Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: America's Gun: The Rise of the AR-15 [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)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 710 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Who is "we", and where did "we" do this? I was buying my own ammo for my .22 when I was 14-15...
Ghost in the Machine
Apr 2013
#59
We already know AR15's kill large numbers of people very quickly and effectively.
tridim
Apr 2013
#16
I'd love for you to compare .223 Remington to .270 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield (deer calibers).
benEzra
Apr 2013
#15
A 270 with a hunting bullet will cause MUCH more devastation than standard .223 ammo
Pullo
Apr 2013
#34