> >lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>> Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
>> flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.
>>
>> "Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
>> very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..
>>
>> Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
>> DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840
>>
>> Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
>> Connecticut and was patented in 1860.
>
>Come on, John. Describe the rifle you used for hunting when you were a young guy
>in New England. Do you have the honesty to do so?

Sure, I don't mind telling the truth. The first "gun" I owned was a
Winchester, single shot, .22 rifle which I "paid for" at the age of
12, by "bucking up" stove wood for an hour after school for a month.

I really don't know whether I weighed it at the time so I looked up
"Winchester single shot .22" and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_67
which seems to have weighed about 5 lbs.

The AR-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
seems to weigh about 6.5 lbs

>OK, based on your previous posts you'll refuse to answer! But we know it
>was something much heavier than an AR. It did not have and could not accept a folding stock,
>a magazine of more than 30 rounds, a suppressor, etc. It could not shoot off, say, even 60 rounds
>in a minute.
>
>Yet you and the other family members you've described hunted successfully! Somehow you
>never needed those and other trendy, macho features!
>
>And you _still_ don't need them! That's the main reason you _still_ don't own an AR,
>despite your passionate defense of their sale and use.
>
>Those features, and others designed into the AR, are not very useful for hunting. They are
>not even particularly useful for home defense. They are designed for fast and efficient
>killing of lots of people. And they get used far too frequently to kill rooms full of innocents.
>
>> I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.
>
>You've still never been able to justify the quick kill features of the AR in civilian hands.
>You can't defend your points with logic, so you're resorting to insults. That's low class.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Your continued, rather frantic, efforts at trying to "prove" how
dangerious the terrifying AR-15 is, is really becoming an exercise in
stupidity.

You see Frank the AR is used very, very, very, infrequently in firearm
homicides - your own account is 36 killed by the tremendously
dangerious AR in a world where AR ownership is said to be 20,000,000.

Just think, 36 / 20,000,000 = 0.00018% of these terrifying guns are
actually used to kill someone.

In fact every study I have seen demonstrated that even hands and feet
are used far more often in homicides then the terrifying AR. In 2019
some 16.6 times more frequently.

It seems rather strange that even after being shown, over and over,
data that show just how infrequently an AR is actually used in
homicides you continue to rant and rave about their dangers.

Are you really that stupid?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:16:33 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>Those features, and others designed into the AR, are not very useful for hunting.

What features are you so afraid of Krygowsky?

I just recieved two test messages and a phone call from the FBI agent that handled tommy's claim that I hacked his email laughing about tommy making an ass of himself again.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-5, tommy the moron wrote:
>
>
> Flunky pulls another idiotic BS like when he claimed that there was no inflation under Biden and then cites a government site that SHOWS that in Biden's FIRST year there was an AVERAGE inflation of about 40%. And presently it will more than double.

Really, Where di I do that? Where did _anyone_ do that?

> Hey Frank, tell us you don't see any inflation.

I'm sure he'll do that as soon as you show proof that there was no recession before Obama took office.

>
> Now the ass publishes a citation that SHOWS that the Armalite AR15 wasn't wanted by the military

HAHAHAHAH!!!!

From the official AR-15 field test report from ARPA (the predecessor to DARPA) report from 1962.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0343778.pdf

Page 25 - Analysis: Based on the numerical ratings and the comments of US Advisors and VN Unit Commanders, the AR-I5 is the most desirable weapon for use in Vietnam for the following reasons:
1. Ease of training.
2. Suitable physical characteristics.
3. It is easy to maintain.
4. It is more rugged and durable than present weapons.
5. It imposes the least logistical burden.
6. It is the best weapon for al-around tactical employment.
7. Its semi-automatic firing accuracy is comparable to that of the M1 Rifle, while its automatic firing accuracy is considered superior to that of the Browning Automatic Rifle.
8. Vietnamese troops, Commanders and US Advisors prefer it to any other weapon presently being used in Vietnam."

Just because we know you can't handle more than one sentence at a time. Here's how the report "SHOWS that the Armalite AR15 wasn't wanted by the military ". From the above quotation:

"the AR-I5 is the most desirable weapon for use in Vietnam "

ok, take a deep breath now. Here's the other part that "SHOWS that the Armalite AR15 wasn't wanted by the military "

"Vietnamese troops, Commanders and US Advisors prefer it to any other weapon presently being used in Vietnam."

Yup, I guess that proves the military wanted nothing to do with the AR-15!

> and that Colt developed the M16 only from the initial drawings of the AR15 and the M16 is different in every aspect.

LOL...sure skippy, All available reference discuss the AR-15 during testing and acquisition, well before the AR-15 was designated as M-16. Care to share drawings from 1962 that show the AR-15 was different from the M-16 in every aspect?

That would be a neat trick, another report I found from the DOD states:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953110.pdf
Page 146
Product Improvement Modifications
1. Major modifications have frequently not been supported by test data at the time of their approval. The majority of all modifications have been relatively minor - calling for dimensional and surface or material finish changes.

> Do you suppose that Flunky will ever get tired of making a ass out of himself?

Sure skippy, (LOL!!!). As soon as you provide _any_ proof for your claims we can discuss who is making an ass of himself over and over. Of course, we know you're willing to lie about it just to impress your daddy, kitty the anonymous cowardly tricycle rider.

On 12/10/2022 5:29 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 06:00:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
>>>>>>>>>> military weapon?
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
>>>>>>>>> the AR-15.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the reality:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
>>>>>>>>> as a military
>>>>>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
>>>>>>>>> the company sold
>>>>>>>>> the design to Colt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
>>>>>>>>> manufacture the automatic
>>>>>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
>>>>>>>>> in the Vietnam
>>>>>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
>>>>>>>>> a semiautomatic
>>>>>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
>>>>>>>>> and the public,
>>>>>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
>>>>>>>>> 1970s, other
>>>>>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
>>>>>>>>> the popularity of
>>>>>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
>>>>>>>>> of AR-15-style
>>>>>>>>> rifles."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
>>>>>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
>>>>>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
>>>>>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
>>>>>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
>>>>>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
>>>>>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
>>>>>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
>>>>>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
>>>>>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
>>>>>>>> military at the time."
>>>>>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
>>>>>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
>>>>>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
>>>>>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
>>>>>>> at best unclear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
>>>>>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
>>>>>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
>>>>>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
>>>>>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
>>>>>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
>>>>>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
>>>>>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
>>>>>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
>>>>>>> semi
>>>>>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
>>>>>>> military version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
>>>>>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
>>>>>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
>>>>>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
>>>>>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
>>>>>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
>>>>>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
>>>>>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
>>>>>> generic term for that style of weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
>>>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
>>>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
>>>>
>>>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
>>>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
>>>>
>>>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
>>>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
>>>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
>>>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
>>>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
>>>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
>>>> firefights.
>>>>
>>>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
>>>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
>>>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
>>>
>>> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
>>> diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
>>> popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
>>> lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
>>>
>>> *Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
>>> hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
>>> collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
>>> noticeable extent.
>>
>> Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
>> flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.
>>
>> "Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
>> very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..
>>
>> Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
>> DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840
>>
>> Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
>> Connecticut and was patented in 1860.
>>
>> I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.
>
>
> Pisto grips on hunting rifles... Who knew?
>
>
> https://mauserfirearms.com/mauser-m12-max-7x64-rifle-m12m000764/
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2h9pgcup
>

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 5:29 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 06:00:39 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:36:09 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/10/2022 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 12/10/2022 8:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/10/2022 5:18 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 3:10 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, sms
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2022 12:03 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>> So tell us tommy, was the AR-15 designed as a
> >>>>>>>>>> military weapon?
> >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, he has no knowledge of the history of
> >>>>>>>>> the AR-15.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here's the reality:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s
> >>>>>>>>> as a military
> >>>>>>>>> rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
> >>>>>>>>> the company sold
> >>>>>>>>> the design to Colt.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to
> >>>>>>>>> manufacture the automatic
> >>>>>>>>> rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops
> >>>>>>>>> in the Vietnam
> >>>>>>>>> War. It was known as the M-16.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of
> >>>>>>>>> a semiautomatic
> >>>>>>>>> version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement
> >>>>>>>>> and the public,
> >>>>>>>>> marketed as the AR-15.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the
> >>>>>>>>> 1970s, other
> >>>>>>>>> manufacturers began making similar models.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet
> >>>>>>>>> the popularity of
> >>>>>>>>> the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types
> >>>>>>>>> of AR-15-style
> >>>>>>>>> rifles."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which is basically the same thing I've been posting for
> >>>>>>>> the past week, yet certain other rubes here still
> >>>>>>>> insist the AR-15 was designed for civilian sport
> >>>>>>>> shooting. BTW - we should actually thank tom for
> >>>>>>>> posting his link. It's yet one more for the 'ar-15 was
> >>>>>>>> designed for the military to military specs, sold to
> >>>>>>>> and used by the military' as opposed to those
> >>>>>>>> who_still_ claim the ar-15 was never a military weapon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Â From Tommy's link:
> >>>>>>>> "Mr. Stoner designed the weapon to be a lighter-weight
> >>>>>>>> alternative to the M14 in service with the U.S.
> >>>>>>>> military at the time."
> >>>>>>>> "Colt started marketing the AR-15 to the U.S. military
> >>>>>>>> in 1962, and the U.S. Air Force was the first to jump
> >>>>>>>> on the offer, doing so thanks in no small part to the
> >>>>>>>> influence of then-Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis E. LeMay."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I for one will acknowledge that terms of early versions are
> >>>>>>> at best unclear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, they aren't. The AR-15 was developed specifically for
> >>>>>> the military, with full automatic fire capability. There
> >>>>>> is no evidence whatsoever that the AR-15 started life as
> >>>>>> a civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto
> >>>>>> capability. Every link posted on this subject states that
> >>>>>> fact, there is no ambiguity. To even _consider_ otherwise
> >>>>>> is at best willful ignorance. No one has posted any link
> >>>>>> - even from any less-than-reputable source - that makes
> >>>>>> even a vague claim that the AR-15 started life as a
> >>>>>> civilian sporting rifle with _out_ full auto capability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most people in the shooting sports consider 'AR-15' the
> >>>>>>> semi
> >>>>>>> civilian rifle and 'M16' the full auto selector switch
> >>>>>>> military version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is the case today. Once the military agreed to make
> >>>>>> the AR-15 its standard weapon, the designation was
> >>>>>> changed to M-16. Again, every link posted here states
> >>>>>> that fact. That was _after_ it was adopted. In 1962 Colt
> >>>>>> made a version that removed the automatic fire selection
> >>>>>> and made it marketable to the public. Their patent
> >>>>>> expired in 1977 which allowed a variety of manufacturers
> >>>>>> to make their own AR-15 variants. Today the term AR-15 is
> >>>>>> generic term for that style of weapon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But there is no ambiguity, and no evidence to the
> >>>>>> contrary, that the AR-15 was developed specifically for
> >>>>>> the military with full automatic fire capability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My memory of everything is fuzzy before 1962.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course; but irrelevant. We have enough documentation that
> >>>> there's no need for personal memories about this side issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But we agree that the full auto version is a military arm
> >>>>> (as opposed to civilian semi models)
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree. Which does not justify all the other
> >>>> military-oriented features of the AR platform for practical
> >>>> civilian use. Light weight, compact size, pistol grip,
> >>>> readily available high capacity magazines, readily available
> >>>> folding stocks, etc. etc. are all features optimized for
> >>>> firefights.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, if these features were not much more deadly than
> >>>> simpler handguns, the military would not issue guns with
> >>>> such features to soldiers. They'd give them handguns.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You don't get out much. And certainly not to a range.
> >>>
> >>> Popular modern firearms are all light, weapon sizes are
> >>> diminishing generally, pistol grips for carbines are very
> >>> popular and folding stocks* are also trending as they are
> >>> lighter and store more easily than polymer or wood stocks.
> >>>
> >>> *Illegal to add that or any shoulder stock to a pistol,
> >>> hence 'wrist braces' which are essentially a workaround
> >>> collapsible stock. Neither appear in firearms crime to any
> >>> noticeable extent.
> >>
> >> Your bigoted "opponent" appears to have no shame and continues to
> >> flaunt his ignorance for the whole world to see.
> >>
> >> "Light weight" - a rather common feature of hunting rifles - it gets
> >> very tiresome to tote a heavy rifle around all day..
> >>
> >> Pistol grips - The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the
> >> DELVIGNE PATENT rifle made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840
> >>
> >> Carbines - The carbine was invented by Christopher M. Spencer of
> >> Connecticut and was patented in 1860.
> >>
> >> I could go on, but why bother? The man is either a fool or a liar.
> >
> >
> > Pisto grips on hunting rifles... Who knew?
> >
> >
> > https://mauserfirearms.com/mauser-m12-max-7x64-rifle-m12m000764/
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/2h9pgcup
> >
> It's just logical and ergonomic. And popular.