Fundamental misunderstanding continues. The G18 achieves auto fire differently than a G17 with a switch does. The trigger bar isn't "held down" in either case, though.
If holding down the trigger bar is all that was required, you wouldn't need a switch at all.
The G46 has the same dastardly trigger bar that works in the same dastardly way. Making a switch for a G46 wouldn't be fundamentally different than making one for a G17. But don't worry, New Jersey says the G46 is cool.
This is so unbelievably dumb. Mind numbingly so.
Me whenever I don't know how springs work. Me when I'm the master of Glock knowing. Me when I'm a lawyer getting paid to lawsuit and I just make stuff up.
If "remaining lowered" is all that it took, why don't Glocks go full auto if you assemble them without the trigger bar at all? Permanently lowered if it isn't installed. Shutting the slide should rip the whole mag, right?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
US causalities in Vietnam would have been much higher without the M16's "powder change" - understanding why is key to realizing why the "powder change" was actually a good idea.
If the US had to stick with 4475, their options were: 🧵
1) Have 1/10th of their initial ammo needs met (only 1/25th of their ammo needs at the peak of demand) by 4475, supplement 9/10ths of your troops with M1 Garands converted with chamber sleeves to fire 308. (this was actually the fallback plan)
2) Reduce the 223 spec velocity from 3150fps to under 3000 (about 2950) so that 4475 won't overpressure. This will drive the same three years of changes and updates as the powder change will, but you'll be able to have a sufficient amount of 4475 loaded ammo afterward.
The number of people who think they could shoot down drones with a shotgun (while revealing they have little to no experience shooting birds or clays) is staggering.
If you bought a "tactical" shotgun for "drones", you should probably practice by shooting clays with it...
Even in sporting clays, where the targets are ~50mph, you'll have some shots where the lead will be longer than the window on a red dot is wide. Forget about your rifle sights.
Ok, but what about slow drones? You'd think loitering targets would be an easy shot, but anyone who has shot enough trap will tell you, even a little movement at 40-50 yards requires a little lead.
Originally referred to as "Caliber 30 Lightweight", 308 became the American domestic market's name for 7.62x51 - aka 7.62 NATO.
There's a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this cartridge, so let's do a little thread about its development. 🧵
During WW2, the US military relied on the tried-and-true 30-06 (typical designation M2 ball) for its service rifle. The "06" in 30-06 refers to 1906, which is where the cartridge dates back to. That's pretty old, considering WW2 kicks off for the US in 1941!
While the US had adopted a gas operated autoloader for its service rifle prior to WW2, production ramped up aggressively during the war, and developments were made to powder technology to keep pace.
First off - early testing reports describing the requirements for 223/AR15 shifted from lethality compared to 30 carbine to lethality compared to the M1 Garand's M2 ball 3006.
While this rubs many the wrong way, it's important to remember that while M2 has more energy, it doesn't necessarily transfer all that energy into a target. 223, however, was observed to fail to pass through targets consistently-dumping all its energy as the bullet broke apart.
Remember that time when the US Army designed a civilian version of the M14, sold it to civilians, and a few years later the ATF came along and decided they were machineguns?
Here's the story of the M14 NM.
Most are already familiar with the M14 - it's the disfavored stepchild of US military rifles, and it's shortcomings left it as a stopgap between the M1 Garand of WW2 and Korea and the AR-15s the US military has used since.
Development of what would become the M14 started early - before WW2 even ended, the US Army was experimenting with M1 Garands that had box magazines and select fire capability. I won't get into the details here, but bureaucracy resulted in this development to take a decade.
Perhaps the greatest damage the Hughes Amendment did to gun rights advocacy is by making room for the current "machinegun zeitgeist" to exist.
Allow me to over-explain: 🧵
Passed in 1986, the Firearms Owner Protection Act (FOPA) was staged to be a massive victory for gun rights - establishing a way for guns and ammo to travel interstate, even in states that restrict or ban their sale/possession. This allowed ammo to by mailed as well.
However, antigun democrats hated the idea that your rights might be respected - and wanted to kill FOPA. In an attempt to stall its passing, a senator named William Hughes proposed an amendment to FOPA that would ban new machineguns (except for sale to cops/gov).