The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tess Anderson on December 14, 2012, 06:50:54 PM

Title: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tess Anderson on December 14, 2012, 06:50:54 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021981871

what's even better is:

Quote
Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:31 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,062 posts)
2. Some of it is from being down range

In shootouts between the Mexican Army and the cartels.

It is a survival skill.

Funny story, line at movie theater at the Last Temptation of Christ. Cops come to do hot stop, and the shotguns come out. I went down, and then proceeded to pull sister and friend behind cover.

Cops later asked how. I told them. 
the cops asked her how.  ::)

Quote
Response to Whovian (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:52 PM
 Robb (36,094 posts)
18. DU has an expert on everything.

Sometimes it's the same person. 

Quote

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #23)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:12 PM
dionysus (21,943 posts)
29. RIFLE. it is spelled RIFLE.. if you want to pretend to be an expert on firearms stop typing "riffle"

for crying out loud, seeing you type "riffle" over and over...
Quote
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:27 PM
 zappaman (6,266 posts)
39. You are a marvel

Is there nothing you have not done or do not know on this Earth?
Can't wait to see you proclaim to have been an astronaut and lecture us on Astronomy.

:rotf:
bullies
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: USA4ME on December 14, 2012, 06:57:20 PM
Quote from:
nadinbrzezinski

Funny story, line at movie theater at the Last Temptation of Christ. Cops come to do hot stop, and the shotguns come out. I went down, and then proceeded to pull sister and friend behind cover.

Cops later asked how. I told them.

Bet the cops don't make that mistake again.

.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: EagleKeeper on December 14, 2012, 07:00:50 PM
Quote
dionysus (21,943 posts)
11. Sturmgewehr. Sturmweber sounds like an assault grill.

Quote
SidDithers (23,561 posts)
12. An angry grill...nt

Sid

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: EagleKeeper on December 14, 2012, 07:04:52 PM
Quote
Robb (36,094 posts)
42. That's it.

(http://i49.tinypic.com/29mayqw.png)

 :lmao:
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: EagleKeeper on December 14, 2012, 07:23:16 PM
I gotta put the OP in this thread, nutcase nadin is getting hammered.


Quote
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)

Semi auto, it wasn't an automatic weapon!!!!


 
Expect to hear that from our gun fans.

It is true. A semi auto will fire a round every time you pull the trigger

A full auto will keep firing as long as you pull the trigger until you run out of ammo

The former is called accurate fire, because you have far more control over your gun

The latter is called suppressive fire. Keeping control with the recoil is all but easy. And it s otherwise known as spray and pray.

The argument we hear from gun fans is that these are not assault weapons.

Well, the Sturmweber '44 (assault rife) is the grand daddy to the Bushmaster and other riffles derived from the M-16, and the dad to the AK-47. The Germans classified them as assault riffles. They had two modes of fire, semi automatic, like the M-1 Garand, and the revolutionary automatic mode, making it essentially a small machine gun. Soldiers were instructed, like they are today, to keep to semi auto, unless they are in an emergency. This s at the hear of fire discipline.

So now I will get some tell me, you are afraid of how the gun looks! Pure canard, and sorry, but you really do not need anything like this (the Bushmaster is very popular with hunters) to go after deer. If you do, single shot and short magazines should do the job.

So you want to keep your bushmaster, and the rest of the AR -15 family, sure...have them all be single shot. The same goes for the rest of them.

For the record, the Bushmaster is not more scary than the M-1. In fact, the M-1 will have a longer range and penetration power...in a shoot out...well let's put it this way, unfortunately learn how to take cover, because sadly this is not over.


"Sturmweber" :rotf: Assault Grill!
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 14, 2012, 07:31:59 PM
Quote
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:40 PM
 underpants (104,948 posts)
7. I want to ask a question simply for information and you appear to know what you are talking about

do Semi-Autos fire bursts like three round bursts per squeeze like the M-16 that I was trained on as a Cav Scout?

I really don't know and wanted to find out. Thanks in advance.
Skidmark knows better. He's jerking her chain.  :lmao:
Quote
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #16)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:08 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)
27. I don't mind learning more of that story

The early M-16 was a disgrace.  
I carried and used an M-16. No letters or numbers after the 16. Never had a malfunction.
Quote
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #27)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:22 PM
 rhett o rick (23,428 posts)
34. I read a great article on it in a newspaper called "Shotgun News", many, many years ago.

I have since tried to find the article but havent been able to.

As I remember the Army refused to adopt a gun similar to the AR-15 that was so popular. But when they got enough pressure they developed their own version, the M-16. They changed a lot of the good characteristics with the rationalization that the gun needed to be universal and capable of being used in the Arctic and desert. This was while we were heavily involved in a jungle war. The AR-15 was designed to use a particular manufactures cartridge which pushed the slide (sorry dont know the proper term) back far enough to eject the shell and clear the breach of gases. The competing major cartridge manufacturer bribed the Army into using their cartridge which, turns out, didnt quite push the slide (?) back far enough to clear the breach of gases, which contained powder residue. The residue built up over time and caused jamming. The Army's solution, after soldiers were complaining that their fellow soldiers were being killed because of the guns jamming, was to issue cleaning kits.

I am far from being an expert and the above was from memory of an article I read approx 30 years ago. So take that into consideration re. the accuracy.  
Seems I remember the problem being residue fouling of the carrier guide gas port on the bolt carrier group.
For the DUmpmonkeys, the gas port is where gas from the gas tube would push it back, thus activating ejection.

Quote
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #25)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:09 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)
28. And I agree with them

Hell, the M-1 Garand is a better weapon for that due to the round.

I wish I did not know this shit.  
Your wish was granted a long time ago.
You really don't know shit.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 14, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
Quote
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)
8. Conversion kits are technically illegal

View profile
And in some cases all you need is a file.

I will leave it at that.

But the reason they are becoming meaningless is that a well trained shooter can achieved a fairly high rate of fire even in semi auto, I will add controlled fire.

I would rather be down range of somebody shooting at full auto, not semi.

The bald headed dwarf is insane. She doesn't have a clue to what she's talking about. Not a clue.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: LC EFA on December 14, 2012, 07:46:29 PM
Is it just my impression here - but is she actually growing less sand and less coherent as time passes ?

Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: JohnnyReb on December 14, 2012, 07:46:51 PM
I think Nadin has "down range" confused with "deranged" in her case.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 14, 2012, 07:57:11 PM
I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.

^^^going nuts reading the oblate spheroid.  Get me outta here.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: EagleKeeper on December 14, 2012, 08:00:06 PM
Coach

I didn't know that you do ascII art!

I see a shark with frikken laser beams!
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 14, 2012, 08:06:08 PM
Quote
As I remember the Army refused to adopt a gun similar to the AR-15 that was so popular. But when they got enough pressure they developed their own version, the M-16. They changed a lot of the good characteristics with the rationalization that the gun needed to be universal and capable of being used in the Arctic and desert. This was while we were heavily involved in a jungle war. The AR-15 was designed to use a particular manufactures cartridge which pushed the slide (sorry dont know the proper term) back far enough to eject the shell and clear the breach of gases. The competing major cartridge manufacturer bribed the Army into using their cartridge which, turns out, didnt quite push the slide (?) back far enough to clear the breach of gases, which contained powder residue. The residue built up over time and caused jamming. The Army's solution, after soldiers were complaining that their fellow soldiers were being killed because of the guns jamming, was to issue cleaning kits.

That's the most comical crock of misinformed horseshit I've ever read.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 14, 2012, 08:08:38 PM
Coach

I didn't know that you do ascII art!

I see a shark with frikken laser beams!

It's bad, very bad.

I'm researching the oblate spheroid for the Top DUmmie awards, and every time I think she's fallen to a new low of stupidity, damn it, she gets even more stupid.

I can't believe it.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Chris_ on December 14, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Someone needs to take the TV remote away from her.  I swear half the shit she posts comes straight from basic cable television filtered through a mishmash of bad Spanglish.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 14, 2012, 08:27:42 PM
Someone needs to take the TV remote away from her.  I swear half the shit she posts comes straight from basic cable television filtered through a mishmash of bad Spanglish.

Someone needs to take her keyboard away from her.

I swear, this woman is nuts.

<<is halfway through reading everything the oblate spheroid wrote November 2011-November 2012.

Trust me, she's nuts.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Airwolf on December 14, 2012, 08:31:13 PM
Ok so she would rather be in front of a full auto weapon then a semi automatic one. Let me know how that works out for Gnads when someone lets loose with an XM-134 mini gun.

(http://www.vietnamwar-guns.com/shop/images/caw_m134_minigun_vietnam_0809_722.jpg)
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Vagabond on December 14, 2012, 08:35:01 PM
Nadin is an idiot.  the Thompson submachinegun could be fired on full auto and the shooter could write his name with it.  On the other hand, can we trade her for Hammar?
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 14, 2012, 08:42:12 PM
Nadin is an idiot.  the Thompson submachinegun could be fired on full auto and the shooter could write his name with it.  On the other hand, can we trade her for Hammar?
Surprised you're aware of that. Darn thing was quite good on full.
What model did you work with?
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 14, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
Someone needs to take her keyboard away from her.

I swear, this woman is nuts.

<<is halfway through reading everything the oblate spheroid wrote November 2011-November 2012.

Trust me, she's nuts.

It'll rot your brain and make you go blind.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 14, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
It'll rot your brain and make you go blind.

I'm getting the impression the oblate spheroid's going to lose it, and do some harm to people.

CRAZY SHORT BALD DWARF GOES BERSERK, SHOOTS UP FIRE STATION WITH AUTOMATIC RE-LOADING SLINGSHOT, INJURES SEVEN.

Or something like that.

Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 14, 2012, 09:11:56 PM
Is it just my impression here - but is she actually growing less sand and less coherent as time passes ?

As impossible as that sounds,........

...yes.

Quote
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #25)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:09 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)
28. And I agree with them

Hell, the M-1 Garand is a better weapon for that due to the round.

I wish I did not know this shit.   

Gen. George S. Baldidwarf knows the "greatest battlefield implement yet devised."

jeeez....
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 14, 2012, 09:19:01 PM
Quote
As I remember the Army refused to adopt a gun similar to the AR-15 that was so popular. But when they got enough pressure they developed their own version, the M-16. They changed a lot of the good characteristics with the rationalization that the gun needed to be universal and capable of being used in the Arctic and desert. This was while we were heavily involved in a jungle war. The AR-15 was designed to use a particular manufactures cartridge which pushed the slide (sorry dont know the proper term) back far enough to eject the shell and clear the breach of gases. The competing major cartridge manufacturer bribed the Army into using their cartridge which, turns out, didnt quite push the slide (?) back far enough to clear the breach of gases, which contained powder residue. The residue built up over time and caused jamming. The Army's solution, after soldiers were complaining that their fellow soldiers were being killed because of the guns jamming, was to issue cleaning kits.




That's the most comical crock of misinformed horseshit I've ever read.

Funny thing is, the (D)Ullard is half right..... kinda sorta, but has the causes and malfunctions all mixed up;  much like their attempts at professing knowledge.

....and we wonder how they get such bizarre notions.....
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Kyle Ricky on December 14, 2012, 09:23:01 PM
I think Nadine should get the award for the most stupid person on the planet. God she is pathetic.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: redwhit on December 14, 2012, 09:26:05 PM
Is this a Sturmweber do you think?

(http://thelastdoctors.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/img_0722.jpg?w=848)
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 14, 2012, 09:46:23 PM
Is this a Sturmweber do you think?

(http://thelastdoctors.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/img_0722.jpg?w=848)

Heh!!

I want one.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 14, 2012, 09:46:38 PM
Nadin is an idiot.  the Thompson submachinegun could be fired on full auto and the shooter could write his name with it.
Many years ago I actually had a chance to fire a Thompson in full automatic - legally.

And it wasn't with the Tiburon police department.

Anyone who could write his name with that thing is either a super strong brute, or just goes by the pronoun "I".
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Bad Dog on December 14, 2012, 10:03:51 PM
Civillian ARs & AKs can't be modified to fire auto with a file as she asserts.  The only way to accomplish that would be to machine a complete new reciever which is, of course the, serial numbered (regulated) part of the weapon.  Thus creating a new (illegal) weapon.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 14, 2012, 10:04:04 PM
Many years ago I actually had a chance to fire a Thompson in full automatic - legally.

And it wasn't with the Tiburon police department.

Anyone who could write his name with that thing is either a super strong brute, or just goes by the pronoun "I".

So have I (in the Military, but don't ask).  The Thompson wants to climb to the shooters' left, as I recall.  It takes a bit of familiarization, but an experienced grunt can get quite good with it.  The M-1/M-1A1 does this a little more than the 1928A1 with the loss of the Cutts compensator.

Force Recon guys get access to all kinds of fun stuff.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 14, 2012, 10:07:11 PM
Civillian ARs & AKs can't be modified to fire auto with a file as she asserts.  The only way to accomplish that would be to machine a complete new reciever which is, of course the, serial numbered (regulated) part of the weapon.  Thus creating a new (illegal) weapon.

Yeah.  It takes more than a file, the stupid bitch.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 14, 2012, 10:17:50 PM
Civillian ARs & AKs can't be modified to fire auto with a file as she asserts.  The only way to accomplish that would be to machine a complete new reciever which is, of course the, serial numbered (regulated) part of the weapon.  Thus creating a new (illegal) weapon.


Quote
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)

I wish I did not know this shit.

Rest easy, nutcase, you don't.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Vagabond on December 15, 2012, 12:59:15 AM
Many years ago I actually had a chance to fire a Thompson in full automatic - legally.

And it wasn't with the Tiburon police department.

Anyone who could write his name with that thing is either a super strong brute, or just goes by the pronoun "I".

I never have gotten a chance to fire one, but I believe that feat is attributed to Dillinger.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: ChuckJ on December 15, 2012, 03:21:31 AM
Quote
nadinbrzezinski (113,076 posts)

Semi auto, it wasn't an automatic weapon!!!!


 
Expect to hear that from our gun fans.

It is true. A semi auto will fire a round every time you pull the trigger

A full auto will keep firing as long as you pull the trigger until you run out of ammo

The former is called accurate fire, because you have far more control over your gun

The latter is called suppressive fire. Keeping control with the recoil is all but easy. And it s otherwise known as spray and pray.

The argument we hear from gun fans is that these are not assault weapons.

Well, the Sturmweber '44 (assault rife) is the grand daddy to the Bushmaster and other riffles derived from the M-16, and the dad to the AK-47. The Germans classified them as assault riffles. They had two modes of fire, semi automatic, like the M-1 Garand, and the revolutionary automatic mode, making it essentially a small machine gun. Soldiers were instructed, like they are today, to keep to semi auto, unless they are in an emergency. This s at the hear of fire discipline.

So now I will get some tell me, you are afraid of how the gun looks! Pure canard, and sorry, but you really do not need anything like this (the Bushmaster is very popular with hunters) to go after deer. If you do, single shot and short magazines should do the job.

So you want to keep your bushmaster, and the rest of the AR -15 family, sure...have them all be single shot. The same goes for the rest of them.

For the record, the Bushmaster is not more scary than the M-1. In fact, the M-1 will have a longer range and penetration power...in a shoot out...well let's put it this way, unfortunately learn how to take cover, because sadly this is not over.

I read the below article about the Sturmgewehr 44 on Monday:

link to Yahoo/ABC article (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/valuable-wwii-gun-police-buy-back-022155231--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=A2KLOzJnO8xQBDkAuXnQtDMD)

I nadined it and this wiki article showed up:

link to wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44)

Among other things, the wiki article contains the line: as the German manual states that automatic fire was "advised only in emergencies"

Near the end of the wiki article the M1 (with a link) is mentioned. Also the M16 (also with a link) is mentioned. The article for the M16 naturally mentions the AR-15.

For some reason I have the feeling that nadin did just exactly as I did. She read the article on Monday and then nadined it. The difference between us being that when I finished reading I thought that it was some interesting information and when she finished reading she thought that she was now an expert on every weapon mentioned in the articles and couldn't wait for the opportunity to lord her new 'knowledge' over the DUmmie masses.

Another way that we are different is that unlike her I do entertain the possibility that I am wrong about some or all of the above.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 15, 2012, 04:50:12 AM
Civillian ARs & AKs can't be modified to fire auto with a file as she asserts.  The only way to accomplish that would be to machine a complete new reciever which is, of course the, serial numbered (regulated) part of the weapon.  Thus creating a new (illegal) weapon.

The fat, bald headed midget posts an old anti gunners internet tale and DUmmies, being what they are, don't know any better. She should have posted a How-to link to a youtube showing the process.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 15, 2012, 05:17:05 AM

That is great detective work.

It all sounds like near-plagiarism to me.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 15, 2012, 06:11:32 AM

That is great detective work.

It all sounds like near-plagiarism to me.

Yeah.

I searched google using different parts of her screed trying to find where she got it. It appears to be a compilation of several different articles, with minor changes.

It was this part that convinced me that she stole it:

Quote
Well, the Sturmweber '44 (assault rife) is the grand daddy to the Bushmaster and other riffles derived from the M-16, and the dad to the AK-47. The Germans classified them as assault riffles. They had two modes of fire, semi automatic, like the M-1 Garand, and the revolutionary automatic mode, making it essentially a small machine gun. Soldiers were instructed, like they are today, to keep to semi auto, unless they are in an emergency.

After reading her posting over the years, there is no way she could come up with something this technical, precise and coherent. Also, this is the only place where "Rifle" is spelled correctly.

Skimmer needs to act on this. After all, he did TS Mrs Dawson for taking credit for someone else's work.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 15, 2012, 06:29:17 AM
So have I (in the Military, but don't ask).  The Thompson wants to climb to the shooters' left, as I recall.  It takes a bit of familiarization, but an experienced grunt can get quite good with it.  The M-1/M-1A1 does this a little more than the 1928A1 with the loss of the Cutts compensator.

Force Recon guys get access to all kinds of fun stuff.
The M1A1 was my carry weapon in Nam. Technique and famiarization was the key.
It takes time, but, what can be done with it are amazing for a full auto.
I'll try to stick a photo in here.

Should add.  I did get a chance to fire a 28A1 after returning. That sucker was sweet, and you are definately right.

Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: NHSparky on December 15, 2012, 07:43:49 AM
Is this a Sturmweber do you think?

(http://thelastdoctors.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/img_0722.jpg?w=848)

Gotta be.

At least the guy is wearing his reflective safety belt while BBQing delicious meat...mmmmm.

Oh, and nads?  STFU already.  I'll throw a few things your way--have you ever HELD a Thompson, Garand, M-14, M-16, or M-4?  I've held them, AND fired all of them.  Granted, I didn't get to fire a Garand until well after boot camp because the ones they gave us there had lead-filled barrels and were basically used for drill and punishment--hold the rifle steady straight out in front of you at chest level for about 5 minutes and you'll understand, nads.

I won't even bother to waste my time trying to explain to you why the Garand was eventually replaced with the M-14, which was then replaced with the M-16, then the M-16A2, and the M-4, etc., etc., etc...I know, most of the vets here know, and that's enough.

Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 15, 2012, 07:56:08 AM
Something else for Gnad to tell the DUmmies and show how smart she is.

The changes from the M-16 to the M-16A1, my issue weapon, was the forward bolt assist. Every swinging dick shot right handed until the brass deflector was added in a later M16A2 design change.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 15, 2012, 08:03:23 AM
At least the guy is wearing his reflective safety belt while BBQing delicious meat...mmmmm.

Just out of idle curiosity, and I don't want to hijack this thread, but what is the purpose of a "reflective safety belt"?

I see them around here a great deal, and always mean to inquire of someone in real life, but the opportunity never comes up.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: NHSparky on December 15, 2012, 08:10:18 AM
Just out of idle curiosity, and I don't want to hijack this thread, but what is the purpose of a "reflective safety belt"?

I see them around here a great deal, and always mean to inquire of someone in real life, but the opportunity never comes up.

Coach--TRG could explain far better than I, since I haven't been to the 'Stan, but apparently the folks deployed there to the FOB (Forward Operating Bases) make great issue of wearing them, and senior enlisted folks (like CSM's) feel that they are the guardians of enforcement of the safety belt, as if they had nothing better to do.

IOW, it's another case where Big Military (pick your branch) assumes people who are responsible for millions of dollars worth of equipment and the lives of many people simply can't be trusted to walk from Point A to Point B in the dark without getting run over.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on December 15, 2012, 10:46:35 AM
Skidmark knows better. He's jerking her chain.  :lmao:I carried and used an M-16. No letters or numbers after the 16. Never had a malfunction.Seems I remember the problem being residue fouling of the carrier guide gas port on the bolt carrier group.
For the DUmpmonkeys, the gas port is where gas from the gas tube would push it back, thus activating ejection.
Your wish was granted a long time ago.
You really don't know shit.

The actual problem was build-up of residue causing parts to stick enough to short-cycle, resulting in either an empty chamber or a stovepipe jam, in extreme cases even cases stuck in the chamber or the carrier key stuck on the end of the gas line...due to the weapon being designed for a particular very clean powder and Army Ordnance deciding in its wisdom to switch to something much dirtier but either cheaper or more available, I forget which off-hand.  Unfortunately all the maintenance training and supplies were based on the as-designed weapon's ammo, the whole thing was a pooch the Army itself screwed and no fault of Colt or Stoner's design. 

The mods from M16 to M16A1 were pretty minor, the most obvious being that the forward assist was added and the three-prong flash suppressor was replaced with the slightly-less-sexy but easier-to-push-through-brush birdcage design.

It's certainly possible to modify almost any semiauto to shoot full auto without making a new receiver, it sure isn't easy, though, and it sure as Hell is not a matter of just dropping in some milsurp parts.  Spatial relationships of the fire control group and other parts are different in civilian models of common Evil Black Rifles, as are some of the other parts with which they interact, including the receivers, precisely to prevent anyone from making such conversions.  It's possible to modify them, but it involves a well-equipped machine shop and someone who knows exactly what they're doing who will knowingly break laws that have quite stiff penalties.

Semiautos all involve some variant of a disconnector, a type of escapement movement, which may be separate or integrated in the sear mechanics as in the M1 Carbine or FAL, that (In a weapon with a hammer, for instance) catches the hammer in recoil and won't release it to the primary sear until the trigger is released.  Disabling this mechanism will result in a one-shot jam-o-matic since if the hammer just cycles with the bolt, it will follow it down into battery without striking the firing pin a distinct blow; full-auto mechanisms allow the bolt to go into battery and then trip the full-auto sear, allowing the hammer to soundly strike the firing pin and go into repetitive firing cycles until the trigger is released.

Full-auto fire can be very controllable, but a waste of ammunition at medium and long range except to engage an area target.  It's a function of the round, the weight of the weapon, the cyclic rate, and of course the shooter, both physically and in a training sense.  The beautiful Thompson, despite the elaborate sights on the 1921 model especially and heavy weight, is not one of the better performers on this, as the heavy recoil and relatively high cyclic make it very difficult for most shooters to keep it on target; the equally-heavy but much stubbier, uglier, and much more primitive M3/M3A1 Grease Gun on the other hand is highly controllable and performs very well in full-auto (Its only mode) with the same round due to a lower cyclic rate.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 15, 2012, 11:16:25 AM
The actual problem was build-up of residue causing parts to stick enough to short-cycle, resulting in either an empty chamber or a stovepipe jam, in extreme cases even cases stuck in the chamber or the carrier key stuck on the end of the gas line...due to the weapon being designed for a particular very clean powder and Army Ordnance deciding in its wisdom to switch to something much dirtier but either cheaper or more available, I forget which off-hand.  Unfortunately all the maintenance training and supplies were based on the as-designed weapon's ammo, the whole thing was a pooch the Army itself screwed and no fault of Colt or Stoner's design. 

The mods from M16 to M16A1 were pretty minor, the most obvious being that the forward assist was added and the three-prong flash suppressor was replaced with the slightly-less-sexy but easier-to-push-through-brush birdcage design.

It's certainly possible to modify almost any semiauto to shoot full auto without making a new receiver, it sure isn't easy, though, and it sure as Hell is not a matter of just dropping in some milsurp parts.  Spatial relationships of the fire control group and other parts are different in civilian models of common Evil Black Rifles, as are some of the other parts with which they interact, including the receivers, precisely to prevent anyone from making such conversions.  It's possible to modify them, but it involves a well-equipped machine shop and someone who knows exactly what they're doing who will knowingly break laws that have quite stiff penalties.

Semiautos all involve some variant of a disconnector, a type of escapement movement, which may be separate or integrated in the sear mechanics as in the M1 Carbine or FAL, that (In a weapon with a hammer, for instance) catches the hammer in recoil and won't release it to the primary sear until the trigger is released.  Disabling this mechanism will result in a one-shot jam-o-matic since if the hammer just cycles with the bolt, it will follow it down into battery without striking the firing pin a distinct blow; full-auto mechanisms allow the bolt to go into battery and then trip the full-auto sear, allowing the hammer to soundly strike the firing pin and go into repetitive firing cycles until the trigger is released.

Full-auto fire can be very controllable, but a waste of ammunition at medium and long range except to engage an area target.  It's a function of the round, the weight of the weapon, the cyclic rate, and of course the shooter, both physically and in a training sense.  The beautiful Thompson, despite the elaborate sights on the 1921 model especially and heavy weight, is not one of the better performers on this, as the heavy recoil and relatively high cyclic make it very difficult for most shooters to keep it on target; the equally-heavy but much stubbier, uglier, and much more primitive M3/M3A1 Grease Gun on the other hand is highly controllable and performs very well in full-auto (Its only mode) with the same round due to a lower cyclic rate.
I believe the powder in question was a ball type. Newer ammo went to stick, and the problem diminished.
After firing literally thousands of rounds through a Thompson, I disagree a bit on your assessment about it.
I also had an M-3 (not the A1 version). Didn't care for it at all.

For those unfamiliar with the three prong suppressor, it was changed because it had a nasty habit of snagging twigs and branches.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 15, 2012, 11:41:49 AM
I believe the powder in question was a ball type. Newer ammo went to stick, and the problem diminished.

I remember when I was a kid, my dad bought a pound of Ball Type C to try in reloading for his deer rifle.

To get equal velocity it generated high pressure, and was filthy burning, leaving lots of little yellow pellets in the action.

He went back to IMR3031, and I still use it today.

I guess ball powder was great for automated ammunition manufacture, but it sure was dirty burning.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 15, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
And that reminds me.

The DUmpmonkeys are obsessed with automatic weapons, with no idea what that means.

In the 80 years or so since the repeal of Prohibition, has even one person been killed by a fully automatic weapon in America?

I don't think I've heard of one, unless it might be one of those cases where an Army muzzie opened fire on fellow soldiers.

Maybe some 0bamaite cocaine dealers have used such weapons on each other? And why would anyone want to discourage that?
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Tucker on December 15, 2012, 11:53:13 AM
I remember when I was a kid, my dad bought a pound of Ball Type C to try in reloading for his deer rifle.

To get equal velocity it generated high pressure, and was filthy burning, leaving lots of little yellow pellets in the action.

He went back to IMR3031, and I still use it today.

I guess ball powder was great for automated ammunition manufacture, but it sure was dirty burning.

Ball powder meters so great though. Very little deviation between charges.

My primary powder is a flake powder and there can be +/- .2 grains deviation from the powder drop. When you're loading upper end, it gets hairy. When you have to pound the cases out, you're max or close to it. Back off .2 and you're good to go.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on December 15, 2012, 03:24:00 PM

I also had an M-3 (not the A1 version). Didn't care for it at all.


The only difference is the cocking rocker on the WW2 version, which was dispensd with in favor of the finger hole in the bolt for cocking in the A1.  Everything not affected by the change in cocking mechanism is interchangeable.  Love the M3A1 myself...compact, powerful, and extremely simple and reliable.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: I_B_Perky on December 15, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
Quote
Response to Whovian (Reply #15)
Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:52 PM
 Robb (36,094 posts)
18. DU has an expert on everything.

Sometimes it's the same person. 

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: BlueStateSaint on December 15, 2012, 06:05:53 PM
The only difference is the cocking rocker on the WW2 version, which was dispensd with in favor of the finger hole in the bolt for cocking in the A1.  Everything not affected by the change in cocking mechanism is interchangeable.  Love the M3A1 myself...compact, powerful, and extremely simple and reliable.

When I was a Brave Rifle, we had a mechanic who was the TC on an M-88 who absolutely loved the M3-A1, and that was all he would take for an issue weapon.  The SMO tried to get him to take an M16-A2 a couple of times, but he said, "No, sir."  The HHT CO was alright with it.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Revolution on December 15, 2012, 08:25:16 PM
It's bad, very bad.

I'm researching the oblate spheroid for the Top DUmmie awards, and every time I think she's fallen to a new low of stupidity, damn it, she gets even more stupid.

I can't believe it.

 :lmao: When Coach can't believe it...it's bad.  :rotf: Dammit, it's bad.

So nadin, you'd rather be down range of an auto instead of a semi-auto. Get down range of this:

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m96eav11hS1r9khx4o1_1280.jpg)

I say this because I think a MAC-10 or something like that would just make you angry.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Revolution on December 15, 2012, 08:27:59 PM
Ok so she would rather be in front of a full auto weapon then a semi automatic one. Let me know how that works out for Gnads when someone lets loose with an XM-134 mini gun.

(http://www.vietnamwar-guns.com/shop/images/caw_m134_minigun_vietnam_0809_722.jpg)

Hadn't even thought of that. I wonder if she's an expert on how to take a cyborg out.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RbL4PwTDsQ[/youtube]

For the record, I wouldn't want to be anywhere down range of that blooker either!
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 15, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
The only difference is the cocking rocker on the WW2 version, which was dispensd with in favor of the finger hole in the bolt for cocking in the A1.  Everything not affected by the change in cocking mechanism is interchangeable.  Love the M3A1 myself...compact, powerful, and extremely simple and reliable.
Ejection port was lengthened a bit on the A1 so cocking (bolt) could be done easier.
Can only comment from experience with the M3, not on the A1 version.
I just plain didn't like the darn thing.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Revolution on December 15, 2012, 08:44:12 PM
Never actually fired an auto, but I'd love to. Never fired a hand gun either. Just never got to it. Need to find a shooting range that will loan hand guns if any do that. I've fired shotguns, .22s 1 or 2 "riffles," and I believe I fired a muzzle loader, but can't remember.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 15, 2012, 08:57:52 PM
I've fired shotguns, .22s 1 or 2 "riffles," and I believe I fired a muzzle loader, but can't remember.

I always thought it would be kind of cool to learn to shoot a blunderbuss.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 15, 2012, 09:02:02 PM
I always thought it would be kind of cool to learn to shoot a blunderbuss.
Full auto?  :???:


 :lmao:
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: franksolich on December 15, 2012, 09:03:46 PM
Full auto?  :???:


 :lmao:

Yeah, right.

I don't know anything about them, other than that they look cool.

But one could get off only about one shot per minute on them, right?
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: Skul on December 15, 2012, 10:04:21 PM
Yeah, right.

I don't know anything about them, other than that they look cool.

But one could get off only about one shot per minute on them, right?
Unless you're gNads.
She can do six a minute.

Crap, I just creeped myself out.
Title: Re: Nadin schools the DUmp on automatic weapons
Post by: GOBUCKS on December 16, 2012, 12:44:13 AM
Unless you're gNads.
She can do six a minute.

Crap, I just creeped myself out.
You know, I noticed that too.

I'm using a muzzleloader with Pyrodex pellets, so I don't have to be careful pouring loose powder or open a paper cartridge or measure from a powderhorn. Fastest system possible.

I'm using undersized jacketed pistol bullets in plastic sabots, so I don't have to put the bullet in a lubricated patch, and the sabot goes down the barrel smooth as glass. Fastest system possible.

I'm using shotgun primers that I can just drop into the breech (Knight DISC) without fitting a percussion cap on a nipple or charging a flashpan. Fastest system possible.

I could practice for the rest of my life, and I'd never fire six shots a minute, even without aiming the rifle. The weapons and components the oldtimers used were far slower than mine.

I'm sure the crazy bald dwarf has never in her life even touched a muzzleloader. She may have read that somewhere on the internet, where everything is true.

Bottom line is, she can't resist making expert pronouncements, even when she has no idea what she's talking about.