1. The rounds started “tumbling” outta my M16 cause the barrel was WORN OUT! Idiots.

   7

   1. Say What! The bullets don’t tumble out of the barrel Sherlock! On impact if close enough of hit a bone or something they will go in different directions tumble. Like the one Troop who was careless cleaning his weapon, an “M16″it went in at his hip and came out his shoulder. The only Select Fire AR15s in Nam were to the Air Force I think,before changes and next ones were M16s!
      What was your MOS: BS Adviser?

      1

2. Every sentence in that tweet is a lie. Up to and including the “Hi.”

   12

3. If my bullets tumble right out of the barrel, I couldn’t hit anything beyond 10 feet…

   8

   1. My thought exactly.

      “Did he qualify as ‘expert’? If so, at what distance? 5 yards, and by sheer luck?” Because that would be about the effective accurate range if the bullets started tumbling immediately after exiting the barrel.

      4

   2. Darts launched out of a Dollar Tree off-brand nerf blaster don’t “tumble right out of the barrel” and those are intentionally engineered and purpose built to have terrible ballistic properties (cause, y’know, children’s toys).

      2

4. When did we go from ex-mil bitching about the reduced lethality of the 5.56mm/.223 round to ex-mil talking about how it’s super super deadly?

   6

   1. I believe that was 1994

      2

   2. As soon as it became politically expedient to do so. (Chris’ 1994 comment probably has quite a lot of truth in it, though I would date it 1993, when the AWB was being debated.)

      Just like how you see sworn police officers talking about how the AR-15 is “designed for only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible” … while carrying AR-15s in their patrol cars.

      Y’know, for all that “killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible” police officers have to do on a daily basis.

      “Oh, but the AR-15 ‘patrol rifle’ handles easily and is accurate and reliable, so it’s ideal for officers’ personal defense!”

      So it’s NOT “designed for only one purpose”, then? And given that police are civilians (not military), if it’s an ideal personal defense weapon for civilian police for all the stated reasons, wouldn’t it also be an ideal personal defense weapon for civilian non-police for the same reasons?

      *smh*

      Either it’s too dangerous and nobody — not even police and military — should be able to have it, or it’s an ideal defense weapon and everybody should be able to have it. You don’t get to have it both ways.

      2

      1. Any LEO stupid enough to utter that opinion should immediately have his semiautomatic rifle removed and in it’s place he should be issued a bolt-action hunting rifle…or preferably a muzzleloader and a bag of black powder cartridges.

         1

         1. Make it a matchlock and I’ll go along with that.

            Also: the right definition of AR-15 is “multi purpose light weight modest power small rifle”. (For extra emphasis you could add “not powerful enough to be legal for deer hunting in most states”.)

5. I thought that the aspirins were in the medicine cabinet. (“Arthur”)

   4

6. I have heard this bit of “wisdom” before. This particular one was usually uttered bitterly by old Vietnam vets, relaying what was told to THEM about how effective their new M16s were going to be, and how a 5.56 to the foot would tumble and come out the top of the head. Followed by a tale of having to shoot a VC 15 times, but the rifle jammed after 7, because the unstable bullet was unreliable and they were issued no cleaning equipment for the rifle.

   This particular dude up above heard the first part of the story, likely while washing dishes as a food preparation specialist, bought it hook line and sinker, and is now attempting to flail at people with his “knowledge.”

   6

7. OMG, another ground pounder that thinks he knows it all. Guess what, even a Puddle Pirate (me) knows what utter BS this guy is spouting from his pie hole.

   3

8. The obvious answer to that tweet is “why do you think we’re dumb enough to believe your lies, including the one that says “veteran”?”

   3

9. As a self identified “veteran,” he’s (in the absence of preferred pronoun, I’ll assume the masculine one) fired almost every version of the AR15? WTF? Didn’t the military have enough M16s/M4s to issue him one? Or didn’t his commander trust him with a full-auto rifle?

   4

   1. Technically speaking, the M4/16 IS a “version” of the AR15, although the fire control groups are only interchangeable in one direction.
      But I highly doubt he has “fired every version.” I rather doubt he’s fired more than whatever was required in Basic (assuming he did actually go), and possibly one or two semi-auto-only rifles, undoubtedly at static targets.
      Anyone who has ever shot at a living thing with a poodleshooter and ball ammo would know the lie behind his ammunition claim.

      3

10. Rayweaved, auto kerract failed you. Your first sentence clearly was typed in as “High veteran here”.

    Although, of what, is not altogether clear.

    3

11. Read above to TDW-Mark II. She agrees, adding, “Shame on him for lying about having military service!”

    3

12. I highly doubt they are a veteran or have even touched an m16.

    If we should not own them I wonder what there big brained idea to get rid of them are?I already know the answer.

    2

13. WHAT A LYIN’ FUCKING MORON!!!!

    4

14. Veteran what? It sure ain’t military or he might know something about guns…

    1

15. Rayweaved – you lost me at “Fun Fact.”

16. One easy way to tell that this person is a liar, even more profoundly ignorant of anything whatsoever related to firearms, is the claim of a rifle designed to have rounds tumble.
    By definition, every rifle is designed to prevent tumbling. It follows from its name — rifles have rifled barrels, and the purpose of the rifling is to spin the round, and the purpose of doing that is to keep it from tumbling. There never was, and never will be, a rifle designed to tumble the rounds it fires.

    So, the probability of this individual actually being a veteran is clearly less than 0.1%. And if so, the probability of it being something other than REMF is vanishingly small, perhaps around one part per million.

17. And that, pkoning, is a libel against the good reputation of REMFs, among door kickers.

    1. Well, I did say that the probability of him being a REMF is 0.099999% … 🙂

18. There is a certain amount of truth in bullett characteristics of the 5.56 Nato round. The 55 grain bullet in the early versions of the development of the M-16 had a 1-12 twist barrel, and, upon striking the target, the bullett was unstable to a degree that it could cause damage by tumbling. However, the bullet did not leave the bore tumbling end over end. If that was the case, you could not hit a barn door shooting it, even when in the barn. The 1-7 and 1-8 twists of current barrels in the 5.56 nato rifles are more accurate, and precise, allowing the marksperson to hit center-mass on target which is effective to stop agression. There are more AR-15’s in private hands in the US than there is in the military, law enforcement, and federal agencies. Yet, there are more people killed by kitchen knives, hammers, and drunk driving. Go figure.

    1. I agree that once in a blue moon there is a defective design, or a defective unit, that produces unstable bullets. Not all that long ago I read of a gun that was delivered from the factory with a too-large barrel (say, .300 when it was supposed to be .223, or some such). But in all of these cases you’re dealing with a defect (design or manufacturing).
       So it remains true that unstable bullets are never a design goal of a rifle, not now, not in the past, not in any part of the future.

19. Ok, I have been watching this forum since the post was made. I feel the need to step in, and make some statements, that are completely factual, straight out of the military command I was assigned to.

    I was a weapons instructor, in the Air Force. My experience, and anyone I was stationed with, will tell you the same thing.

    THE BULLETS NEVER TUMBLED!!!!!

    The fact of the matter is, they disintegrated, within a few hundred yards of the barrel. Now, some of you “EXPERTS” out there, need to look this shit up, It is hard to find now days, but, it DOES exist.

    The 1-12 rifling and above, combined with the the grains of powder, and the grain of the bullet, caused the the projectile to spin so rapidly, that it literally shredded itself, as it reached supersonic speed.

    This was studied, and proven, by high speed videos, and testing of the Colt firearm company, by using several different loads, and after an extensive trial period, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As soon as they made the twist down to the now used 1-9, it basically disappeared, with a few exceptions.

    When you stress a copper jacketed bullet beyond its limits, it will self destruct. Physics in motion. PERIOD!!!

    so take it as you wish, but, I have earned my expert ribbon for a reason. Not because I try to impress anyone. I don’t need to impress ANYONE,. and could care the fuck less what is thought of me, because I lived the facts, and was involved in it,

    Thanks for listening…

    Taz…

20. To hell with the aspirin, where is the tequila?

Comments are closed.