@sapphire redesign me the whole rifle keeping the same internals and prove to me how major the internal tweaks were. There is so much more to any firearm design than whether it can full auto or not, or what the trigger mechanism or locking mechanism are. Those things might be relevant for a military who have to push everything to the limit, but when talking about the contrast between military vs sports and hunting those are minor tweaks.
🇳🇱
You seem to be ignoring the point that we didnt just talk about internals in this thread. We pointed out several reasons why it is not remotely relevant as a military weapon and why it is a completely different weapon than the M-16:
* Significantly different firing mechanism
* No automatic fire
* lowest muzzle energy compared to almost any rifle on the market
* Other components do not make it significantly different from hunting rifles, the barrel is not particularly different nor anything about it.
You realize intentionally misinterptriting what I said doesnt make you look superior in a debate, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Its a small game gun, this is established fact in the hunting community. The fact that you are disputing this shows that you dont know the first thing about it or guns in general. I even stated for you the specific muzzle energy but your being intentionally obtuse as usual.
@freemo I'm not disputing it. You are trying to make this a dispute about particulars of AR, when it was just a minor side point. I already said I accept anything and everything you say about AR, for the purposes of my conversation with you, even if you said it's a BB gun. It amuses me that you fail to see how irrelevant it all is.
Modern military doctrine doesn't even use the M4 carbine as the MAIN killing force (obviously you can kill someone with it, just not optimal per doctrine), it uses mortars and HE rounds. Civies can't get those, and they can't even get steel core armor penetrators. Beyond that, an M4 is not an AR, they just look the same from the outside, the only comparable factor is that they fire the same cartridge. But commonly available hunting rifles fire similar rounds as military grade sniper and designated marksman rifles at similar rates of fire.
The issue you're running into is that the compromise position of "ban military guns not friendly looking boomer core deer rifles" is untenable when the ballistic, range and ROF qualities of those weapons are comparable or even exceed their military equivalents. You can either advocate for total disarmament on principle or advocate for the ability of the population to theoretically retain its implicit threat of violence against outside actors.
There are no half measures.
