How do you feel about guns?

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Were you in the Marines, Silent?

7th ID U.S. Army way back when the Vietnam conflict had just finished up. My platoon Sgt was a navy seal in Nam and my squad leader was a green beret in Nam. Each day they would make things interesting to say the least.

[BengalHawk62]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

BTW a gun is not an M16 or any other type of assault weapon. A gun is a howitzer or some other type of artillery piece . You call an M16 a gun and you will have to pay hell for doing it.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: [chanting] This is my rifle.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: [grabbing his crotch] This is my gun.
Marines: This is for fighting.
Marines: [grabbing their crotches] This is for fun.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

And yes we did fire at 3,000 meters.

Firing 5.56 rounds at a distance roughly 600 metres farther than the longest sniper kill, which was done with a .50 cal?

Calling horse ****.

There is a reason those ranges of 550 and 800 are called effective, because after that there isn't much use.

[Wyche'sWarrior]

I like 'em.....

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Firing 5.56 rounds at a distance roughly 600 metres farther than the longest sniper kill, which was done with a .50 cal?

Calling horse ****.

There is a reason those ranges of 550 and 800 are called effective, because after that there isn't much use.

We weren't firing for accuracy, we were firing just to point out the range. If we wanted to shoot for accuracy at that range we would use an M14 or a 50 cal. I told you my platoon sgt and squad leader were strange. BTW I or anybody else, including them could hit a damn thing at that range, however the round would travel that far and that is the point they were trying to make for whatever reason. Also we never even qualified at 550 meters, qualification was 300 meters and that is what we actually qualified for.

Now the M60 machine gun, would put your lights out at 800 meters. That is one awesome weapon, and it is no wonder it is still used today.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

We weren't firing for accuracy, we were firing just to point out the range. If we wanted to shoot for accuracy at that range we would use an M14 or a 50 cal. I told you my platoon sgt and squad leader were strange. BTW I or anybody else, including them could hit a damn thing at that range, however the round would travel that far and that is the point they were trying to make for whatever reason. Also we never even qualified at 550 meters, qualification was 300 meters and that is what we actually qualified for.

Now the M60 machine gun, would put your lights out at 800 meters. That is one awesome weapon, and it is no wonder it is still used today.

I wouldn't even take an M14 at that distance. Past the one kilometer mark, I want something around the .416 and up range. Now, I would take an M14 up to 1000 m, tumbling gets too bad much further than that. But yeah, there is no sense qualifying at 550 m when the majority of combat takes place at a shorter distance.

As for the M60, 'tis a fine weapon. But it doesn't get much use in the U.S. military today. It has been replaced, and I must say, with a much finer weapon. I have had a blast with the M240B.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I wouldn't even take an M14 at that distance. Past the one kilometer mark, I want something around the .416 and up range. Now, I would take an M14 up to 1000 m, tumbling gets too bad much further than that. But yeah, there is no sense qualifying at 550 m when the majority of combat takes place at a shorter distance.

As for the M60, 'tis a fine weapon. But it doesn't get much use in the U.S. military today. It has been replaced, and I must say, with a much finer weapon. I have had a blast with the M240B.

I was in a lot earlier than you were, hell we were still using .45 cal side arms. I understand that they were replaced with 9mm? Back when I was in we used to weapons for sniping. The M14 and the 50 cal. Both could reach out and touch someone. LOL But the 50 cal did have a far greater range. I saw guys hit targets consistently at 1/4 mile with the 50 cal.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

I was in a lot earlier than you were, hell we were still using .45 cal side arms. I understand that they were replaced with 9mm? Back when I was in we used to weapons for sniping. The M14 and the 50 cal. Both could reach out and touch someone. LOL But the 50 cal did have a far greater range. I saw guys hit targets consistently at 1/4 mile with the 50 cal.

I was never in, I am just a firearm enthusiast with friends who have enough money to afford some of the more restricted firearms.

Now, the M14 can certainly serve as a weapon for a sharpshooter, it is a fine weapon. But it was during Vietnam that the military started issuing hunting rifles for their snipers. The extent of which is not fully realized, but we know that is where it started. The .50 cal sniper rifle would not come about for some time after, coincidentally about the same time the switch occurred between the M1911 and the M9 Beretta.

So I'm not sure when you served, but if you were around for the M82, the first of the .50 cal sniper rifles, then you would have been around for the M9 as well.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I was never in, I am just a firearm enthusiast with friends who have enough money to afford some of the more restricted firearms.

Now, the M14 can certainly serve as a weapon for a sharpshooter, it is a fine weapon. But it was during Vietnam that the military started issuing hunting rifles for their snipers. The extent of which is not fully realized, but we know that is where it started. The .50 cal sniper rifle would not come about for some time after, coincidentally about the same time the switch occurred between the M1911 and the M9 Beretta.

So I'm not sure when you served, but if you were around for the M82, the first of the .50 cal sniper rifles, then you would have been around for the M9 as well.

The reason the M14 was discontinued in Nam was because of 2 reasons. 1st reason is that it was uncontrollable on auto. Secondly the stock would swell up due to the humidity. They did start changing the stocks to fiberglass, but the AR's were proving to be a better weapon in the jungle.

I got out in 82 which is when the M82 first came out. that is why they designated it M82 by the way, it was because of the year.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

28
Describe the ranges for the M16/A2 Rifle.

• Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
• Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
• Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters

http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...dy-guide.shtml





The 20 round was called a magazine.
The 30 round was called a banana clip.

And yes we did fire at 3,000 meters.

No, you didn't.

Why don't you explain the difference between max effective range and max range for me. Maybe then you will understand why I know you're full of BS.

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

7th ID U.S. Army way back when the Vietnam conflict had just finished up. My platoon Sgt was a navy seal in Nam and my squad leader was a green beret in Nam. Each day they would make things interesting to say the least.

Wow, one inter-service transfer and one branch transfer of two Spec Op warriors into the same straight leg infantry platoon. What are the odds?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Firing 5.56 rounds at a distance roughly 600 metres farther than the longest sniper kill, which was done with a .50 cal?

Calling horse ****.

There is a reason those ranges of 550 and 800 are called effective, because after that there isn't much use.

It's unequivocal horse ****.

Can you imagine aiming center mass at a man-sized target almost 2 miles away through the iron sights of a M16A1?

Even if you aimed at an area target you wouldn't see the strike of the round to know how to adjust for elevation.

Now that's using some Kentucky windage!!!

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

It's unequivocal horse ****.

Can you imagine aiming center mass at a man-sized target almost 2 miles away through the iron sights of a M16A1?

Even if you aimed at an area target you wouldn't see the strike of the round to know how to adjust for elevation.

Now that's using some Kentucky windage!!!

You can't hit crap at that range, I don't know why they would even do it, but they were strange that way. We actually qualified at 300 meters, and that wasn't exactly easy either.

Some of the crap they did ranged from bizarre to totally unbelievable. For example who would ever dare to roll a cs canister into a CP. I think if our captain had live ammo he would have shot him. Funny as hell though.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

We weren't firing for accuracy, we were firing just to point out the range. If we wanted to shoot for accuracy at that range we would use an M14 or a 50 cal. I told you my platoon sgt and squad leader were strange. BTW I or anybody else, including them could hit a damn thing at that range, however the round would travel that far and that is the point they were trying to make for whatever reason. Also we never even qualified at 550 meters, qualification was 300 meters and that is what we actually qualified for.

Now the M60 machine gun, would put your lights out at 800 meters. That is one awesome weapon, and it is no wonder it is still used today.

An M14, M82, or M107 with a scope, spotter, and a Sniper School graduate squeezing the trigger aren't accurate at 3000m, either. An M60 with the tripod and T&E isn't accurate at 3000m.

The M60 has been replaced by the M240 for almost 15 years in most infantry units and almost 20 years in the Ranger Regiment.

Let me explain what would happen in reality. If your PSG and PL wanted to operate a range firing M16A1s at 3000m targets it would have to be on the training schedule and coordinations for land, ammo, transportation, etc would have to me made. So your Battalion S3 would need to coordinate with Range Control for the land. Your Company XO would need to coordinate with Battalion S3 for the range request and S4 for the ammo. Unless your platoon road marched to the range someone would need to coordinate with the motor pool for transportation. Your PSG or PL would need to complete and turn in a Risk Assessment for the appropriate commander to sign depending upon the risk level involved. All of this would be planned during the company training meeting between the PSGs, PLs, company XO and CO.

The Company Commander would ask, for example, "First Platoon, what do you have planned for Week 35?"

Your PL would reply, "We're going to shoot at 3000m targets with M16A1s."

After everyone in the room stopped laughing, your CO would reply, "That ain't ****ing happening. What's your Plan B?"

And that would be the end of it.

M16A1s don't have elevation knobs like M16A2s and M4s. The elevation knob's maximum distance is 800m. Q: Why is that? A: Because that is the maximum effective range for an area target with a M16A2 or M4.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

I was in a lot earlier than you were, hell we were still using .45 cal side arms. I understand that they were replaced with 9mm? Back when I was in we used to weapons for sniping. The M14 and the 50 cal. Both could reach out and touch someone. LOL But the 50 cal did have a far greater range. I saw guys hit targets consistently at 1/4 mile with the 50 cal.

OMG!

A quarter mile with a 50 cal? Consistently?

A 1/4 mile is approximately 400m.

What's so damn special about hitting a 400m target with a scoped sniper rifle? Nothing. That's well within the point target range of a M16/M4 series rifle with iron sights.



You confused magazine and clip. You don't understand max range and max effective range. You don't understand a 1/4 mile shot is only 400m.

Something smells fishy.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

The reason the M14 was discontinued in Nam was because of 2 reasons. 1st reason is that it was uncontrollable on auto. Secondly the stock would swell up due to the humidity. They did start changing the stocks to fiberglass, but the AR's were proving to be a better weapon in the jungle.

I got out in 82 which is when the M82 first came out. that is why they designated it M82 by the way, it was because of the year.

The M82 was not a service weapon in the U.S. military until 1989/1990. The first one was made by Barrett in 1982. So it was never in service while you were.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

You can't hit crap at that range, I don't know why they would even do it, but they were strange that way. We actually qualified at 300 meters, and that wasn't exactly easy either.

Some of the crap they did ranged from bizarre to totally unbelievable. For example who would ever dare to roll a cs canister into a CP. I think if our captain had live ammo he would have shot him. Funny as hell though.

Rolling a CS grenade into a CP is a helluva lot more believable than firing at 3000m targets with M16A1s.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

The size of the magazine WOULD matter.

Make up your mind.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I can load, shoot, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in under 40 seconds. I guess single shot shotguns, perhaps one of the safest guns in America, have to be banned to, because people can shoot them quickly.

Previously you stated the size of the magazine doesn't matter because you can load, shoot, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in under 40 seconds.

And now the size of the magazine does make a difference.

If I have 10 in the mag compared to one in the barrel..............I'll let you do the math. It's greater than 8, less than 10. Agreed, IF I only had one shot, then yes I would want the shotgun. But that's not what I am discussing. I am discussing a loaded 10 round mag verse a single shot.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Yes I can do it accurately. It's a shotgun. With some birdshot in it at a short distance it isn't hard at all to hit a target. That's why shotguns make great home defense weapons.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

8 rounds from a shotgun in a small room like a school where this took place with certain types of ammo would do just as much damage as a 9mm semi-auto. Yes reloading would be slower, but I have watched people reload a shotgun in a matter of seconds.

I used it how I used it. Liberals are antigun typically, and Fred revealed he was in large part as well. If you don't like the word liberal, don't be one.

Does being a combat veteran make me a Liberal?

Or am I a Liberal because I own guns?

She obtained her guns legally. They were secured in her home. "Behavioral problems"....the man had Asperger's. Even so-called experts in this field said there is no evidence whatsoever of a link between Asperger's and behavior such as this. We have a goo friend who has Asperger's who we would feel 100% safe with shooting a gun. Let's stop blaming this horrific event on Asperger's.

If they were secure, how did her son get them?

If there isn't a link between Asperger's and Adam Lanza's behavior as you suggest, then he had at least one other mental condition. I don't have access to his medical records like you, apparantly. So please explain his other medical condition(s) which is responsible. Then point out where I blamed this on Asperger's.

If I had not taught my children how to handle a firearm, or let them take it out in the woods at 10 years ld with their buddies, then yes I would share responsibility. But if my 20 year old son stole them from my house, that's an entirely different story. What's unbelievable is how you don't get this.

How do you secure your weapons and ammo so your kids don't have access to them?

Huh?

The mother who didn't secure her weapons doesn't share any responsibility?

So you're arguing that killing a person in war is unjustifiable? Why did you join the military with this view??????

I never stated killing isn't justifiable. God has a commandment against killing. There isn't an asterick at the end with a list of exceptions to include war. Yet, religious leaders find ways to justify breaking this commandment.

Why would I care what Judeo-Christian mythology states regarding killing any more than I care what Greek mythology states about the same topic. Neither applies to me.

My constitutional right in regards to the 2nd amendment is not limited. You want to limit it.

Yes, it is.

Can you buy a M240B?

No.

Unequivocal proof your Second Amendment right isn't unlimited.

You know that sin entered into the world and Adam and Ever hid themselves, and God provided skin for clothing, right? Take it up with God.

So God is a nudist?

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Rolling a CS grenade into a CP is a helluva lot more believable than firing at 3000m targets with M16A1s.

Who said anything about firing at targets, their point was to show that the rounds could carry that far. Why? I have no clue.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Who said anything about firing at targets, their point was to show that the rounds could carry that far. Why? I have no clue.

How the hell do you know the rounds traveled 3000m when you can't hit anything? If you can't hit anything how can you see the strike of the round to know how far it traveled?

Easy. You can't see the strike of a 5.56 round almost 2 miles away so you don't know if it traveled that far or not.

You're full of crap.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Yes, it is.

Can you buy a M240B?

No.

Unequivocal proof your Second Amendment right isn't unlimited.

You know what I just thought about. The right to bear arms is the only constitutional right you have to pay in order to exercise.

More proof that your right to bear arms is limited.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Red Dawn? Are you serious? You are going to use a fictional movie to back up your claim.? Wow, not even going to comment on that other than to say that they used 30.06 and .308 along with bows. The Soviet Union no longer exists, it is now Russia, and they have their hands full just trying to settle things down over there, than to worry about us. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

In 1791 there were no such things as automatic weapons, so why would the forefathers put into the amendment something that did not exist. As I said, I fully support the 2nd amendment, but automatic weapons in the hands of civilians is a bomb waiting to explode. All I am saying is to revamp the 2nd amendment to keep these types of weapons out of civilian hands.

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd fax you a dollar for putting up an argument against a fictional movie.

Other than that, I don't think it would have mattered to them if there had been automatic weapons. It doesn't specify from any of the types of arms available at the time. There's no mention of canons, mines, long rifles, swords, badgers. Just arms.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

You know what I just thought about. The right to bear arms is the only constitutional right you have to pay in order to exercise.

More proof that your right to bear arms is limited.

How so?

You can make your own weapons (be it firearm or otherwise). You can make your own ammo.

[bugsmom]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I've heard about a lot of people rushing out to get guns after this incident.

When someone tells me that they own a gun, they tell me a lot about themselves.

Like, "I refuse to be a victim"?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Benton

How so?

You can make your own weapons (be it firearm or otherwise). You can make your own ammo.

How do you acquire the materials to make these weapons and/or ammunition? They still must be purchased.

[WhoDeyJon]

Make up your mind. Previously you stated the size of the magazine doesn't matter because you can load, shoot, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in under 40 seconds. And now the size of the magazine does make a difference.

You are fully aware of what was being discussed, don't flip it around. Not all people can reload a shotgun that fast, and you know that. And as said at least twice already, a SINGLE SHOT is not ideal for EVERYONE. Pump shotgun would be MY ideal weapon for home defense, but my wife can't even hold it. I suppose you would just rather her die?

Does being a combat veteran make me a Liberal? Or am I a Liberal because I own guns?

ther make you a liberal. Wanting to take away my rights makes you one though. P.S. - Thanks again for your service.

If they were secure, how did her son get them?

In her home, he stole them. Remember? Also, I have seen nothing that says how she went the extra mile on how they were stored in the home....so don't make assumptions there. Thieves are thieves.

If there isn't a link between Asperger's and Adam Lanza's behavior as you suggest, then he had at least one other mental condition. I don't have access to his medical records like you, apparantly. So please explain his other medical condition(s) which is responsible. Then point out where I blamed this on Asperger's.

You stated the kid had a disorder and made the connection. What was his other mental condition?? Big assumption with no facts there. You DON'T have access to his medical records, so don't make that assumption. I however read that the kid had Aspergers. But THAT does not make him a killer or unsafe with guns. His responsibility falls in the category of a sinner who acted upon the wickedness in his heart. Plain and simple.

How do you secure your weapons and ammo so your kids don't have access to them?

Safely.

The mother who didn't secure her weapons doesn't share any responsibility?

Assumption with no facts.

I never stated killing isn't justifiable. God has a commandment against killing. There isn't an asterick at the end with a list of exceptions to include war. Yet, religious leaders find ways to justify breaking this commandment.

God does not have a commandment against killing, He has one against murder.

Why would I care what Judeo-Christian mythology states regarding killing any more than I care what Greek mythology states about the same topic. Neither applies to me.

Then why bring up the commandement from God. You don't believe in him anyways, so drop it. What did you study at Liberty?

Yes, it is.

Can you buy a M240B?

No.

Unequivocal proof your Second Amendment right isn't unlimited.

It's not limited by the constitution! Only by Libs who want to ban guns and gun accessories. Stay with me...

So God is a nudist?

You don't believe in Him, so don't worry about it.