Knowledge test [W:93]

[ttwtt78640]

here is the real curve ball

what is the difference between .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO round

what is a WYLDE chamber

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? :roll:

African or European

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes Red-what is the answer

extra bonus points on your semester grade if you can get this right without GOOGLING it

A 5.56 NATO has thicker walls to handle more pressure, so the interior volume of the case is smaller than a .223, and several 5.56 loads have a little longer overall length than most .223 loads.

Did I get it?

 

[TurtleDude]

A 5.56 NATO has thicker walls to handle more pressure, so the interior volume of the case is smaller than a .223, and several 5.56 loads have a little longer overall length than most .223 loads.

Did I get it?

its actually a little different but you are close-leade is a bit different and while you can fire a 223 safely in a 5.56 chamber you can have problems doing the reverse.

The Rifleman's Journal: Basics: The Leade Angle

 

[MadLib]

I don't know a lot about guns, but from what I've seen at least from this board that the pro-gun crowd demonstrates a significantly greater knowledge of guns themselves than do the anti-gun supporters. That's one of the reasons I lean pro-gun, because pro-gun people just have a better-supported argument. These fine details might not be relevant to the basic spirit of gun control laws, but then again I wouldn't know.

I can also see why debating someone with a strong opinion on something he clearly doesn't know anything about would be annoying. I feel the same way when creationists present strawman and totally bogus arguments against evolution, and in other debates in which the critics have no knowledge or understanding of the context of the situation but still present their opinion as fact.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Okay pro control side here is a little skills test to see how informed you really are. If you fail, it's time to study the subject matter before infringing upon our rights further.

1) What is the technical difference between an AR-15 and a Colt M-16. I want caliber, rate of fire (both for Vietnam era and modern military variants) of the M-16 v. AR15?
2) What does the AR mean in the AR-15 platform, and why is Colt significant in the modern AR-15 configuration?
3) What differentiates the .223 round from the common .22 rifle?
4) What is the difference between the NATO 7.62 round and the .308 hunting rifle. Are they compatible?
5) How many legally owned fully auto rifles have been used in a murder?
6) What are the technically accepted catagories of firearms?
7) What is the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a sub-machine gun?
8) What is the difference between an LMG and a SAW?

If you fail this test it's time to drop your position, because most second advocates know at least the fundamentals of this subject.

Lachean tried something similar to this a week ago and I had the same response to him as I do to you: you don't have to know the technical details of guns in order to have an opinion on the place of guns in our society. It's like determining the validity of person's opinion on nuclear weapons according to whether or not they know how to enrich uranium or plutonium. By doing that, you just end up defining the parameters of debate in a way that excludes a certain number of people you disagree with according to their knowledge of things that you consider relevant, but that are not ultimately not a factor in determining the validity of opinion. It's better to just debate the merits of actual ideas.

I know a lot about the role that nuclear weapons play in international politics, but it wouldn't make sense for me to dismiss differing opinion on the role that such weapons should play in the world if they don't know the technical differences between types of nuclear weapons and warfare.

 

[Gardener]

I can also see why debating someone with a strong opinion on something he clearly doesn't know anything about would be annoying.

Considering the nature of just about every thread I have ever encountered on every conceivable subject, I have begun to suspect that there exists something of an inverse relationship between knowledge and one's propensity towards displaying it.

 

[wolfman24]

Okay pro control side here is a little skills test to see how informed you really are. If you fail, it's time to study the subject matter before infringing upon our rights further.

1) What is the technical difference between an AR-15 and a Colt M-16. I want caliber, rate of fire (both for Vietnam era and modern military variants) of the M-16 v. AR15?
2) What does the AR mean in the AR-15 platform, and why is Colt significant in the modern AR-15 configuration?
3) What differentiates the .223 round from the common .22 rifle?
4) What is the difference between the NATO 7.62 round and the .308 hunting rifle. Are they compatible?
5) How many legally owned fully auto rifles have been used in a murder?
6) What are the technically accepted catagories of firearms?
7) What is the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a sub-machine gun?
8) What is the difference between an LMG and a SAW?

If you fail this test it's time to drop your position, because most second advocates know at least the fundamentals of this subject.

And this is relavant to reality how? I could make a similar test about Environmental issues that 80% of the population here won't get either so does that mean they are all stupid or ignorant about the environment? NOT If I lived breathed, ate, slept with and adored guns I MIGHT pass your test.

My answer to your "intelligence" test is who gives a rats ass.

 

[molten_dragon]

3)The .22LR and .223 literally vary by width, they are the same round BUT the .223 is a little fatter and is backed by a bigger cartridge with more powder. The .223 is a fat, fast moving .22 round.

Huh? This isn't true at all. In addition to the very slight difference in bullet diameter, and the much larger cartridge, a .223 bullet is also longer than a .22LR, is generally a good bit heavier, and is shaped quite a bit differently. And the .223 is center-fire while the .22LR is rimfire. They aren't the same round at all, not even close.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Ok here we go.

I might not get these all correct, I'm not a gun expert.

I'm only going to answer the last 4 like CC said.



Key: Legally owned. Since 1934, two. However, my data on the subject ends after 1994, so I'm limited on the info.



Uh...Handguns
Long guns, Rifles, shotguns, Machine guns, Submachine guns, Assault rifles? I think I'm missing one.



Submachine guns are smaller and shoot a pistol round. They generally are fully auto with a high rate of fire, but have a smaller rate of fire. Assault Rifles are larger and shoot a rifle round. They generally are NOT fully auto (although many can be) with a slower rate of fire and much higher accuracy.


LMG's typically are used by an individual. If I remember it, A squad assault weapons needs a second guy.


I'm not a supporter of gun control supporter, but did I win?

Good enough for me. Long guns are rifles, but other than that spot on. This exercise really is to see where the gun control side is at on a few basics.

 

[LaMidRighter]

here is the real curve ball

what is the difference between .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO round

what is a WYLDE chamber

I admittedly had to double check this, but I had it down. .223 Remington is not rated for as high of a pressure and is a hair shorter than the 5.56 round(hotter load) so .223 rifles which aren't rated for the higher pressure or not chambered to meet the difference it can be dangerous to use the rounds interchangeably. The NATO chamber is slightly larger than the WYLDE(competition) chamber.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Oh no! I don't know the difference between a NATO 7.62 round and the .308 hunting rifle! Guess I'll keep my mouth shut and not be entitled to have an opinion anymore...

Glad to hear it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Lachean tried something similar to this a week ago and I had the same response to him as I do to you: you don't have to know the technical details of guns in order to have an opinion on the place of guns in our society. It's like determining the validity of person's opinion on nuclear weapons according to whether or not they know how to enrich uranium or plutonium. By doing that, you just end up defining the parameters of debate in a way that excludes a certain number of people you disagree with according to their knowledge of things that you consider relevant, but that are not ultimately not a factor in determining the validity of opinion. It's better to just debate the merits of actual ideas.

I know a lot about the role that nuclear weapons play in international politics, but it wouldn't make sense for me to dismiss differing opinion on the role that such weapons should play in the world if they don't know the technical differences between types of nuclear weapons and warfare.

You should know what you are talking about when you want to make laws concerning my rights. If you don't demonstrate some sort of knowledge your opinion on the subject means nothing, politicians with a similar level of knowledge or those willing to play to the opinions of those with that level have no business messing with my rights.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Huh? This isn't true at all. In addition to the very slight difference in bullet diameter, and the much larger cartridge, a .223 bullet is also longer than a .22LR, is generally a good bit heavier, and is shaped quite a bit differently. And the .223 is center-fire while the .22LR is rimfire. They aren't the same round at all, not even close.

It is not significantly longer, both bullets are part of the .22 family. The .223 looks much larger do to the casing and it appears much longer do to the .22LR having a more rounded tip. The difference bewteen all diameters is not of more than a degree or so of significance.

 

[LaMidRighter]

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? :roll:

African or European?

 

[LaMidRighter]

African or European

Damn, you beat me to it. :lol:

 

[LaMidRighter]

I don't know a lot about guns, but from what I've seen at least from this board that the pro-gun crowd demonstrates a significantly greater knowledge of guns themselves than do the anti-gun supporters. That's one of the reasons I lean pro-gun, because pro-gun people just have a better-supported argument. These fine details might not be relevant to the basic spirit of gun control laws, but then again I wouldn't know.

I can also see why debating someone with a strong opinion on something he clearly doesn't know anything about would be annoying. I feel the same way when creationists present strawman and totally bogus arguments against evolution, and in other debates in which the critics have no knowledge or understanding of the context of the situation but still present their opinion as fact.

Bingo! You have taken the exact meaning of this thread. I was attempting to give a hard example of the understanding gap in the discussion and why it's annoying to have people who issue obviously uninformed statements regarding my rights actually is.

 

[H. Lee White]

If you fail this test it's time to drop your position, because most second advocates know at least the fundamentals of this subject.

Those who scream for more gun control who are also something less than utterly ingnorant on the actual subject of guns are more rare than black unicorns with wings.

 

[H. Lee White]

There's only one question you need to answer in order to have an opinion about gun control:
1) Can guns kill people?

To have an informed, reasoned position on gun control, however, is another matter entirely.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Those who scream for more gun control who are also something less than utterly ingnorant on the actual subject of guns are more rare than black unicorns with wings.

Exactly. I don't mind having intellectual discussion with people who have a decent understanding of the subject and simply disagree, I do have a problem with people who don't understand the constitution and don't care to learn it, or who misname weaponry, or don't even understand that the AR-15 that they hate so much is a relatively weak rifle among the field.

 

[H. Lee White]

Exactly. I don't mind having intellectual discussion with people who have a decent understanding of the subject and simply disagree, I do have a problem with people who don't understand the constitution and don't care to learn it, or who misname weaponry, or don't even understand that the AR-15 that they hate so much is a relatively weak rifle among the field.

My 'favorite' example of ignorance in this regard is the entire idea of 'assault weapons', especially in reagrds to the AWB.

 

[LaMidRighter]

My 'favorite' example of ignorance in this regard is the entire idea of 'assault weapons', especially in reagrds to the AWB.

Yep, and when it gets pointed out that without the cosmetic features it's the exact same gun they STILL try to deny their loss on the matter, reverting to the emotional "well, but it can fire x rounds a minute, and it has too big of a magazine" and all the other stupid arguments some gun control group or anti-gun politician issued.

 

[Lutherf]

here is the real curve ball

what is the difference between .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO round

what is a WYLDE chamber

My understanding is that the Wylde chamber was designed specifically for the .223 Rem but has a longer throat than a SAAMI spec chamber and it necks down a little more rapidly with the idea being that the projectile will be slightly better centered before engaging the rifling thus providing for a slightly more accurate shot.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

You should know what you are talking about when you want to make laws concerning my rights. If you don't demonstrate some sort of knowledge your opinion on the subject means nothing, politicians with a similar level of knowledge or those willing to play to the opinions of those with that level have no business messing with my rights.

I agree that people should know what they are talking about concerning whatever information is relevant to the subject. The technical details of guns are not relevant to the broader role of guns in society anymore than the technical details of nuclear weapons are relevant to the broader role of those weapons in society. Therefore, defining the legitimacy of an opinion according to one's knowledge of such technical information is nonsensical.

Since you have questions for everyone else, I'd like to ask you three:

Do you think that people need to know how to enrich uranium to have a valid opinion on the broader role of nukes in society?
Do you believe that people need to know the entire anatomy of the uterus to have a valid position on the legal status of abortion?
Do you think that people need to know how marijuana is grown to have a valid opinion on the legalization of marijuana?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I agree that people should know what they are talking about concerning whatever information is relevant to the subject. The technical details of guns are not relevant to the broader role of guns in society anymore than the technical details of nuclear weapons are relevant to the broader role of those weapons in society.

Since you have questions for everyone else, I'd like to ask you three:

Do you think that people need to know how to enrich uranium to have a valid opinion on the broader role of nukes in society?
Do you believe that people need to know the entire anatomy of the uterus to have a valid position on the legal status of abortion?
Do you think that people need to know how marijuana is grown to have a valid opinion on the legalization of marijuana?

Everything boils down to details, everything. When people talk down characteristics of weapons that aren't really all that more dangerous compared to it's "hunting" equivalent there is a problem. Mag limits, caliber limits, etc. don't accomplish anything of real value, knowing the technicals bears out the futility of cosmetic bans, mag limits, and other such laws. The point of the thread is to establish that the topic is not well known by people trying to regulate firearms.