HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » America's Gun: The Rise o...

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:33 AM

America's Gun: The Rise of the AR-15

The AR-15 is the most popular and, some would say, misunderstood, rifle in America: an estimated four million are in circulation. You can even buy one at Wal-mart, if they're not sold out. It has been used in a number of high profile mass murders, yet it is also the preferred rifle of law-abiding homeowners, hunters, and sport shooters across America.

Link


I caught this on CNBC last night. I thought the show at least attempted to keep things balanced, although it was a bit uneven at some points.

The most glaring omission was show's failure to discuss how the '94 ban was the main driving force in the popularity of the AR platform. It barely touched on it. Also, the show suggests all AR's were banned from 1994-2004, which isn't the case. The law only banned AR's with bayonet lugs and/or collapsible stocks, effectively. It also gave WAY too much face time to James Yaeger I thought.

The show also seemed to indicate that the ammunition the AR fires is uniquely powerful and does an inordinate amount of damage. Maybe compared to handguns, but compared to other high powered rifle ammo, the .223 is on the lower end of the scale of power and destructive capability.

This was CNBC, tho. Considering the source, it wasn't a complete hack job.

90 replies, 20516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply America's Gun: The Rise of the AR-15 (Original post)
Pullo Apr 2013 OP
Chipper Chat Apr 2013 #1
Pullo Apr 2013 #2
gejohnston Apr 2013 #4
ileus Apr 2013 #3
tridim Apr 2013 #8
hack89 Apr 2013 #13
tridim Apr 2013 #18
hack89 Apr 2013 #20
sylvi Apr 2013 #23
ileus Apr 2013 #24
lastlib Apr 2013 #35
ileus Apr 2013 #36
lastlib Apr 2013 #37
clffrdjk May 2013 #65
lastlib May 2013 #66
Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #73
lastlib May 2013 #74
Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #75
oneshooter May 2013 #86
norge May 2013 #67
lastlib May 2013 #68
CokeMachine May 2013 #69
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #78
Howzit May 2013 #89
ileus Apr 2013 #26
lastlib Apr 2013 #38
ileus Apr 2013 #43
Name removed Apr 2013 #62
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #77
tridim May 2013 #79
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #81
tridim May 2013 #82
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #83
hack89 May 2013 #90
Ernesto Apr 2013 #5
gejohnston Apr 2013 #6
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #29
tridim Apr 2013 #7
rrneck Apr 2013 #10
lastlib Apr 2013 #39
rrneck Apr 2013 #40
lastlib Apr 2013 #42
rrneck Apr 2013 #44
lastlib Apr 2013 #45
gejohnston Apr 2013 #46
lastlib Apr 2013 #47
gejohnston Apr 2013 #48
Ghost in the Machine Apr 2013 #59
gejohnston Apr 2013 #61
rrneck Apr 2013 #49
gejohnston Apr 2013 #11
tridim Apr 2013 #12
gejohnston Apr 2013 #14
tridim Apr 2013 #16
gejohnston Apr 2013 #17
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #22
ileus Apr 2013 #25
Pullo Apr 2013 #19
supernaut Apr 2013 #51
mwrguy Apr 2013 #58
lastlib Apr 2013 #41
benEzra Apr 2013 #15
Pullo Apr 2013 #21
krispos42 Apr 2013 #30
Deep13 Apr 2013 #9
lastlib Apr 2013 #27
gejohnston Apr 2013 #28
dookers Apr 2013 #31
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #56
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #32
gejohnston Apr 2013 #33
Pullo Apr 2013 #34
hack89 Apr 2013 #50
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #52
gejohnston Apr 2013 #53
hack89 Apr 2013 #54
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #55
jimmy the one Apr 2013 #57
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #63
jimmy the one May 2013 #64
benEzra May 2013 #71
benEzra May 2013 #70
jimmy the one May 2013 #72
benEzra May 2013 #85
ileus Apr 2013 #60
geckosfeet May 2013 #76
ladjf May 2013 #80
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #84
geek tragedy May 2013 #87
benEzra May 2013 #88

Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:40 AM

1. We have state flowers, state mottos, and state mascots.

How long before the GOP makes us have "state guns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Chipper Chat (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:47 AM

4. a couple of states do

Utah has the 1911 pistol, since it was designed by native son John Browning and was military issue for years. It was probably a bi partisan bill.
Arizona has the Colt model P, for reasons that escape me.
Wyoming has a state bird, coin, tree, dinosaur, fish, flower, fossil, gemstone, grass, mammal, sport, soil but no state gun yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:44 AM

3. What's not to love about the AR platform...

It can be all things so easily.

Home defense....yeah it's got that covered.

Target shooting...spend some coin for a sub moa rifle.

Competitions...dominates 3 gun matches.

Collectable....big time early 20" with the triangle guard.

Hunting....dozens of great claibers to choose from.

100s or parts just waiting to upgrade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:32 PM

8. Uhhh.. Dead children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:02 PM

13. The same could be said for any gun.

handguns kill more children then AR-15s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:24 PM

18. True, and AR-15s are the new death machine of choice for mass murderers.

They perform their primary function very well. To kill many, quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:07 PM

20. Not really

The majority of mass shootings (more than four victims) are done by handguns. And the largest mass shooting in recent history was done with a handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:52 PM

23. Actually, it's the new "death machine of choice"

 

for sensationalizing media types and bombastic gun grabbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:26 PM

24. Mine are the new life saving machine of choice for home defense.

Well actually life protecting machine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:33 PM

35. You're going to protect life by killing someone.....

that's rational...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:37 PM

36. I'm not going to volunteer to die...

nor will volunteer the lives of my family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:15 PM

37. then keep the guns away from the killers who use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #37)

Wed May 1, 2013, 10:53 AM

65. then keep the drugs away from the people who use them.

 

keep beer away from the people who drink it.
keep abortions away from the people who want them.
yea good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #65)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:27 AM

66. fine by me. With your help we can do it.

(If you're not going to help, get out of the way, because we ARE going to change the gun culture in this country.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #37)

Fri May 3, 2013, 08:45 AM

73. The statistically-likely criminal wouldn't need a gun to murder me.

 

The statistically-likely criminal (a young-ish male) wouldn't need a gun to murder me. I'm 5'3", 109lbs...his bare hands would suffice if I couldn't outsprint him. In a gun-free society, the overwhelmingly most-effective method of resisting a violent assault would be taken out of my hands.

No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #73)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:15 AM

74. So use the second most-effective method. Killing is NOT acceptable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #74)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:20 AM

75. You want me to significantly increase my risk? Sorry, but no.

 

And while killing another human being is a traumatic experience for any sane person, there are times when it is acceptable...at least to the vast majority of people. Most folk are not pacifists, and a very strong argument can be made that strict pacifism is a less ethically sound position than is a willingness to resist violent aggression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #74)

Fri May 3, 2013, 06:39 PM

86. And what is the"second most-effective method". We would all like to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #35)

Wed May 1, 2013, 03:17 PM

67. Yes, it IS rational!

That is, if you have any concept of rationality. I can protect the life of my innocent wife and my own life by shooting the brutish thug that kicks in my back door at 3:00 am intent on murdering us during his burglary attempt. Do you think the police are armed only for the purpose of participating in target shooting competitions? Or could it be because they understand that to protect the lives of the innocent, it may be required of them to take the life of a dangerous criminal? Or is that too irrational for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to norge (Reply #67)

Wed May 1, 2013, 05:25 PM

68. You need to find Jesus

Try another board, troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #68)

Wed May 1, 2013, 05:37 PM

69. You need to find a new hobby.

 

Meta is gone get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #68)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:37 AM

78. You are calling someone else a troll?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #18)

Wed May 8, 2013, 07:18 AM

89. Explain this please?

[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:45 PM

26. Don't shoot kids...

in fact don't shoot anyone.

AR15's don't cause dead childern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:17 PM

38. But dead children are the result.

"People with guns kill children."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:26 PM

43. I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #38)


Response to tridim (Reply #8)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:35 AM

77. Speeding automobiles kill more children then AR-15s.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #77)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:45 AM

79. Yes, that is gun nuttery 101.

Are they still printing that idiotic line in your NRA membership packet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #79)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:11 AM

81. Drones kill more children then AR-15s.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #81)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:18 AM

82. Sounds like you're content with all the dead children killed by AR15's

It's all just statistics. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #82)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:29 AM

83. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #82)

Wed May 8, 2013, 07:36 AM

90. So why does Diane Feinstein think that owning AR15s is perfectly fine?

if they are such a menace to society, why no effort to make ownership illegal? That's what makes no sense - if the AWB was passed, it would not remove a single gun from American society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:07 PM

5. the gun that killed Marines!

"The following story is one that I tell with some trepidation, since my experience(s) with the "Matty Mattel Mouse Guns" were not pleasant ones. "


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?10425-The-Saga-of-the-M16-in-Vietnam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ernesto (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:25 PM

6. that's why I have been iffy about

using an .223 for feral pigs or boars. I'd use at least a .30-30 or .308.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ernesto (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 06:43 PM

29. What an interesting and comprehensive post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:31 PM

7. I watched it. It was completely fair..

and thus the gun-nut side got to say exactly why they like their pretty AR's. Their reasons were every bit as scary as I had feared.

A few of the reasons:
They are just like the weapons the military uses!!!!111
They just look cool.
They so easy to use even a girl can fire one.
They don't recoil much at all.
They are quick firing.
They kill very effectively.

According to the documentary AR ammo is designed specifically to cause as much damage as possible and to cause death. It completely nullified the "target practice" excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:39 PM

10. There is no such thing as a benign bullet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:18 PM

39. which is why they need to be regulated, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #39)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:20 PM

40. That's not really doable. ntt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:22 PM

42. yes it is. the bullet-heads just don't want to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:28 PM

44. Billions of rounds of ammunition are manufactured

and expended every year. They are a consumable product. Even if you require ID for each purchase the data would be worthless for solving crimes. And of course lots of people load their own.

The regulatory infrastructure would be a huge boodnoggle with no real benefit. Bullets are worthless without guns. It makes more sense to regulate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:33 PM

45. Ok, let's try both, and see which works better.

I'm with ya, man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:35 PM

46. we did the show ID and keep a list for ammo

from 1968-1986. The ATF supported it's repeal because it served no purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #46)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:42 PM

47. which only proves we didn't do enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:15 PM

48. no,

it means we were trying to fix a broken leg by putting a band aid on the arm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:59 AM

59. Who is "we", and where did "we" do this? I was buying my own ammo for my .22 when I was 14-15...

...years old, which was 1977-78, then my own ammo for my 8mm Mauser when I was 16 and got into deer hunting in 1979. I continued to do so until I graduated in 1981 and sold the 8mm to add to the money I got for graduation gifts so I could move from Tennessee back to Miami, Fla, where I had a job waiting on me. During the years shown above, NEVER ONCE was I asked to show ID, evenn though I was in a very small town where everyone knew everyone, half were related in one way or another, and everyone, including the hardware store clerks where I bought the ammo, knew how old I was.

Hell, Tennessee didn't even have pictures on their licenses until 1986!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:08 AM

61. where I bought ammo in Wyoming,

they obeyed the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:53 PM

49. Legislation doesn't work that way. Sorry.

The taxpayers just hate it when politicians say, "Let's spend a billion dollars and make you jump through hoops and see if it works".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:41 PM

11. they are?

They are just like the weapons the military uses!!!!111
they look like them, but are like them.
They just look cool.
I never thought so
They so easy to use even a girl can fire one.
kind of sexist given that women are generally learn shooting easier and are better at it than men.
They don't recoil much at all.
neither are bolt actions in the same caliber
They are quick firing.

They kill very effectively.
their predecessor was better at it.

According to the documentary AR ammo is designed specifically to cause as much damage as possible and to cause death. It completely nullified the "target practice" excuse.
which is not accurate. The round was designed for distance precision. It is less lethal than the previous military rounds. The round the 5.56 replaced is actually more powerful. Of course that is the function of the ammo, not the gun. There are single shot and bolt action rifles made for the round.
while it was reasonably balanced, it was not entirely accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:47 PM

12. They were based on the M16 and manufacturered for returning Vietnam vets...

Who wanted a military weapon for personal use.

The M16 was based on the first AR-15.

The gun nuts on that documentary sure thought they looked cool.

It is accurate that AR ammo is designed to tumble and shred flesh and bone. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:08 PM

14. no it wasn't designed to tumble and shred flesh

it is strategically better to wound than to kill. The reason being it removes two additional people from the battlefield and puts more strain on the enemy's logistics.

so, was your grandpa's Remington bolt action manufactured for returning WW1 vets? It is a case of "tactical to practical" as the History Channel called it. Of course, the AR isn't the only design.

There has been much criticism of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[23] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the Vietnam War, first Gulf War, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The change of the original 1 in 14 inch barrel twist rate of the AR15 to the 1 in 12 inch barrel twist rate in the M16 and XM16E1, resulted in greater long range accuracy and better bullet stability. However, it also resulted in making the bullet less likely to tumble on impact with soft tissue. Much of the spectacular wounding ability of the original AR15 in the Vietnam War was on account of the 1 in 14 twist and the bullets tendency to tumble and possibly also fragment after impact. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[23] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

while this tumbling did occur, changing the rifling twist fixed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

When you are fighting in a arid environment, the round is a poor choice be it from a M-16 or a HK G36, what the Germans use. There have been cases of the Taliban being out of the effective range of US and NATO forces, but they would be within the effective range of the WW1 era Lee Enfields which uses a round that has more power.

I disagree with the "gun nuts" in the documentary on one thing, I think ARs are fucking ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:10 PM

16. We already know AR15's kill large numbers of people very quickly and effectively.

Why would you even argue this?

AR ammo is designed to mangle flesh and kill, not to shoot paper targets.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with the producers of the documentary.

Edit: And if you want to shoot paper targets, get an air rifle and have all kinds of non-lethal fun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:19 PM

17. i did and

The producers were wrong. You can cling to an urban legend if that is your choice. part of being a liberal is being free of dogma and adjusting your views when information is corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:47 PM

22. Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First off, the military is required to use certain ammo by treaty, the Aurora shooter had access to hunting rounds that are much, much 'worse' from a survival standpoint.

The tumbling effect of the FMJ Ball ammo the military uses is simple compensation for the otherwise inadequate power the cartridge delivers. (Already a workaround given the low weight of the round, compensated by boosting velocity)


These weapons are not legal for hunting deer in most states, because .223 cannot effectively/reliably/humanely kill a 250lb deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:44 PM

25. I have 5 or 6 different types of 223/556.

My green tip 556's are just normal FMJ's nothing to get excited about just good plinking ammo that's reliable.

The family normally plinks with federal 55gr FMJ's from walturd.

If we want to actually shoot groups I have some pretty costly 47gr BT FMJ's

For Turkey, Coyote, and Crows I'll normally use Remington accutips 55gr (Highly recommend for factory ammo)

My AR's are pretty crappy powered compared to my 308, 7.62x39, and 270.

They don't call the 5.56/223 the ole poodle shooter for no reason...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:06 PM

19. A deer round will do MUCH more damage than standard AR-15 ammo

A .308 packs a lot more punch than a .223. So no, the AR-15's ammo does not do an inordinate amount damage compared to other high powered rifle cartridges. Plenty lethal, just nothing unique about it.

Besides, the Mini-14, a semi auto rifle that would not have been banned, fires the exact same ammo as the AR-15. A round fired out of an AR doesn't magically do more damage than the same round fired out of an Mini-14.

Actually, your side's misguided attempts to resurrect the failed "assault" weapons ban fuels the pro-gun movement. This type of overreach is what killed the recent background check compromise, something many gun owners would be fine with. In fact, the driving force of the popularity of the AR-15 today was the inept ban of '94. Now, after this latest push, the AR-15 is even MORE popular than ever before. I hope Feinstein is pleased with the results of her efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:45 PM

51. No.

 

The AR15 was made prior to the M16 afaik.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:54 PM

58. It was not based on the M16. The M16 was based on the AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:21 PM

41. "their predecessor was better at it."

But their victims are just as dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:15 PM

15. I'd love for you to compare .223 Remington to .270 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield (deer calibers).

An AR can't match the velocity or lethality of either.

My 16" AR can throw a 55-grain bullet at about 3000 ft/sec. A .30-06 deer rifle can throw a 55-grain bullet at 4080 ft/sec, a 165-grain bullet at 2800 ft/sec (typical deer load), or 220-grain bullet at 2500 ft/sec.

FWIW, all rifle bullets either tumble or expand, due to basic physics; you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to make it stay point-forward stable when it hits a target. Target bullets and military FMJ tend to simply tumble, whereas hunting bullets and civilian self-defense loads tend to expand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:08 PM

21. "whereas hunting bullets and civilian self-defense loads tend to expand"

thus doing far greater damage than an FMJ, tumbling or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:39 PM

30. So, to clarify...

...they should be really difficult to use, and have terrible recoil while simultaneously firing a bullet that is ineffective in killing somebody?

So, it should somehow fire a lightweight bullet at low velocity, then have some sort of solenoid-driven mechanism to punch the shooter in the shoulder?


Or maybe it should be double barreled, so each time you shot a lightweight bullet at low velocity, a second cartridge, a big old blank cartridge just crammed full of powder, should go off to make the gun kick really hard.

I'm continually amazed that people are surprised that gun technology has evolved beyond Elmer Fudd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:39 PM

9. Is there a way to watch it online? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:48 PM

27. Waiting for the sequel:

"The Fall of the AR-15"

Hope it's out soon!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 06:10 PM

28. during the rise of the AUG?

or SIG?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:48 AM

31. Actually the rise of the AK

The AK platform is getting alot of supporters these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dookers (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:47 AM

56. Just ordered a Bulgarian AK-74, it should arrive in a few days.

 



I'm not very familiar with AKs, so shooting it should be fun!

Now to decide which optic to get for it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:50 AM

32. yes virginia, there is a comparison

ezra: . I'd love for you to compare .223 Remington to .270 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield (deer calibers). An AR can't match the velocity or lethality of either.

Yes the .223 can match lethality, at shorter ranges, less than ~400 yds; greater than ~400 yds the .223's inertia is sapped reducing effectiveness - not momentum, momentum is immaterial, there is essentially nil momentum transfer to a human target, tho if it hits a fly there is significant transfer of mo.

ezra: FWIW, all rifle bullets either tumble or expand, due to basic physics;

After target entry, the .223 round tends to fragment into two main parts on about a 2/3 to 1/3 fracture (plus embedding smaller splintering 'shavings'), which creates two separate wound paths which both can cavitate creating more damage to surrounding internal tissue & organs. Larger bullets are not as prone to fragment.
Furthermore the reduced recoil in the ar15/m16 generally results in more accurate fire than with a larger rifle with greater recoil, due the tendency for rifle rise in the latter which makes accuracy suffer.

The 7.62x39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62x39mm round produces significant wounding in cases where the bullet tumbles in tissue, but produces relatively minor wounds in cases where the bullet exits before beginning to yaw. In the absence of yaw, the M43 round can pencil through tissue with relatively little injury.

The original ammunition for the M16 was the 5.56x45mm M193 round. When fired from a 20″ barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber. These wounds were much larger than those produced by AK-47 and they were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.
As the 5.56mm round's velocity decreases, so does the number of fragments that it produces. The 5.56mm round does not normally fragment at distances beyond 200 meters or at velocities below 2500 ft/s, and its lethality become largely dependent on shot placement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:07 AM

33. the rest of the story

The change of the original 1 in 14 inch barrel twist rate of the AR15 to the 1 in 12 inch barrel twist rate in the M16 and XM16E1, resulted in greater long range accuracy and better bullet stability. However, it also resulted in making the bullet less likely to tumble on impact with soft tissue. Much of the spectacular wounding ability of the original AR15 in the Vietnam War was on account of the 1 in 14 twist and the bullets tendency to tumble and possibly also fragment after impact. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer. This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

So it is about the stability of a light weight bullet going that fast. that being the case, the same should be true if it were fired from a AUG, G36, or a bolt action using the round with the same rifling twist and barrel length.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:59 AM

34. A 270 with a hunting bullet will cause MUCH more devastation than standard .223 ammo

Hornady V-Max, for example.

Features:
Polymer Tip

The polymer tip increases the ballistic coefficient and also initiates dramatic expansion upon impact – even at velocities as low as 1600 fps.


Higher Ballistic Coefficient

Hornady® combines the sharp, pointed polymer tip with the most aerodynamic profile for a high ballistic coefficient. The V-MAX™ profile also provides the maximum bearing surface for added in-flight stability.

Swaged Lead Core

The swaging process allows for precise formation of the core up and around the tip, with a cavity under the tip's stem. This allows the tip to build up energy before smashing into the core, causing dramatic fragmentation of the core and jacket.

Precise Boattail & Flatbase Designs

Utilizing the proper base design provides incredible in-flight stability for long-range shooting

Link


A design such as this ensures maximum energy transfer to the target, and the devastation is massive. Much more so than standard AR-15 ammo at any range. Hunting bullets such as the the V-Max are outlawed by treaty for military use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:23 PM

50. Expanding bullets commonly used in hunting are illegal for warfare

because they are considered inhumane. Any hunting rifle with an expanding bullet will be much more lethal than a 5.56mm/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:54 AM

52. pound for pound of flesh

pullo: Hunting bullets such as the the V-Max are outlawed by treaty for military use.
... hack89 Expanding bullets commonly used in hunting are illegal for warfare because they are considered inhumane. Any hunting rifle with an expanding bullet will be much more lethal than a 5.56mm/


Due the recoil with larger calibers (generally), accuracy would suffer (especially in a classroom). Pound for pound I'll bet the .223 most lethal (or top ten list), but not in stopping power.

The argument that ar15 is 'most popular' rifle in america is pathetic; so is crack cocaine, marlboro, they're death devices in sheeps clothing. The reason assault rifles should be banned or limited is to prevent their saturating communities so that eventually there is no effective regulation possible, & thus a possible killing field every day anywhere. That is the objective nra really wants, gun saturated communities, a big market for recurring gun sales.
The 22 caliber bullet is the 'most popular' to commit suicide with even tho it's one of the least powerful, a bit misleading since ~77% of suicides are not done by 22cal. The ar15 being 'most popular rifle' is misleading as well, since it's ~5 million available are offset by approx 200 million other longguns, & 100 million handguns.

Only a couple percent of americans own an assault rifle, the 98% others have more sense. It's no status symbol to own an assault rifle, no special talent to shoot it, no advantage to home defense more a liability, not cost effective at all but overpay - ownership is moreso a machismo trip to a make believe battlefield, like a video game in your mind.

correction/retraction: I meant momentum transfer to the fly would be significantly increased but even this is invalid, hardly any momentum transfer; was just exaggerating for effect with a half joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:08 AM

53. assault rifles are select fire

by definition and have been tightly regulated if not banned since 1934. ARs are in fact used in rifle competitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 08:02 AM

54. So you have no problems with AR-15s in different calibers?

How about a 6.8mm or a 6.5mm Grendal? Are you saying they are less lethal than an AR-15 in 5.56mm? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:37 AM

55. An AR-15 is a "liability" in home defense?

 

Let me get this straight: you think that during a home invasion, a homeowner's reaction to having a loaded AR-15 at the ready would be, "Dammit! If I only I didn't have this rife, I'd have more of a chance!"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:53 PM

57. ar15 liability in the home

hack: How about a 6.8mm or a 6.5mm Grendal? Are you saying they are less lethal than an AR-15 in 5.56mm? Really?

dunno much about it but google, argue amongst your kin: autobahndriver, albeit 2004- The current 6.5mm Grendel bullet does not fragment due to the thick jacket with no cannilure (target and hunting bullets being used).
team member wrote: You are basically describing the 6.5 Grendell, which is really nice for long-range accuracy shooting. A dual-core 6.5 would just make the bullets REALLY expensive to make. They wouldn't fragment any more than a thin jacketed single-core match bullet would.
http://www.ak47.net/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=196236

Joseph Ledger (27 posts) An AR-15 is a "liability" in home defense?

Yes it's a liability, as most rifles; shoots thru metal doors, drywall, aluminum & even ~quarter inch steel. Unless they make .223 glaser slugs, HA.

Argue amongst your kin: 'lalalala' wrote: 1) In a regular home-invasion scenario, it's most likely going to be a close quarter type of situation, and an AR-15 type gun would be unwieldy around corners/doorways/hallways. Considering the average house has a length of under 21 yards, that's still well within the range of what a handgun could handle, so there's no reason why I wouldn't just use my 9mm. A handgun is also much easier to store securely in a bedroom but also have ready in a jiffy if it's ever needed.
.. 'bear crap' wrote: ARs sucks for inside the home defense. It over penetrates through walls and its too long to handle well in a small hallway. Shotgun or handguns are better for this. You need to re-evaluate the shotgun; you can change barrels for hunting anything and still change it back to a riot barrel for inside the home. Loaded with #4 buckshot it wont over penetrate
.. lalalala again: 4) The last scenario is home-defense in SHTF. I see most rifle owners saying that they will camp out in front of their houses with rifles picking off looters during a SHTF scenario.. If you're camping out in your house with a rifle, where would you camp out exactly? Upstairs window?.. Any camping locations that I can think of.. is highly visible. The bad guys could easily scout you with binoculars and snipe you before you see them coming.. in all of these situations, a handgun would be all a person needs. So again, is the extra investment for a rifle and extra accessories worth it? I'm thinking my best bet is just to save the money and spend it on more handgun ammo, and food.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111012021817AAcd0YC
.. m249junky @ ar15 dot com: The biggest problem with using a rifle in home defense is the velocity of the round, under stress if you miss and it goes through a wall and into your neighbors house and hits someone you are F*%#ed. A 12ga with 00 buck might not penetrate a IIIA vest but it will sure as hell knock them on their ass.

joseph ledger: .. you think that during a home invasion, a homeowner's reaction to having a loaded AR-15 at the ready would be, "Dammit! If I only I didn't have this rife, I'd have more of a chance!"?

Silly question, doesn't warrant an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:22 PM

63. Yes, Glaser does make a .223 round. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #63)

Wed May 1, 2013, 06:37 AM

64. oxymoronic

gscloud: Yes, Glaser does make a .223 round.

Well I'll be, sounds oxymoronic, like attaching a parachute to the .223 bullet after lopping off it's head.
Bet that'll go real well with ar15 owners, use a glaser safety slug so as to denude your killing ability; then they wonder 'did I get my .223's confused with glasers'? am I hunting varmints with a safety slug?
The existence of a glaser .223 means little tho, since there'd be no mandate to use it for home defense, the same existing sitch would exist for most all intents & purposes with an ar15 in the home - most all wouldn't have glasers.
Those inclined to use a glaser with an ar15 would be more inclined to want (or have) a handgun for home defense anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #64)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:17 AM

71. A Glaser in .223 would be kind of redundant

since 40gr .223 already penetrates like birdshot (~1 interior wall or ~6" in gelatin). A lot of LE agencies won't even use 40-55 grain .223 JHP in SWAT use because it doesn't penetrate *enough*, and instead use 62gr SP and whatnot.

The AR in my safe is loaded with Federal 55gr JHP, which penetrates less than 115gr 9mm JHP in both drywall and gelatin, and less than 00 buckshot would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #57)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:17 AM

70. Ummm, .223 JHP penetrates *less* in building materials than 00 buckshot or most pistol JHP.

Joseph Ledger (27 posts) An AR-15 is a "liability" in home defense?

Yes it's a liability, as most rifles; shoots thru metal doors, drywall, aluminum & even ~quarter inch steel. Unless they make .223 glaser slugs, HA.


Ummm, .223 JHP penetrates *less* in drywall and typical residential exterior walls than 00 buckshot or most pistol JHP, which is a big reason why .223 carbines have replaced MP5's in SWAT use.

In tests I've seen using drywall and realistic wall spacing, typical 55gr .223 JHP will be fragmented by the time it exits the second interior wall and will be stopped in the third wall; lighter varmint JHP (e.g. the Hornady 40gr ballistic tip or the old Federal 40gr JHP) will typically be fragmented exiting the first wall, though they arguably don't penetrate enough for defensive use either. Buckshot and 9mm/.40/.45 JHP will typically penetrate 3+ walls.

It is a fallacy in the extreme to take military FMJ designed for penetration, and represent *that* ammo as representative of civilian .223 JHP. .223 with midweight JHP is among the safest of all calibers from a risk-to-your-neighbors standpoint.

And Glasers? Seriously? 1992 called and wants its talking points back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #70)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:38 PM

72. aught notta

ezra:A Glaser in .223 would be kind of redundant since 40gr .223 already penetrates like birdshot (~1 interior wall or ~6" in gelatin). A lot of LE agencies won't even use 40-55 grain .223 JHP in SWAT use because it doesn't penetrate *enough*, instead use 62grSP..

I believe the most popular amongst ar15 owners is the 55gr, are they begging to 'be like swat' now too?

Ummm, .223 JHP penetrates *less* in drywall and typical residential exterior walls than 00 buckshot or most pistol JHP, which is a big reason why .223 carbines have replaced MP5's in SWAT use.

.. who really cares which one outperforms the other? the ar15 .223 can & does penetrate drywall & typical house walls & body armor & steel & can kill family in the next room, no doubt about it. That other self defense firearms can do so better is beside the point & a moot one as well to the point that was made - we're considering the 'most popular rifle in america', it's liability in home defense. A handgun has less chance of doing this, especially with glaser slugs.
Your shotgun with double aught is gonna have a hefty recoil if it penetrates that extent, & if you go lower recoil buck you're not gonna get such penetration. Higher recoil will make the shotgun less accurate as you try to compensate, & the ar15 might shoot 5 times more bullets in the same period gaining more 'unintentional' penetration overall. Tho the sg pellet spread might be as bad, doubt it at that range.

ezra: In tests I've seen using drywall and realistic wall spacing, typical 55gr .223 JHP will be fragmented by the time it exits the second interior wall and will be stopped in the third wall;

Which one of your kin you arguing with?: 'lalalala' 1) In a regular home-invasion scenario, it's most likely going to be a close quarter type of situation, and an AR-15 type gun would be unwieldy around corners/doorways/hallways.. the average house has a length of under 21 yards, that's still well within the range of what a handgun could handle.. handgun is also much easier to store securely in a bedroom but also have ready in a jiffy..
.. 'bear crap' wrote: ARs sucks for inside the home defense. It over penetrates through walls and its too long to handle well in a small hallway. Shotgun or handguns are better..
.. m249junky: The biggest problem with using a rifle in home defense is the velocity of the round, under stress if you miss and it goes through a wall and into your neighbors house and hits someone you are F*%#ed. A 12ga with 00 buck might not penetrate a IIIA vest but it will sure as hell knock them on their ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #72)

Fri May 3, 2013, 11:08 AM

85. Thoughts...

First, you do realize Glasers come in .223 too, right? If you're that attached to the concept. They're redundant, but they sell 'em.

But your information is about twenty years out of date; the fact that .223 JHP penetrates less than pistol JHP and shotgun buckshot has been known since the early 1990s. For a primer (from 15 years ago, no less), I'd suggest Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant", Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45. Or if you need something a little less academic, look at the pics here.

To quote the Roberts article, "When used with effective ammunition, the 5.56mm/.223 carbine simultaneously offers both greater effective range and less potential downrange hazard to bystanders than a 12 ga. shotgun, handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG" (emphasis added).

I believe the most popular amongst ar15 owners is the 55gr, are they begging to 'be like swat' now too?

*I'm* an AR-15 owner, and 55gr JHP (my own choice) penetrates less than the loads SWAT typically uses. LE/SWAT seems to be trending toward the heavier 62-77gr loads for more barrier penetration, since LE use goes beyond sheltering-in-place, but even that is less prone to overpenetration than handgun JHP. But for suburban civilian use other than in law enforcement, I think 55gr JHP/SP strikes a good balance; more effective than the fragile 40gr loads, but with less wall penetration than heavier-bullet loads.

who really cares which one outperforms the other? the ar15 .223 can & does penetrate drywall & typical house walls & body armor & steel & can kill family in the next room, no doubt about it. That other self defense firearms can do so better is beside the point & a moot one as well to the point that was made - we're considering the 'most popular rifle in america', it's liability in home defense. A handgun has less chance of doing this, especially with glaser slugs.

AR-15's. Penetrate. Less. Than. Handguns.

Again---because it seems this is having trouble sinking in----a handgun has more chance of penetrating multiple walls and hitting an innocent than a .223 carbine using comparable ammunition, even though the absolute risk of both is quite low. Yes, if you shoot recklessly at an interior wall with *any* gun (even with Glasers), you can mortally wound someone on the other side of the first wall. But that is less likely with .223 loads than with almost any other caliber.

Re: Glasers, they were all the rage in late 1980's/early 1990's, but the consensus in the wound ballistics community seems to be that there are better choices now. I notice that even the Federal Air Marshals Service has now switched from Glasers to lightweight JHP for on-aircraft use. In 9mm, you're talking about a 75gr or 80gr capsule of very small birdshot at 1500 ft/sec, with neither the mass of a typical pistol round nor the velocity of a carbine. At $45 to $60 per magazine of Glasers, you can't exactly practice with them much, either.

Your shotgun with double aught is gonna have a hefty recoil if it penetrates that extent, & if you go lower recoil buck you're not gonna get such penetration.

Buckshot is buckshot; the lower recoil loads have a lower pellet count but roughly the same velocity and penetration, AFAIK. The shotgun still penetrates more walls than an AR unless you go down to birdshot, and birdshot isn't very effective at stopping a determined assailant beyond near-contact distance.

the ar15 might shoot 5 times more bullets in the same period gaining more 'unintentional' penetration overall.

Huh? An AR shoots at exactly the same rate as a handgun; it fires once and only once when you pull the trigger, and will not fire another round until you release the trigger and pull it a second time. You don't seriously think Title 1 AR's "spray fire," do you?

In a regular home-invasion scenario, it's most likely going to be a close quarter type of situation, and an AR-15 type gun would be unwieldy around corners/doorways/hallways.. the average house has a length of under 21 yards, that's still well within the range of what a handgun could handle.

In your hypothetical "regular home invasion scenario", I would be sheltering in place with 911 on speaker, not opening doors and moving down hallways. And in that scenario, an AR is just as handy as a shotgun, while offering more precision than a handgun or shotgun, more energy than a handgun, and less wall penetration than either. I have a 9mm if I need it, but if someone is trying to get in, I'll choose a long gun, thanks.

If your home layout is such that you'd need one hand to carry a child to the safe room, open doors to get to your child's room, hold a phone, etc. then sure, a handgun of decent capacity might be a better choice for you. But that's not my situation.

So you know where I'm coming from, I shoot USPSA matches with my HD guns (my AR and a S&W 9mm); stages are typically multiple targets from 2 to 20 yards, often with barriers or from cover, so yeah, I know how to run both at across-the-room distances. The handgun reloads faster, the carbine offers more precision.

handgun is also much easier to store securely in a bedroom but also have ready in a jiffy..

It's not either/or. In your "jiffy," I have a handgun; in a couple more seconds, I have the carbine. With the carbine stored in a quick-access safe, it's at hand if I'm in the room.

ARs sucks for inside the home defense. It over penetrates through walls and its too long to handle well in a small hallway. Shotgun or handguns are better.

An AR penetrates less than a handgun and is the same length as a shotgun. Pretending otherwise doesn't help your case.

The biggest problem with using a rifle in home defense is the velocity of the round, under stress if you miss and it goes through a wall and into your neighbors house and hits someone you are F*%#ed.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. With lightly constructed, relatively long-for-width JHP like .223, velocity across different loads is inversely correlated with drywall penetration, while mass is directly correlated. A 40gr .223 at 3600 ft/sec might penetrate one interior wall; a 55gr JHP at 3000 ft/sec might penetrate two; a .45 ACP 230gr JHP at 830 ft/sec will penetrate three or four. Head over to the Box o'Truth and check out the sections on shotgun slugs and .45-70; *those* penetrate like nobody's business because of their mass.

The reason that fast .223 penetrates so little is that when you take a lightly constructed .22-caliber JHP spinning at 300,000 RPM and whack it with a couple slabs of drywall at Mach 3, it tends to destabilize, tumble, and fragment because the centrifugal forces exceed the tensile strength of the materials from which it is constructed. The same is not true of most handgun JHP, since handgun bullets are less long-for-caliber, are traveling far slower, and are less likely to fragment when transitioning from an axial spin to a tumble.

A 12ga with 00 buck might not penetrate a IIIA vest but it will sure as hell knock them on their ass.

No. The momentum delivered to the target is equal to or less than the momentum delivered to the shooter's shoulder. If the 12-gauge doesn't knock the shooter on his/her ass, it won't knock a vest wearer down either. It could cause blunt trauma to someone not wearing a plate, or knock the wind out of them and drop them that way, but the main danger to the person wearing armor is from pellets that miss the armor.

That point is academic, though, since home invasions by people wearing armor aren't common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:58 AM

60. I still need a complete BCG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:32 AM

76. A number? Like 1?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:08 AM

80. Why in the hell do Americans need a military type assault weapon? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #80)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:32 AM

84. "Why in the hell do Americans need a military type" sniper rifle?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pullo (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:22 PM

87. Adam Lanza agreed. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #87)

Sat May 4, 2013, 08:16 AM

88. Adam Lanza owned a .22LR squirrel rifle, not an AR.

As I understand it, he used his .22 to shoot his mother in the face and then stole *her* AR, handguns, and shotgun from her gun safe. I believe she was a competitive shooter, so it's natural she would own an AR.

Had she competed with a Ruger Mini-14 instead, or just the handguns, or just the 12-gauge shotgun, or a 7615, or a brace of 1894's and SAA's, the outcome would have been no different, and the gun control lobby would have still tried to exploit the atrocity to ban AR's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread