What is up with the mods at TFB? They deleted this comment directly from Sig when called out on their bullshit story:
>Phil / Nicholas - comical story, but patently false. I'm not even going to comment on a direct impingement BCG that supposedly came out of a piston SIG516.
>
>-Jeff Creamer, Executive Director, GMM - SIG SAUER, Inc.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/25/select-fire-mixup-socal/
They do it for pay
>>23732581
maybe it was because that wasn't actually sig making that comment?
>>23732628
>censorship is cool
So just delete it instead of putting a disclaimer up while awaiting verification?
More like the mods/writers are buttblasted.
>>23732616
kek
Ahahahahahahaha. No.
According to the story, sig "accidentally" sold a bunch of FA guns to cali residents. Meaning that the builders, the packagers, the gunstore owners, and several other people had no idea that the extra symbols on the lower meant anything (which someone would have long before it got to the lgs). Then Sig asks for the guns back, and upon being refused, just sends the customer parts to make his gun "compliant" (which they wouldn't) instead of calling the cops or making a house visit. And some dork posted it online without the 5-0 showing up on his doorstep.
Shit didn't happen.
>>23732581
>direct impingement BCG from a 516
>no pocket milling on BCG
Not to mention all of the newer AR's sig make have black colored BCG, at least last I checked.
I too can take a photo of a BCG and a handful of parts and claim bullshit for attention.
>>23733400
I'm willing to bet this photo was just some random guy showing off his newly ordered bolt for his new AR build, then someone stole it and made this claim using it. Hell, wouldn't be surprised if it arrived in that box in the background.
>>23733400
>>23733457
yeah the guy that made the comment saying how a plane-jane AR-15 is illegal already in California there was no way a gun shop would not notice it being full auto.
then that retard who commented about how "oh I bet it was being converted and they just missed it"
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there an extra space milled out of the receiver in addition to the third hole to allow for the full auto set?
>>23733506
This area determines if it can or cannot accept a sear along with the third hole.
>>23733588
Thanks boof!
>>23733611
Note how much wider it is.
>>23733632
Fairly simple to tell the difference. So why would someone do that? Go on the internet and tell lies?
>>23733690
necro posting in a BOOF threaad
Aaaaand now it's gone. Should we expect a retraction like any professional outfit would furnish, or more revisionist history from the writers/mods? Stay tuned...
>>23735792
Follow up: full retraction. Phil did a halfass job deleting all comments individually before getting lazy and hitting hide all, which still loads the comments into the page before hiding them with Javascript.
>Madcap_Magician
>Who fines the ATF when they send out weapons illegally?
>
>MclarenF1Forever
>In this instance, there really ought to be a Fed law about this, when Fed employees abuse power and/or screw up badly, they ought to have some skin in the game. Sarbanes/Oxley did this for the financial companies, we need the same type of law for the government.
>
>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/ Phil W “Associate Editor TFB”
>Do you really expect SIG to issue a press release that employees screwed up that bad and got fired. The same applies for the ATF and the gun store. They don’t want to talk about mistakes. I don’t blame them either.
>However I did verify the story so yes it’s true.
>
>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/ Phil W “Associate Editor TFB”
>Agreed– He should know he couldn’t keep that lower anyway. Why not send it back and get a new one. No common sense involved in that decision.
>
>Nicholas Chen
>Yeah I was suspect of the lower. Which is why I consulted with more knowledgeable friends. I informed this friend and he will get it fixed.
>
>Cal S.
>I would have asked “What’s in it for me?” and hopefully ended up with something a little extra for my ‘trouble’. Would have sent it back either way.
>
>BryanS
>All of these interesting law suit enabling things happening with Sig and the ATF lately.
>
>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/ Phil W “Associate Editor TFB”
>That’s up to you if you believe it or not. I assured you I checked it I don’t know what else I can do.
>>23736151
>RedScare
>It was cute how Phil was all BAW MY SOURCE IS TRUE AND YOU CAN POUND SAND without really confirming the story. So much for journalism.
>
>Nicholas Chen
>Actually he was hit by a drunk driver recently. I said “it sure is a shame those parts got lost in the accident” No they did not get lost in the accident.
>
>MclarenF1Forever
>Yep, post a pic of the lower with the hole above the safety if he really got it. It sounds like Sig put FA FCG parts into a semi lower if the other part about swapping FCG parts is true.
>>23732628
Turns out Sig did make that comment:
>Earlier today readers starting questioning the validity of the story Nick C wrote. I made a couple of contacts this afternoon but I primarily wanted to talk with the folks at SIG. There’s nothing like talking to the source to get the truth. I just got off the phone a short while ago with a representative of SIG who knows everything that happens with the company. That said I want to cut to the chase and let the readers know this story is 100% untrue. There was no incident as described nor has there ever been.
>
>The writer should have contacted me before posting so I could contact SIG and verify the incident prior to the story going live on TFB. I personally apologize to you the readers for this story ever making it online.
>
>I can assure the readers that SIG is a very efficient company with many safeguards against anything like this ever happening.
>
>With apologies,
>Phil
>- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/25/select-fire-mixup-socal/#disqus_thread
>However I did verify the story so yes it’s true.
>That said I want to cut to the chase and let the readers know this story is 100% untrue.
BTFO.
>>23733253
uh, yeah, as a part of there TOS.
you do realise, that being able to choose what is said and not said on your OWN website, is one of YOUR rights?
>i can post anything i want anytime, anywhere because free speech
secondly, he did. he posted, it was hosted, then it was deleted. nothing stopped him from posting it. nor posting it again.
but its not someone elses responsibility to HOST your shit.
>>23736276
>moronic rant
>>23736304
nope. this is the same as spraypainting your political opinion on houses wall
when i paint over it, dont complain
>>23736323
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_holes
>>23736347
literally what hole
consitutionaly, free speech only applies to the goverment not limiting it. nothing about private individuals.
secondly, even then, they can reserve the right to not print, or repeat comments they decide not to.
your newspaper wont post letters if they are offensive. obamas twitter probably defriends people who use the word cunt.
are you saying they are not allowed?
this is NOT censorship, you are NOT entitled for someone to maintain and post a billboard of YOUR opinion. freedom of speech means you are FREE to speak it, not "other people are entitled to display it on my behalf"
>>23736396
hell, if i posted on YOUR facebook page that guns are evil, and you de-friend me, are you censoring me?
or by not being allowed to choose your own pages content, are you being limited in your own freedom?
>>23736432
Im sick of people assuming all "deleting" is somehow censorship, and how "freedom of speech triumphs ALL".
people dont get that freedom of speech does mean entitlement of speech being reproduced and spread. No one is obligated to reprint, or continue your conversation. this is a freedom TO DO, not an ENTITLEMENT.
if i were to start a new thread here, on /k/, and it was just "i love cocks. why do gun owners hate fags. this is wrong" and it got deleted, is that censorship? no. your allowed to talk about it. not HERE tho.
deleting something hosted on your OWN service is not censorship, you have not restricted the other persons ability to post his opinion, on his own website, or other websites.
>>23736468
not the one writing books above you,but when your argument falls to maymay kitteh ,you and everyone here knows you've lost.
>>23732581
is op's pic a m16 trigger group?
>dat hammer
>>23736482
but blasted tfbjanitor detected
>i tried calling out Phil
>I am now blocked from posting from TFB
phil confirmed for maximum butt hurt
>>23738595
this
it's bad enought that we have to put up with Alex C's shitposting here from time to time
