[Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>in
>news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>ing.dwarf.com:
>
>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that
>>>it is a tool for killing
>>
>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>
>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>groomer KKKlaun?

Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns decide
things.

That's how retarded he is.

[Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:

>> That guns are more deadly and kill more people faster and from a
>> longer distance away than those other methods. If that were not true,
>> there would be no guns.
>
>And there's no 2A protection of those other methods - they get regulated.
>Meanwhile a court just ruled protecting ownership of a machine gun.

As it should, Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter.

On 8/27/24 1:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vake0k$2vdj8$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/26/24 7:38 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me, -hh
>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>
>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>
>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>> channel....
>>>
>>> Not in the U.S.
>>
>> With ~99% parts commonality, why wouldn't both be coming off of the
>> same production line?
>
> Well, most of the military stuff is probably what didn't pass quality
> control standards for the civilian market.
>
> After all the government has no issues buying a 5 MOA rifle..

I said 0.5 MOA, not 5 MOA.

> Civilian
> market tends to top out at about 2 MOA with sub MOA being referred by
> civilan shooters.

It actually depends on what metric one is using when one claims MOA this
or that, because most folks don't really understand the statistical
implications and metrics of various means of measuring dispersion. A
good reference in this area is Frank Grubb's work, "Statistical Measures
of Accuracy, for Riflemen and Missile Engineers" for doing stochastic
conversions from various dispersion measurement methods. FYI, first
edition has a few errors in its tables.

-hh

On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> -hh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>
>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>>>>>>> higher QA
>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>
>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>
>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp!  it wasn't an M16, but an M16A2!"
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>> willing
>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!"  /s
>>>>>
>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>
>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> It's still just a gun.
>>
>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who
>> fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.
>
> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
> people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
> discount and still making a fortune?

a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.

> Free hint: most military issue is garbage, and many will buy superior
> civilian issue, because they know they can depend on it when their life
> is on the line.

Its two items made on the same manufacturing line, so how can the one
which undergoes more quality control/test checks be the "inferior" one?

>
> Nope, military issue is generally not very good.

Yet it is quite bizarre then for how so many folks want MILSPEC.
At least when we're referring to US/NATO gear, not Russian!

-hh

In article <val1es$32l5f$5@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>
> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me...
> > Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> > news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
> >
> >> In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
> >> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us
> >>> > says...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
> >>> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
> >>> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
> >>> >>> control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your
> >>> >> belly?
> >>> >
> >>> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's
> >>> > going to shoot anyone.
> >>>
> >>> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
> >>> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
> >>
> >> It was a threat.
> >>>
> >>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
> >>> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
> >>> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
> >>> market...
> >>
> >> It's just a gun.
> >>>
> >>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher
> >>> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
> >>
> >> It's still just a gun.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
> >>> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
> >>> too.
> >>
> >> Guns don't kill people.
> >>
> >
> > But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>
> But people kill people with cars multiple times every day.
>
> Shall we treat cars like you want to treat guns?
>
>

We should ban alcohol too. It kills way more people than guns do.

In article <val1f0$32l5f$10@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
> in message
> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >
> >>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that it
> >>is a tool for killing
> >
> > Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
> > gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>
> Actually, given how much ammo is used on paper, steel and clay... looks like
> making holes in paper, banging steel and breaking clay disks are the primary
> purpose of a gun.
> Even hunting comes into a far distant second to such activities.
> And murder? A small fraction well below 1%
>
> Even military guns are made NOT to kill for the most part.
>
> Na, in all honesty, Baxter's assertion isn't the truth.. it's a lame attempt
> for him to justify his hatred of guns and those who have them.
>
>

Regulations have got the price of ammo so high you can't afford to shoot
paper anymore.

In article <valdjt$339at$2@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> > news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
> >> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> -hh says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> -hh says...
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
> >>>>>>>> AR is an
> >>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
> >>>>>>>> pays for
> >>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's just a gun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
> >>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
> >>>>>>>> higher QA
> >>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
> >>>>>> much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So? Why do you care?
> >>>>
> >>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp!  it wasn't an M16, but an M16A2!"
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
> >>>>>>>> like how
> >>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
> >>>>>> willing
> >>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!"  /s
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or not?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -hh
> >>>
> >>> It's still just a gun.
> >>
> >> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who
> >> fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.
> >
> > Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
> > people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
> > discount and still making a fortune?
>
> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.
>
>
> > Free hint: most military issue is garbage, and many will buy superior
> > civilian issue, because they know they can depend on it when their life
> > is on the line.
>
> Its two items made on the same manufacturing line, so how can the one
> which undergoes more quality control/test checks be the "inferior" one?

The M-16 caused a lot of our troops to die because they locked up all
the time. Crap guns.
>
>
> >
> > Nope, military issue is generally not very good.
>
> Yet it is quite bizarre then for how so many folks want MILSPEC.
> At least when we're referring to US/NATO gear, not Russian!
>
>
> -hh

In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 8/26/24 4:48 PM, max headroom wrote:
> > In news:vahri1$24i6v$1@dont-email.me, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> > typed:
> >
> >> On 8/25/24 5:01 PM, max headroom wrote:
> >>> In news:vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me, -hh typed:
> >>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
> >
> >>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was notified
> >>>> by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander was notified.
> >
> >>> Is English not your mother tongue?
> >
> >> Your attempted insult shows the readers that you read the above and that
> >> you know that your argument is invalid.
> >
> >> Indeed, ridiculously so.
> >
> >> You've clearly never learned how the US Army operates: likely because
> >> the comic strip "Beetle Bailey" is the limit of your knowledge.
> >
> > So you DO think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander.
>
> Nope.
>
> Because you've chosen to mix up the point of the Command Structure:
>
> Orders *do not* come in directly to the CSM, who then orders his
> Commander around.
>
> Orders come in to the Command, and the Commander then disseminates them
> down the chain of command - which includes the CSM & other senior NCOs.
>
>
> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
>
>
He is still a disgrace to veterans.

On 2024-08-27, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <val1f0$32l5f$10@dont-email.me>,
> me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>> in message
>> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>> >
>> >>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that it
>> >>is a tool for killing
>> >
>> > Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
>> > gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>
>> Actually, given how much ammo is used on paper, steel and clay... looks like
>> making holes in paper, banging steel and breaking clay disks are the primary
>> purpose of a gun.
>> Even hunting comes into a far distant second to such activities.
>> And murder? A small fraction well below 1%
>>
>> Even military guns are made NOT to kill for the most part.
>>
>> Na, in all honesty, Baxter's assertion isn't the truth.. it's a lame attempt
>> for him to justify his hatred of guns and those who have them.
>>
>>
>
> Regulations have got the price of ammo so high you can't afford to shoot
> paper anymore.

I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
I suggest you do likewise.

--
Charlie Glock
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
- Thomas Jefferson 1776

On 8/26/24 8:50 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us says...
>>>>
>>>> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>>>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
>>>>> control
>>>>> AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>>>>
>>>> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your belly?
>>>
>>> Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's going to
>>> shoot anyone.
>>
>> Nah, its not a threat:  its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his attempt
>> to try to downplay the caliber.
>
> Not at all, because caliber is very much a determining factor in
> lethalness..

Not as much as many other factors.

> And of course the military uses full metal jacket, which are also
> significantly less lethal.

Merely an example of requirement trades that I'd previously mentioned.

> But I tell you what, I will give you a .22 AR-15 and I will take my old
> Garand 30-06 and we will start at 1000 yards and we will see which
> survives...

If you're being honest for once, you know that the legacy Garand is iron
sights and an 8rd En Bloc clip, whereas the contemporary gets an optical
scope and 30rd magazine. From that, I'd make the same decision as what
DA did and take my chances with the 5.56mm.

That's in no small part because I've actually spent time on 1000yd range
& know that both are bad at that range, so having 4x more matters more.

>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>
>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher
>> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>
>>
>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>

-hh

On 8/26/24 9:27 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> -hh says...
>>>> ...
>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is an
>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for
>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>
>>> It's just a gun.
>>
>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>
> And yet a lot of people buy them every year because they are a good value.

PT Barnum: "A sucker is born every minute".

>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher QA
>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>
>>> It's still just a gun.
>>
>>
>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too much.
>
> Yea, but you have to consider the low quality the military will accept
> vs what civilians demand.
>
> I mean your standard military M16 only have to shoot a 5" group at 100
> yards.. Civilians often demand 1" groupings or less.

Quick quiz: which has a lower actual dispersion:
5" extreme spread on an n=30 group,
or
1" extreme spread on an n=3 group?

To show that it wasn't a wild guess, repeat for n=10 & show your calcs.

> That means tighter (and more expensive) tolerances. Then you have to
> have a great finish matched between parts.. where as a military finish
> can vary vastly even on the same part.
>
> If you want to pay military prices.. you can get that, if you buy in
> bulk and aren't too concerned over the details like accuracy or appearance.

Keep on coping.

-hh

On 8/27/24 6:31 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <valdjt$339at$2@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>>>>>>>>> higher QA
>>>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp!  it wasn't an M16, but an M16A2!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!"  /s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>
>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who
>>>> fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
>>> people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
>>> discount and still making a fortune?
>>
>> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.
>>
>>
>>> Free hint: most military issue is garbage, and many will buy superior
>>> civilian issue, because they know they can depend on it when their life
>>> is on the line.
>>
>> Its two items made on the same manufacturing line, so how can the one
>> which undergoes more quality control/test checks be the "inferior" one?
>
> The M-16 caused a lot of our troops to die because they locked up all
> the time. Crap guns.

Granted, there were problems with not chroming the barrels on the very
first AR-15s which went to Vietnam, as well as calcium carbonate within
recycled cannon powder in the IMR formulations too, but these were
solved 50+ years ago by chroming the barrels and shifting to WC-844 ball
powder. The latter's made in St Marks FL; another garden spot to visit.

Keep on coping.

-hh

>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nope, military issue is generally not very good.
>>
>> Yet it is quite bizarre then for how so many folks want MILSPEC.
>> At least when we're referring to US/NATO gear, not Russian!
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
>

On 8/27/24 6:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 8/26/24 4:48 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:vahri1$24i6v$1@dont-email.me, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> On 8/25/24 5:01 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>>> In news:vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me, -hh typed:
>>>>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
>>>
>>>>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was notified
>>>>>> by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander was notified.
>>>
>>>>> Is English not your mother tongue?
>>>
>>>> Your attempted insult shows the readers that you read the above and that
>>>> you know that your argument is invalid.
>>>
>>>> Indeed, ridiculously so.
>>>
>>>> You've clearly never learned how the US Army operates: likely because
>>>> the comic strip "Beetle Bailey" is the limit of your knowledge.
>>>
>>> So you DO think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Because you've chosen to mix up the point of the Command Structure:
>>
>> Orders *do not* come in directly to the CSM, who then orders his
>> Commander around.
>>
>> Orders come in to the Command, and the Commander then disseminates them
>> down the chain of command - which includes the CSM & other senior NCOs.
>>
>>
>> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
>> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
>> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
>> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
>> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
>> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
>> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
>> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
>>
>>
> He is still a disgrace to veterans.

Nowhere near a disgrace as an USENET troll who's such a luzer that they
can't even bring themselves to publicly admit that they're grossly wrong
on where NCOs are in the Command Structure.

-hh

In article <valpim$339at$6@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 8/27/24 6:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 8/26/24 4:48 PM, max headroom wrote:
> >>> In news:vahri1$24i6v$1@dont-email.me, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> >>> typed:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/25/24 5:01 PM, max headroom wrote:
> >>>>> In news:vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me, -hh typed:
> >>>>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
> >>>
> >>>>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was notified
> >>>>>> by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander was notified.
> >>>
> >>>>> Is English not your mother tongue?
> >>>
> >>>> Your attempted insult shows the readers that you read the above and that
> >>>> you know that your argument is invalid.
> >>>
> >>>> Indeed, ridiculously so.
> >>>
> >>>> You've clearly never learned how the US Army operates: likely because
> >>>> the comic strip "Beetle Bailey" is the limit of your knowledge.
> >>>
> >>> So you DO think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> Because you've chosen to mix up the point of the Command Structure:
> >>
> >> Orders *do not* come in directly to the CSM, who then orders his
> >> Commander around.
> >>
> >> Orders come in to the Command, and the Commander then disseminates them
> >> down the chain of command - which includes the CSM & other senior NCOs.
> >>
> >>
> >> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
> >> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
> >> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
> >> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
> >> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
> >> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
> >> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
> >> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
> >>
> >>
> > He is still a disgrace to veterans.
>
> Nowhere near a disgrace as an USENET troll who's such a luzer that they
> can't even bring themselves to publicly admit that they're grossly wrong
> on where NCOs are in the Command Structure.
>
No, he's worse than that. Vets hate him.

In article <valp7q$339at$4@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 8/26/24 9:27 AM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> > news:vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me...
> >> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> -hh says...
> >>>> ...
> >>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is an
> >>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for
> >>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
> >>>
> >>> It's just a gun.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
> >
> > And yet a lot of people buy them every year because they are a good value.
>
> PT Barnum: "A sucker is born every minute".
>
>
> >>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher QA
> >>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
> >>>
> >>> It's still just a gun.
> >>
> >>
> >> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too much.
> >
> > Yea, but you have to consider the low quality the military will accept
> > vs what civilians demand.
> >
> > I mean your standard military M16 only have to shoot a 5" group at 100
> > yards.. Civilians often demand 1" groupings or less.
>
> Quick quiz: which has a lower actual dispersion:
> 5" extreme spread on an n=30 group,
> or
> 1" extreme spread on an n=3 group?
>
> To show that it wasn't a wild guess, repeat for n=10 & show your calcs.
>
>
> > That means tighter (and more expensive) tolerances. Then you have to
> > have a great finish matched between parts.. where as a military finish
> > can vary vastly even on the same part.
> >
> > If you want to pay military prices.. you can get that, if you buy in
> > bulk and aren't too concerned over the details like accuracy or appearance.
>
> Keep on coping.
>
What do you care what someone pays for something?

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com> wrote
in
news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
ing.dwarf.com:

> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
wrote
>>in
>>
news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>
>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>
>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
that
>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>
>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
The
>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>
>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>groomer KKKlaun?
>
> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns decide
> things.
>
> That's how retarded he is.
>

Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".

On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie Glock"@localhost.com>
wrote:

>I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
>I suggest you do likewise.

Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much? If you can't win at the ballot
box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?

--
#NEVERtrump

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:18:41 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>In article <valpim$339at$6@dont-email.me>,
>recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 8/27/24 6:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> > In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
>> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
<snip>
>> >> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
>> >> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
>> >> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
>> >> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
>> >> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
>> >> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
>> >> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
>> >> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
>> >>
>> >>
>> > He is still a disgrace to veterans.
>>
>> Nowhere near a disgrace as an USENET troll who's such a luzer that they
>> can't even bring themselves to publicly admit that they're grossly wrong
>> on where NCOs are in the Command Structure.
>>
>No, he's worse than that. Vets hate him.

"More than 1,000 veterans sign letter supporting Walz"
<https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/veterans-letter-walz/>

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump

On 8/28/24 4:46 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:18:41 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <valpim$339at$6@dont-email.me>,
>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>
>>> On 8/27/24 6:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> <snip>
>>>>> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
>>>>> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
>>>>> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
>>>>> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
>>>>> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
>>>>> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
>>>>> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
>>>>> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He is still a disgrace to veterans.
>>>
>>> Nowhere near a disgrace as an USENET troll who's such a luzer that they
>>> can't even bring themselves to publicly admit that they're grossly wrong
>>> on where NCOs are in the Command Structure.
>>>
>> No, he's worse than that. Vets hate him.
>
> "More than 1,000 veterans sign letter supporting Walz"
> <https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/veterans-letter-walz/>

Well, to be pedantically fair, Skeeter didn't specify what side these
Vets are on, as there's a good number of Russian Vatniks out there being
paid to troll on the internet to support Trump.

-hh

-hh wrote:

>> "More than 1,000 veterans sign letter supporting Walz"
>> <https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/veterans-letter-walz/>
>
>Well, to be pedantically fair, Skeeter didn't specify what side these
>Vets are on, as there's a good number of Russian Vatniks out there being
>paid to troll on the internet to support Trump.

Yeah, sorta like this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

--
"Turns out the chance [that chrisv called for govt interference to
force retailers to sell Linux systems.] IS 100%" - DumFSck, lying
shamelessly

[Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>in
>news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>ing.dwarf.com:
>
>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote
>>>in
>>>
>news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>
>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>that
>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
>The
>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>>
>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>>
>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns decide
>> things.
>>
>> That's how retarded he is.
>>
>
>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".

Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
kill."

Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
be struggling with for some reason.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:li0ucjp91sfmdsagr0a5arpe57ragj3f3q@4ax.com:

> -hh wrote:
>
>>> "More than 1,000 veterans sign letter supporting Walz"
>>> <https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/veterans-letter
>>> -walz/>
>>
>>Well, to be pedantically fair, Skeeter didn't specify what side these
>>Vets are on, as there's a good number of Russian Vatniks out there
>>being paid to troll on the internet to support Trump.
>
> Yeah, sorta like this:
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-dis
> info-430276
>

Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump administration --
and tRump's White House was pushing that letter.

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com> wrote
in
news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
ing.dwarf.com:

> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
wrote
>>in
>>
news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>
>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>
>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
>>wrote
>>>>in
>>>>
>>
news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>
>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>>that
>>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
>>The
>>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>>>
>>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>>>
>>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
decide
>>> things.
>>>
>>> That's how retarded he is.
>>>
>>
>>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
>
> Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
> kill."
>
> Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
> be struggling with for some reason.
>
>

Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus --
eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.

[Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>in
>news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>ing.dwarf.com:
>
>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote
>>>in
>>>
>news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>
>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>>wrote
>>>>>in
>>>>>
>>>
>news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>>>that
>>>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
>>>The
>>>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>>>>
>>>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
>decide
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> That's how retarded he is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
>>
>> Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
>> kill."
>>
>> Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
>> be struggling with for some reason.
>>
>>
>
>Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus --
>eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
>purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.

Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter claims guns have only one
purpose - to kill.

We all know now what Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter would do
if he had a gun.

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66ce51f5$1$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <val1f0$32l5f$10@dont-email.me>,
> me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> in message
>> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
>> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>> >
>> >>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that
>> >>it
>> >>is a tool for killing
>> >
>> > Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
>> > gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>
>> Actually, given how much ammo is used on paper, steel and clay... looks
>> like
>> making holes in paper, banging steel and breaking clay disks are the
>> primary
>> purpose of a gun.
>> Even hunting comes into a far distant second to such activities.
>> And murder? A small fraction well below 1%
>>
>> Even military guns are made NOT to kill for the most part.
>>
>> Na, in all honesty, Baxter's assertion isn't the truth.. it's a lame
>> attempt
>> for him to justify his hatred of guns and those who have them.
>>
>>
>
> Regulations have got the price of ammo so high you can't afford to shoot
> paper anymore.

Reload