TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:I completely understand the OP's finding some terms irritating. We all have pet peeves.

As a bona fide curmudgeon, I find an enormous amount of irritants make me want to shout from the mountain tops!

As an example: People employ words that need plurals or conversely add them where inappropriate. Arrrgggghhh!

Now, get off my lawn!

Or use emoticons or the idiotic term: LOL
However, if you're in the fifth grade or lower, plastering emoticons on your posts and/or posting LOL on your posts is acceptable...

I told you to get off my lawn, didn't I...?

Skiprr wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Skiprr wrote: And FYI, if you want pick apart the term "battle rifle," I would include only the military, not law enforcement. LE has become more militarized over time--arguably either a good or bad thing, depending on where you stand--but even the DEA or FBI HRT don't actually go into "battle."

I also considered this, but then I thought that just because of who owns it doesn't change what it is. The M4 Sherman tanks and other models that often sit outside various posts or VFW's are still tanks or battle tanks or whatever. They may not be functional as such, but they are still tanks.

But even during the brief one-year period (61-62) when a rifle referred to as the "AR-15" found its way into unofficial use in Viet Nam, it was a full-auto select-fire. In November 1963, with the first military order from Colt, it became the "M16."

The Eugene Stoner military design was never semi-automatic only. Semi-autos never went into battle. So I guess it would be like calling a heavy vehicle designed and built to run on treads but with no armament a "battle tank." It's a tank, but its design has never seen battle.

Skiprr wrote: And FYI, if you want pick apart the term "battle rifle," I would include only the military, not law enforcement. LE has become more militarized over time--arguably either a good or bad thing, depending on where you stand--but even the DEA or FBI HRT don't actually go into "battle."