Gun Control is Completely Useless.


JamesBondo
#13621
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

they were not originally gpdesigned for what you guys use them for. They were meant for close combat on battlefields ... only .... exclusively.
Whatever modern use you have applied your handguns to in modern times were likely never considered by the designers.

your steak knife uses steel that was originally developed for military purposes, clearly you need to go back to napping stone again.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#13622
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You're delusional and deliberately ignoring history.


Viagra was designed as a heart medication, not a treatment for erectile dysfunction.


Astroglide was designed as a coolant for space vehicles, not a sexual lubricant.


Bubblewrap was orignally designed as wallpaper, not packing.


Slinkys were designed as stabilizers for naval equipment, not kids' toys.



Exactly what does their current usage have to do with their original designated purpose?


Nothing.......the same as modern hunting and target pistols have nothing to do with their military origins.


And I never ignore history.
 
JamesBondo
#13623
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Viagra was designed as a heart medication, not a treatment for erectile dysfunction.
Astroglide was designed as a coolant for space vehicles, not a sexual lubricant.
Bubblewrap was orignally designed as wallpaper, not packing.
Slinkys were designed as stabilizers for naval equipment, not kids' toys.
Exactly what does their current usage have to do with their original designated purpose?
Nothing.......the same as modern hunting and target pistols have nothing to do with their military origins.
And I never ignore history.

police officers use military firearms to serve and protect, I think only a shit head idiot like CC would imply that they should stop because the firearms were designed to kill.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13624
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

police officers use military firearms to serve and protect, I think only a shit head idiot like CC would imply that they should stop because the firearms were designed to kill.

That came after. These things weren't just "cooked up". Your handgun designs date from a hundred years ago or even earlier. WWI accelerated the development of all sorts of weapons that we think are "modern". Your firearms are all updates of military designs from way, way, WAY back with the possible exception of shotguns ... and maybe that one, also.

I suppose that you're going to tell me that crossbows were developed in the 20th century for deer hunting.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13625
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Almost.
7.7 X 56 R. is the correct metric designation for the .303 British, which is why I was confused. The case is longer than the 7.52 x 51............I reloaded a lot of each.

I knew that.

Kidding.

Your information was completely new to me. It's not like I knew it once, and it slipped my mind.

My info that the .303 was 7.62 x 49 was totally wrong. I can't remember where I got it.

So I'm smarter now than I was this morning.

Thanks!
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13626
I thought that the 7.62mm is .308.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13627
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

while not 200 years old, you do realize that the 1911 autoloader is over 100 years old? lol

I also realize that the Colt 1911 was far from the first automatic. The first was the Schönberger-Laumann in 1892, but even the Luger is older than the 1911, first produced in 1898.

But I know for damn sure that 2019-1892 does not = 200 by a long chalk.
 
JamesBondo
#13628
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

That came after. These things weren't just "cooked up". Your handgun designs date from a hundred years ago or even earlier. WWI accelerated the development of all sorts of weapons that we think are "modern". Your firearms are all updates of military designs from way, way, WAY back with the possible exception of shotguns ... and maybe that one, also.
I suppose that you're going to tell me that crossbows were developed in the 20th century for deer hunting.

You are supporting a logical fallacy.Your logical fallacy places excessive and undue importance on the historical purpose.

Lets take warfarin for example. It was originally designed as a rat poison, now it is used to save lives.

The success and effectiveness of warfarin as a life saving drug for stroke victims is based on it's attributes not its past purpose. Full stop. You should read this several times, eventually you will understand it.

If we applied your logic to warfarin, then warfarin's historical purpose makes it unsuitable for saving lives. And,we all know that you would be wrong and ignorant to say such a thing.
 
JamesBondo
#13629
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I also realize that the Colt 1911 was far from the first automatic. The first was the Schönberger-Laumann in 1892, but even the Luger is older than the 1911, first produced in 1898.
But I know for damn sure that 2019-1892 does not = 200 by a long chalk.

I submit that you are attempting to take a stance on a trivial matter of 100years vs 200years, when in fact I was mocking you at how old the technology is. Now if the technology was only 2 years old instead of the 200 yrs old that I originally stated, then you might have a point.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13630
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

You are supporting a logical fallacy.Your logical fallacy places excessive and undue importance on the historical purpose.
Lets take warfarin for example. It was originally designed as a rat poison, now it is used to save lives.
The success and effectiveness of warfarin as a life saving drug for stroke victims is based on it's attributes not its past purpose. Full stop. You should read this several times, eventually you will understand it.
If we applied your logic to warfarin, then warfarin's historical purpose makes it unsuitable for saving lives. And,we all know that you would be wrong and ignorant to say such a thing.

Hand guns were originally designed for the use of soldiers in battlefield close combat. .... not for the Police, Brinks security guards or hobby wankers in safe rich North American places.
 
JamesBondo
#13631
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Hand guns were originally designed for the use of soldiers in battlefield close combat. .... not for the Police, Brinks security guards or hobby wankers in safe rich North American places.

.
lol you sure have revised that into a truncated worthless post that doesn't make the point that you want to make.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13632
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

.
lol you sure have revised that into a truncated worthless post that doesn't make the point that you want to make.

You can't follow can you Bondo?
 
JamesBondo
#13633
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You can't follow can you Bondo?

cant follow what? you made that last post of yours so short, it doesn't express what you want it to express.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13634
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I thought that the 7.62mm is .308.


There are a bunch of 7.62 mm cartridges, the 7.62 x 51 NATO is only one of them. And it is .308 Winchester.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13635
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

There are a bunch of 7.62 mm cartridges, the 7.62 x 51 NATO is only one of them. And it is .308 Winchester.

Yep. Further to that, the 7.62 just means .30 calibre. It comes in a variety of lengths. The Soviets used 39mm for the SKS and KA-74 (which we for some reason call the AK-47) and 54 for the Dragunov and similar long-range rifles.

The Europeans settled on 51mm for their standard battle rifle. It's a fast, accurate cartridge, light enough to carry 100 rounds, ball heavy enough to cut through moving air. European snipers, however, are increasingly adopting the .338 Lapua.

The 63mm is the classic American .30-06 used in the bolt-action Springfields of WWI and the M1 Garand of WWII. It's still very popular as a medium hunting round.

The even older .30-30 is a lever-action round. The primary drawback of the .30-06 is that it's too long to work well in lever-actions.

Personal opinion: Having shot them all (except the .303), I find the .308 or 7.62 x 51 to be the best all-around .30 caliber ammo.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13636
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yep. Further to that, the 7.62 just means .30 calibre. It comes in a variety of lengths. The Soviets used 39mm for the SKS and KA-74 (which we for some reason call the AK-47) and 54 for the Dragunov and similar long-range rifles.
The Europeans settled on 51mm for their standard battle rifle. It's a fast, accurate cartridge, light enough to carry 100 rounds, ball heavy enough to cut through moving air. European snipers, however, are increasingly adopting the .338 Lapua.
The 63mm is the classic American .30-06 used in the bolt-action Springfields of WWI and the M1 Garand of WWII. It's still very popular as a medium hunting round.
The even older .30-30 is a lever-action round. The primary drawback of the .30-06 is that it's too long to work well in lever-actions.
Personal opinion: Having shot them all (except the .303), I find the .308 or 7.62 x 51 to be the best all-around .30 caliber ammo.

Most of NATO chose it for their standard infantry rifles, 'cept the Muricans.
 
Hoid
#13637
most of nato did not by Murican made

M16 was Murican
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13638
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Most of NATO chose it for their standard infantry rifles, 'cept the Muricans.


Actually, that is incorrect.


The British had designed a bullpup style rifle in a new mid-range .280 (7mm) cartridge in 1951, no less. The rifle/round were accepted by the British army, but was cancelled by Churchill in favour of NATO standardization, with the 7mm cartridge in the competition.



The idiot American in charge of choosing a new US cartridge insisted the 7mm was insufficient and not powerful enough.............and only a full power .30 (as in the 7.62 x 51) would be accepted by the Americans. As standardization was dependent on accepting the same cartridge as the USA.........NATO followed suit, despite very good reviews on the 7mm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle



Ten years later the USA went to 5.56, a much less powerful round than the Brit 7mm. A missed opportunity.


The 7.62 x 51 is entirely an American invention, and was adopted solely on their insistance.


You are ignoring history.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13639
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Actually, that is incorrect.
The British had designed a bullpup style rifle in a new mid-range .280 (7mm) cartridge in 1951, no less. The rifle/round were accepted by the British army, but was cancelled by Churchill in favour of NATO standardization, with the 7mm cartridge in the competition.
The idiot American in charge of choosing a new US cartridge insisted the 7mm was insufficient and not powerful enough.............and only a full power .30 (as in the 7.62 x 51) would be accepted by the Americans. As standardization was dependent on accepting the same cartridge as the USA.........NATO followed suit, despite very good reviews on the 7mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
Ten years later the USA went to 5.56, a much less powerful round than the Brit 7mm. A missed opportunity.
The 7.62 x 51 is entirely an American invention, and was adopted solely on their insistance.
You are ignoring history.

I like the 5.56 x 45. It takes advantage of the subtle military fact that f*cking up a guy is better than killing him, because you occupy two of his buddies in dragging him off the battlefield.
 
JamesBondo
+1
#13640
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

You are ignoring history.

I disagree. "ignoring" implies that he understood it.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13641
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I like the 5.56 x 45. It takes advantage of the subtle military fact that f*cking up a guy is better than killing him, because you occupy two of his buddies in dragging him off the battlefield.


Yeah, in the current form, I like it too.


But it was a disaster at first, and does not have the "reach" of that Brit .280.


And the Brit rifle was decades ahead of its time.


Not that I have a problem with the 7.62 x 51 (.308 Winchester). I own four rifles chambered in that cartridge.
 
Hoid
#13642
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I like the 5.56 x 45. It takes advantage of the subtle military fact that f*cking up a guy is better than killing him, because you occupy two of his buddies in dragging him off the battlefield.

Canada bought their 7.62 from Belgium.

You simply do not know your history
 
JamesBondo
#13643
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Canada bought their 7.62 from Belgium.
You simply do not know your history

Hoid, I suggest that you buy your chocolate from Belgium, and your 7.62 from Cabelas.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13644
Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid
Canada bought their 7.62 from Belgium.
You simply do not know your history

You know, you should really STFU when you don't have a clue about the subject.


1. We are not talking about Canada, but the UK, the USA, and NATO.


2. We are not talking about where Canada bought the Nato-adopted 7.62 x 51 rifles, but about NATO standardization on the 7.62 x 51 cartridge .


3. I own an FN FAL, I sure as hell don't need you to tell me where the design originated.


4. Lastly, and most importantly, Canadian FN FAL rifles were built in the UK.


You know nothing about either history or firearms.


STFU.


No wonder you're on ignore.
 
spilledthebeer
#13645
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I also realize that the Colt 1911 was far from the first automatic. The first was the Schönberger-Laumann in 1892, but even the Luger is older than the 1911, first produced in 1898.

But I know for damn sure that 2019-1892 does not = 200 by a long chalk.


Luger is pre-dated by Borchardt....................................


billed as the first commercially viable self loading semi automatic pistol........................................


it was an odd looking thing.....................................


with the magazine mounted separately ahead of the pistol grip...........................


making for a rather long and heavy weapon.................................


that was mechanically reliable at least.


Boerchardt was refined into Luger- by setting the magazine into the pistol grip.............................


thus reducing the size and weight of the weapon.


Thus endith the lesson............................................ .....
 
Hoid
#13646
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

You know, you should really STFU when you don't have a clue about the subject.


1. We are not talking about Canada, but the UK, the USA, and NATO.


2. We are not talking about where Canada bought the Nato-adopted 7.62 x 51 rifles, but about NATO standardization on the 7.62 x 51 cartridge .


3. I own an FN FAL, I sure as hell don't need you to tell me where the design originated.


4. Lastly, and most importantly, Canadian FN FAL rifles were built in the UK.


You know nothing about either history or firearms.


STFU.


No wonder you're on ignore.

Lol

We bought our weapons from Belgium instead of the USA.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13647
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Lol

We bought our weapons from Belgium instead of the USA.


In reality, we purchased the license to manufacture from the UK, as they had the rights to the "inch pattern" FN FAL, and we manufactured them here.


The basic rifle design was done in Belgium.......... that's it. Other than that, they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Canadian acquisition of the weapon.


Like I said, Dimwit, STFU about things you know nothing about.


Which includes just about everything.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle


I did make one error....my original post should have read 4. Lastly, and most importantly, Canadian FN FAL rifles were licensed from the UK L1A1 design, and built in Canada.
 
Hoid
#13648
You need to be angrier

Also smarter.

As I said originally, nobody in NATO was buying 7.62s from the USA - therefore they went to the M16 and have tried to foist that on everyone

You might know this if you had ever served in the military
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13649
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Canada bought their 7.62 from Belgium.
You simply do not know your history

Canada made their own FNs from a Belgian FAL pattern. So did Britain ( the "SLR"). So did Germany ... likely others.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13650
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You need to be angrier

Also smarter.

As I said originally, nobody in NATO was buying 7.62s from the USA - therefore they went to the M16 and have tried to foist that on everyone

You might know this if you had ever served in the military


The M16 variant known as the M4 is simply the best military rifle in active service today. They have "foisted it" on nobody.


Are you trying to tell me you served in the military?


God help us, we're in deep trouble.



And, btw, nobody in NATO was buying 7.62s from the USA is NOT what you said, or even implied.