TMF

Crap, I realize I just hijacked this thing. As for the OP, I used the LWRC M6A1 during a month long shooting course... Lots of rounds downrange. Great rifle, just real front heavy like most of them are. I've heard good things about the Adams Arms uppers, but have never used one myself.

Take it with a grain of salt. I'm being honest when I say that I've fired more rounds through my issued M4s than 99% of the military. I have never had a malfunction caused by anything other than magazine failure, bolt breakage or a manufactured malfunction. If the weapon is properly maintained it will fire more ammo than you can carry. I've put thousands of rounds through one in a single day without relubing. It will work. The reason you see reports of widespread malfunction is due to operator error. I kid you not. Our military sucks when it comes to mentoring younger Servicemembers. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch's convoy has at least two of the weapons failing. I've seen more M16s fail than I can count. There is always a common denominator; no lube, and where there should be live there is dust... Lots of it. The problem is crappy NCOs not doing proper PCIs on their Soldiers. I'll use the M2 .50 cal as an example. It works great. I've used dozens of them over my military career. I've only come across one that had issues; it was a refurbish that was fresh. After a few thousand rounds it worked fine. All the rest worked so long as you knew how to properly head space and time it. Unfortunately, I see MOST convoys pull up to a test fire berm and experience multiple jams, because all they did was screw a barrel on, back off two and call it good. Then they call it a piece of 100 year old junk because it doesn't work. It does work. It's the operator that needs to be sent back to the assembly line. I get a little emotional about this one, because I know the truth and it pisses me off. It makes me mad that there are so many piss poor Soldiers and NCOs out there. When I hear a Servicemember who complains about his M16 (if it was issued after 1970, or whenever they fixed the issue with the chamber and the ammo) it tells me they were a substandard Soldier that did not properly maintain his equipment.

I pretty much had the same experience. Luckily I had a .410 Judge with me, which instantly vaporized him.

DI rifles don't work though. I heard they jam after the first round and Soldiers have to use the enemy's AKs they recover on the battlefield.

I was nice enough to explain it to him. Didn't want to hear about him accidentally shooting himself when that sling melted through.

For those who have goats, never touch your face after handling one. Goat herpes can be transferred to humans. I've met some folks with it.

Well that's how you're you're supposed to do. I recall this brand new unit years ago that was just showing up in country. There was a E4 who carried the 249. He had fashioned a sling (nylon) that he wrapped the front end around the barrel, just north of the front sight. I asked him if he had shot it since he put the sling on. Obviously his answer was "no". Sometimes it amazed me how little some folks understood how to properly employ their weapons. This was an infantry unit, BTW.

What's so funny about this is that they don't need the BS pictures; the Army has been laying these guys out for almost a week. There are AP photos of them shooting incendiary devices into their camps, causing widespread fires killing untold numbers, then following it up with live rounds and an armored bulldozer to destroy their barricades and camps. The death toll is approaching 1,000. The military has taken the gloves off and is cracking skulls. Best we can do is keep our mouths shut and let em purge those sons of bitches. I like that Obama has no idea what to do.

Well just so we're aware, al Qaeda has been all over this for years. I can't remember where I saw it, but there was surely an article in their terror rag about it. Not hard to do at all, but with the small amount of explosives you'd be limited to I'm not sure what the application would be. Also, they'd have to figure out their fuse, which would need to detonate on impact. The level of sophistication needed to engineer that is pretty high for these guys, so surely it would result in catastrophic operator error, yielding hilarious results.

Ha, well that was bringing attention to "stretching" OC further than what the law intends. OCing an AK pistol is not the intent. The intent of the law is to allow people to carry a personal defense firearm. While I don't really care if someone carries a mouse gun or an M60 for self defense, it's clear what he was doing and it is an example of someone stretching the intent of the law. Not that I feel something needs to be done about it, just citing an example. Personally, when folks like Voldemort go out with the intention of inciting panic in order to pick a fight with LEOs, they should just assign a cop to stand two feet from him until he's done with his nonsense. It will avoid panic from people and avoid legal buttpain, plus it will prevent the idiot from doing it again since he didnt get a rise out of the cops.

  Voldemort.

  It's a hard one because the obvious argument is going back to God given rights which liberals don't believe we have, such as 2nd and 4th Amendments.  It's hard to argue that logically when they don't subscribe to your logic... kinda like trying to explain to homicidal maniac why killing is wrong.  They just won't get it because they don't believe it.     There are liberals here?

  I'm going to play the liberal today.  I hear these arguments all the time, and liberals tend to respond with irrational and diversionary arguments to them.  I'm going to give the liberal argument against all your points and would like them to be debunked point by point for debate purposes by as many members as possible.  I realize the arguments are rediculous, but sometimes it's difficult to articulate to a liberal how stupid their argument is.   1. most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.   Yes, but based on the vast number of suicide attempts the numbers suggest that far more people attempt suicide than people who are successful at it.  The most successful group of suicide victims are people who use firearms.  If they didn't have a firearm it wouldn't be as easy to kill themselves and they'd have a higher likelihood of survival. 2. there were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.   But how many of those were against people armed with firearms?  If no one had firearms in the first place people wouldn't have to use firearms to defend themselves.   3. both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.   Really?  Every time I turn on the news there's another mass shooting.  There weren't this many mass shootings before assault weapons came about. 4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and so outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.   So then why not have a registry?  If we had a registry of where every gun in America is, then we could easily track one used in a crime back to the person who gave it to a criminal and prosecute them too.  If we did that then people would be less likely to purchase firearms for criminals.   5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws. Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.   Of course those have higher rates because the criminals get their firearms from surrounding states with lax gun laws and gun show loopholes.  If every state adopted universal registry and background checks then there would be less gun violence in those major cities.  Besides, Memphis has high gun crime too.  If there are so many lawful gun owners there why are their gun crime rates almost as high as areas with strict gun laws.

  I'm giving the CDC the benefit of the doubt for two reasons:   1. It seems that they are indiscriminate in what they study in regard to what is harmful to children.  They also involve themselves into subjects like pool safety (drowning related) and how to keep your kids from ingesting dangerous household chemicals.  The same argument that can be made against the CDC in regard to their involvement in recommending firearms be locked up in homes with children can be made against the CDC for recommending keeping cabinet locks where you keep the Draino.  As for pools, do I need the gov to tell me that a three year old needs supervision around a body of water?  No, but they do it anyway.  So I don't see this as a specifically anti-gun thing; I see it as typical nanny government telling stupid, non-common sense having parents not to do stupid, non-common sense things.   http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/Fact_Sheets/Drowning-Fact-Sheet-a.pdf   http://www.cdc.gov/healthyhomes/bytopic/poisoning.html   2. The other reason is that it seems this study validates arguments against gun control, not for it.  I'm sure that was not Obama's intent... in fact I'll bet my gun collection on it.  That tells me that whatever bias may exist at the CDC is not evident in this report.  Liberals can make an easy one sided argument for gun control when they're the ones conducting the study.  Since they didn't do that here, I'm thinking they aren't on anyone's side here. 

Nowadays you'll normally see standard issue being M68s, EOTechs and ACOGs.  There's some other stuff with SOF units, but that covers the vast majority.  Each unit is going to be different in what their SOPs are regarding optics.  Some may mandate optics, such as designated marksman having ACOGs and everyone else having an M68 on their rifle.  Others may let them put on their choice.   A long time ago, before many units even had M68s, you'd see all kinds of non-standard optics that Soldiers bought with their own money.  I've seen M4s with cheapo $50 Walmart scopes on them and that was the designated marksman for the squad... no joke.  Now most, if not all, active duty units have ACOGs and M68s; EOTechs are the next most common after those two.

Hardest call to the police, ever.

Black Ops II already did it.

A common term used for support personnel who add nothing to the fight yet take up enormous amounts of space and energy supporting themselves while the guys in the field are using duct tape to keep their boots together. The other term more commonly used was not appropriate; a phallus that fellates itself... only a slightly more graphic representation.

This is the ultimate self licking ice cream cone. Here you have a local government who is justifying their militarization by labeling groups against militarization of police as terrorists. It reminds me of some places I've been..... hmmm, seems I've had this conversation more than once with folks who told me hearts and minds are just targets.

All ready for pass and review!

That was less about militarization and more about defrauding the fed for the sake of just getting stuff. I read the same article. Everything that Chief got from the gov was innocuous. I think it was just because he wanted to show all the cool stuff he had.

I don't think this is about deep pockets. If I'd have to sue someone it would have nothing to do with money.

Ha, they listed the Free State Movement as a domestic terrorist organization in their bid to justify the purchase of the armored vehicle.

In the post you're referencing I'm not talking about this specific case, I'm answering the issue brought up about cops being able to sue at all. That seems to be the problem with many. I don't see why. As for this specific case, I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to its frivolity. They may have a case or they may not. However, folks saying cops should NEVER be able to sue someone who is criminally liable for causing them injury is suggesting a double standard on zero grounds.

That is not remotely close. Please try another analogy, unless it is common for regular people to sue over getting a cold. It is, however, normal to sue people who shoot you. So, someone explain to me why I can shoot a cop and only be held criminally liable but not civilly, but if I shoot you I'm held accountable in both courts. The only difference is that the cop is on the clock. If you can't produce a law which states that cops can be shot with civil impunity then don't bother responding, I won't read it.