Gunsplaining to conservatives

[1cheapbeemr]

The great conundrum of the gun control debate comes down to, what is an assault rifle? Your average citizen looks at the visible design features, the detachable large capacity clip, pistol grip, parkerized finish, etc. and says, that's an assault rifle. To which the conservative replies, no it's not, you're such a dummy! Why, because the civilian market weapon doesn't have 'selective fire'; and they may also trot out such as the Ruger Mini 14, and say see, this weapon functions the same, but doesn't have a pistol grip for instance.

But the conservatives are being too cute by half. It's true that the civilian AR-15, as legally sold, does not come with 'selective fire', which allows a weapon to fire in fully automatic, 'machine gun' mode. But what does allow the weapon to fire semi-automatically rapidly in vast quantities, such as Stephen Paddock's feat in Las Vegas, Adam Lanza's in Sandy Hook, etc., is the cartridge, the bullet itself. This is because the assault rifle, as developed by all major militaries, beginning with Nazi Germany's, was developed to give the individual foot soldier the power of automatic fire - and the only way to accomplish this was to reduce the size of the cartridge/bullet to the point where the recoil wouldn't interfere.

Previous military doctrine, dating from before WW1, was predicated on a couple of interrelated factors - aimed rifle fire was to be accurate and lethal out to @ 1000 yards/900 meters; with a recoil to the shooter's shoulder that could be endured for several shots. The American cartridge that resulted was the .30 caliber, the 30.06. Other nation's militaries produced cartridges of similar size - the 30.06 in metric becomes 7.62 X 63; the German Mauser bolt action rifle used 7.92 X 57 for instance.

It became obvious during WW1, that most of the fighting was done within 300 yards, even 200 yards. Also, while a sniper with a scope can make good use of a 1000 yard range, an infantryman with normal iron sights can't even see a man at that range on the other side of his front sight.

Also - the thing to have, is a weapon with the option of fully automatic fire. This is not possible with a .30 caliber sized rifle - the recoil is too severe, the weapon cannot be handled. So, during WW2, the Germans, being clever, developed a cartridge that was their standard rifle caliber, but shorter - the 7.92 X 33, and developed a weapon with all the features that we all now see - large clip, selective fire, pistol grip. It was the StG44. Hitler, being Hitler, held it up for a time, but he did apparently finally give it the name 'assault rifle'.

The Russians felt the grievous effects of the StG44, and started development of what would become the AK-47, again with a shortened version of their standard cartridge.

The U.S. was a little late to the game. The U.S. replaced our WW2 rifle, the M-1 Garand, with another .30 rifle, the M14, but giving it selective fire. In the early years of Vietnam, this weapon proved uncontrollable in fully automatic fire, and the rifles were converted to eliminate that feature.

And so came the AR-15/M16. There were theories in the 50's that a smaller bullet that was faster could prove even more lethal than the established larger calibers. And so the 5.56 X 45 was developed - smaller, longer case relative to the caliber to hold more gunpowder - a faster bullet, that, famously, when it hits a body does disastrous damage inside, as detailed in the autopsy reports made available after some of the recent mass shootings.

It's a bullet that was designed to fire easily and rapidly, within the range of most combat, and achieve the most lethal results. Whether or not the weapon using it has 'selective fire' is almost a distinction without a difference.

[flamin lib]

1. Today's infantry doesn't have full auto rifles.

The current military issue infantry rifle is limited to single or 3 round burst. Full auto suppressive fire is provided by the SAW, squad automatic weapon, one per squad.

Vietnam taught the Pentagon that they couldn't buy enough ammunition to feed full auto infantry rifiles.

That unrelated commtary aside, excellent post and absolutely correct about the origin of the Assault Weapon moniker.

[1cheapbeemr]

4. Yeah, bitd, the M16 I shot in basic had the full auto option

I'd read that the Marines had their guns do the 3-rd burst vs. full auto, didn't realize it extended to the Army too.

[flamin lib]

5. All branches except ship board Navy which

Used AR15s unless they've adopted the M4.

Ships are made of steel with long companionways. A 10 round burst aboard ship could be, well, exciting.

All three of the M16s I was issued were selective auto. Funny story, we qualified annually and were instructed to select single fire. Buddy system, one score one shoot. 100 m target pops up and the Cpl in the fighting hole breaks out a smoke and lights it. 75 m pops up and he just takes another drag. 50 m pops up and he drops the cigarette and flips the selector lever from safe to auto. 25 m pops up and he blows the target apart. Range officer runs over and starts yelling about single fire. Cpl says, " Sir, I have one week left in this man's army and where I just got back from that guy at a hundred yards out not likely to hurt ya but that fucker at 30 feet's about to do you some dirt. " Range officer took the clip board from me and scored him Expert.

I didn't serve in country--only action I saw was on the streets of D.C.

[1cheapbeemr]

6. Heh

The voice of experience...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. DC...

...I remember a time 12-15 years ago when you were in more danger from gun fire in DC than in Baghdad.

[gejohnston]

13. three round burst,

but the National Firearms Act and Title 2 of the Gun Control Act still defines it as a machine gun.

[Alea]

42. The Army has dumped the 3 round burst for the most part

My first deployment I had a M4 with burst. 2nd and 3rd deployment I had the M4A1 semi/full auto.

[needledriver]

2. Were you planning to get to a point?

Really. What are you trying to say?

[1cheapbeemr]

3. Sorry if it didn't come across

Don't know how many times I've been listening to a liberal talk show, and some conservative calls in and says - you don't know what you're talking about, the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Because it doesn't have selective fire...

Of course it is - Stephen Paddock couldn't have shot 600 people in 10 minutes with a .30 caliber rifle.

[needledriver]

7. Of course it is - not.

I’m fully on board with treating any mechanical trigger aids such as bump stocks or trigger cranks as strictly as machine guns. That’s one of the ways he was able to fire so many rounds in ten minutes. That does not mean that the weapons he used were assault rifles. Blurring the definition of assault rifle adds no clarity to the issue of whether and how to regulate private ownership of semi automatic magazine fed “tactical sporting rifles”.

[1cheapbeemr]

8. Well, I think I'm adding clarity.

M1A, civilian version of the M14 - not an assault rifle. The heavy recoil doesn't allow fast fire.

Anything firing the 5.56, semi-auto - close enough for government use.

[needledriver]

10. The M14 has a selector switch

Which makes it a fully automatic battle rifle. As it fires a full power .308 it does not qualify as an assault rifle. Many nations had adopted select fire .308 weapons as their main battle rifle, before tactical doctrine changed to engaging at closer ranges which favor the medium power cartridges of an assault rifle.

“Close enough for government use” is an odd phrase to choose if you are claiming that a semi automatic rifle which fires .223 automatically qualifies as an assault rifle - since governments generally don’t issue their armed forces with semi automatic “assault rifles”.

[1cheapbeemr]

12. As mentioned

In Vietnam, the M14 selective fire was disabled, due to it being uncontrollable in full auto.

[needledriver]

15. That's as may be.

What does it have to do with your unilateral “gunsplaining” that a semi automatic is a machine gun?

Thanks for the history lesson on the development of the moderate powered military rifle cartridge.

If your goal is to define a weapon so as to regulate its possession and use, calling it something that it is not does not advance your cause.

[Alea]

43. Not all M14's had the selector removed

Most did, but many were kept with select fire. Especially for Special Ops units.

[Straw Man]

9. So ...

... your definition of "assault rifle" would include caliber? Interesting. Where you would draw the upper limit? I ask because the M1 Carbine is a ".30 caliber rifle" too, but there's certainly no controllability problem there. And would there be a lower limit as well?

Stephen Paddock couldn't have shot 600 people in 10 minutes with a .30 caliber rifle.

Of course he could have. Full-auto handheld weapons in larger calibers are less controllable, but they are certainly not uncontrollable.

Add the fact that Paddock was shooting from a stationary position, allowing him to rest his rifle or even use a bipod, and the problem disappears entirely.

The weight of ammo was a prime consideration for the military in the adoption of the smaller 5.56 over the larger calibers. Simply put, a soldier can carry much more of it on his/her person.

Sorry, but your thesis does not hold up under scrutiny.

[1cheapbeemr]

11. Querulous much?

The M1 carbine round, as you know, was not the full size rifle round, more akin to the shorts developed by the Germans and Russians for their assault rifles, and for the same reason, to make a weapon that was easier to fire, and easier to fire rapidly.

Take Adam Lanza, skinny, bed room abiding, muscle tone of a ghost - reportedly put @ 10 bullets into each of his tiny victims, shooting them to pieces. Couldn't have done it with any .308, would've taken his arm off.

When the U.S. created a weapon capable of full auto for the 30.06 round, to be hand carried, the result was the BAR, weighing in at over 21 lbs.

It's only with the development of rounds for assault rifles, that any kid can have a weapon capable of such mass murder.

[Straw Man]

35. Erroneous much?

The M1 carbine round, as you know, was not the full size rifle round, more akin to the shorts developed by the Germans and Russians for their assault rifles, and for the same reason, to make a weapon that was easier to fire, and easier to fire rapidly.

Correct. But your reference was to a ".30 caliber rifle," with no further clarification like ".30-06" or ".308". Now you want to get specific. OK, go ahead: List your offending calibers and tell us what you want to do about them.

Take Adam Lanza, skinny, bed room abiding, muscle tone of a ghost - reportedly put @ 10 bullets into each of his tiny victims, shooting them to pieces. Couldn't have done it with any .308, would've taken his arm off.

Taken his arm off? Hyperbole is not your friend. Bruised his shoulder and sprayed a lot of bullets around wildly, yes. In any case, we weren't talking about Lanza. We were talking about Stephen Paddock, who appeared to be of average size and strength. So you want to define "assault rifle" as "a semi-auto that skinny people can use"? How is that definition supposed to be useful?

When the U.S. created a weapon capable of full auto for the 30.06 round, to be hand carried, the result was the BAR, weighing in at over 21 lbs.

Yes -- in 1917. By 1959 the US had created the M14, which weighed half that and fired a comparable round: .308 NATO. And did you not see the video of the .308 50-round mag dump that I posted? No controllability issue for an adult of average strength.

It's only with the development of rounds for assault rifles, that any kid can have a weapon capable of such mass murder.

And again I have to ask: Is your point to define "assault rifle" as "a semi-auto rifle that kids can use"? Why? What possible purpose does that serve?

[gejohnston]

16. Of course it is - Stephen Paddock couldn't have shot 600 people in 10 minutes with a .30 caliber rif

Actually, he could have. Granted, some of the bullets would have went through more than one person. Have to consider also, there is evidence of him being able to control the climb, since many of the rounds went over the victims and hit aviation fuel tanks beyond the concert. The reports also claim he had some AR-10s in .308. He could have done even more damage with a truck or car bomb minus the gun.

[gejohnston]

14. about gunsplaining:

The reason for the smaller round was about weight, not lethality.
Since rifles, including "assault weapons", are used in fewer homicides, by half, of bare hands according to FBI?UCR.

Assault rifle has specific technical definition. "Assault weapon" is anything a politician decides it is. I don't know where you got your information from, it is mostly bullshit.

The AR used at Sandy HooK was not an "assault weapon" as defined by CT law or the 1994-2004 "ban". By Deerfield, IL, definition, this is an "assault weapon". The NY SAFE Act includes target pistols mostly used in the Olympics and World Cup in their definition of "assault weapon".

While I'm not a conservative, I do take issue with being "gunsplained" by people who 1)know nothing about firearms, 2)nothing about firearms laws, 3)nothing about crime statistics, and, 4)can't make an argument based on fact and reason.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. You're just not understanding the process

Objective: ban a group of guns --> pick a set of features --> name the grouping --> verify that somewhere someone has been shot by a weapon in the group --> start a protest, campaign or political action to ban the named grouping.

Assault rifle has specific technical definition. "Assault weapon" is anything a politician decides it is.

By all means please control the guns. Let me abdicate action and leave it to the government because "I'm busy and it's not convenient." Maybe "I'm not qualified."

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster, US Senator

I have no doubt that some politicians are actually earnest and candid regarding new gun laws. I am also quite sure that, for some, gun-"control" issues are merely rungs on a ladder leading to election, re-election or a higher office. The voters will decide who is in each group.

The single-minded pursuit to define, re-define and "control" assault weapons by some folks is a lie and a distraction. "Gun-control" is a myth. The only real control among people (short of places like ADX FLorence) is self-control.

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

The politician's answer to that is to make sure obtaining a weapon for defense requires overcoming a number of hurdles, takes a longer time, costs a lot and includes arbitrary government permissions. The weapons permitted will generally be less efficacious.

I can think of at least one place that really should have been a gun-free zone, 300 Midway Dr, Kent, OH 44242.

The message of many legislators is that more rules and laws are always needed for any problems that confront the people. For the rule breakers politicians will always find ways to build new Occoquan Workhouses and maybe even have private operators so someone can make a profit.

{wiki}:Civil Disobedience (Thoreau) >> I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. - Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.

[1cheapbeemr]

22. Usual conservative chaff

Reminds of Dorothy Parker's take on leading a horse to water...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Reminds me of...

[flamin lib]

23. Yeah, ge, you're right.

Banning something because of some limited, esoteric and narrowly defined description is a bad idea.

So let's just give it up and ban the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of any firearm capable of semi automatic fire that accepts interchangeable magazines or other ammunition feeding devices.

Done!

[gejohnston]

28. You clearly missed the point

Public policy should be based on facts and reason and nothing else. Gun control activists fail to make such arguments. All of them are fallacious and dishonest. They are also illiberal.

This is a fake stat that has been disproved many times. Obama used it. As always happens, the anti-gun advocates simply won’t play fair and try to win this policy debate using facts and reason. They always default to emotionalism, fear-mongering, dishonest journalism (I’ll be writing about CNN’s disastrous “town meeting” later), lies, distortions, and fake statistics. When the emotional rush of the particular tragedy is over, and non-substantive cries like “Never again!”, “Your right to own a gun shouldn’t trump a child’s right to live!”, “Do something!” and “Kill the NRA!” lose their power to persuade people no longer in grade school, sufficient numbers of citizens stop and think, “You know what? We can’t trust these people! They lie.”

https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/02/23/ethics-dunce-who-exemplifies-why-this-anti-gun-freakout-wont-be-any-more-successful-than-the-last-one-senator-bernie-sanders/

[flamin lib]

29. You certainly are full of yourself.

When it comes to guns you wouldn't recognize a fact if it smacked you in the face UNLESS it supports your narrow opinion. If it supports your narrow opinion it makes no difference how tenuous the evidence or shoddy the source you will wave it like a bloody shirt. If something doesn't support your narrow opinion it seems to be shrouded in an invisibility cloak from Harry Potter.

What I'm trying to say is that so much of your "evidence" is so tainted by your gun love blinders that when you do present something that might be worthy of consideration your past performances preclude its acceptance.

I will say this though, you have a mind like a steel trap. Closed tight.

[gejohnston]

30. everything you said

is pure projection.

[flamin lib]

31. Oh, I see,

The elementary school taunt: I'm ruller, you're glue . . .

Typical of your "debate" level.

This is becoming tiresome.

Have the last say and declare victory, then just go away.

[oneshooter]

32. Don't look too honestly in a mirror.

You might not like what you see.

[oneshooter]

19. The 7.62x 39 AK round is NOT a shortened 7.62X54R cartridge.

THIS is the 7.62x54R

This is the 7.62X39

Please explain to me your belief that one is produced by shortening the other,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. First insert magic wand...

...that second step.

[1cheapbeemr]

21. Same caliber, shorter cartridge with less powder.

And so, less powerful, less recoil. What am I missing?

[oneshooter]

27. You were wrong.

The German 7.92X 33mm Kurz WAS a shortened 7.92 X 57 Mauser cartridge. The Russians developed a separate rimless cartridge for the AK series of rifles.

THAT is what you got wrong.

"The Russians felt the grievous effects of the StG44, and started development of what would become the AK-47, again with a shortened version of their standard cartridge. "

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. regarding...

It's a bullet that was designed to fire easily and rapidly, within the range of most combat, and achieve the most lethal results. Whether or not the weapon using it has 'selective fire' is almost a distinction without a difference.

Sounds good for self-defense.

[J_William_Ryan]

26. This issue has been rendered moot, of course,

the consequence of Trump’s election.

Should a Democratic Congress enact a new AWB signed into law by a Democratic president, that law will be struck down by a conservative Supreme Court.

[spin]

34. There are undoubtedly a good number of gun owners who voted for Trump...

rather than Hillary not because he was the better candidate but because they realized Hillary would be able to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court. A liberal court would obviously approve of stronger gun control laws than a conservative court.

[aikoaiko]

33. So its not a machine gun.

Good to know.

[jimmy the one]

36. recoil the rub, gun headaches may result

beemr: ... fully automatic fire. This is not possible with a .30 caliber sized rifle - the recoil is too severe, the weapon cannot be handled.

Good OP beemr. I've argued often here the ar15 & its .223 rockets should be banned due to light recoil. Tashfeen Malik, one of the two san bernadino shooters who killed 14 in 2015, weighed ~90 lbs accd'g to her lawyer, was carrying an ar15 &/or 9mm pistol.
Oddly enough her lawyer argued her light weight precluded AR15 shooting ability - yet that she carried an ar15 itself indicates she planned & could shoot it (what & whether she actually shot I dunno): He said that Malik weight {sic} 90 pounds and that she would have been unable to carry assault rifles and tactical gear. https://heavy.com/news/2015/12/tashfeen-malik-syed-farook-wife-suspect-inland-regional-center-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect-facebook-page/
>> wiki: Farook and Malik used two .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles, two 9 mm caliber semi-automatic pistols, and an explosive device in the attack

I'm hardly an expert on assault rifles, only having shot an m16 for 15 minutes at an annapolis navy firing range (after qualifying as enlisted marksman with .45 pistol, maybe 1911, dunno). This qual has in the past put me in gejohnston's & others class of DU 'anti gunners' who speak of guns while knowing 'nothing of firearms'. I see you got in too.

chuck hawks recoil table: .. the figures in any recoil table should be taken as approximate. Never-the-less, the table below should give a reasonably accurate comparison of the recoil of most popular rifle cartridges.
.. the majority of authorities agree that recoil of over twenty foot pounds will cause most shooters to develop a serous flinch, which is ruinous to bullet placement (the prime component of killing power). Fifteen foot pounds is probably about the maximum recoil energy most shooters feel reasonably comfortable with..
While recoil energy determines how hard the blow to the shoulder feels, recoil velocity determines how abrupt the blow to the shoulder feels. My subjective impression is that, with a well designed stock, recoil velocity above about 10 fps begins to feel like a sharp rap on the shoulder rather than an abrupt push.
1909, the British Textbook of Small Arms stated that 15 ft. lbs. of free recoil energy was the maximum allowable for a military service rifle. The 1929 edition of the same textbook stated, in addition, that recoil velocity should not exceed 15 fps; above that velocity a gun-headache was very likely to occur. These figures remain practical maximums for the modern hunter.
Above this level recoil becomes increasingly intrusive. https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

bullet (grain wt,muzvel) -- RifleWt- Recoil energy- Recoil velocity

.223 Rem. (45 at 3500) ... 8.5 ......2.6.......4.5
.223 Rem. (55 at 3200) ...8.0 .......3.2...... 5.1
.223 Rem. (62 at 3025) ...7.0 .......3.9...... 6.0

.30-06 Spfd. (150 at 2910) 8.0..... 17.6..... 11.9
.30-06 Spfd. (165 at 2900) 8.0..... 20.1..... 12.7
.30-06 Spfd. (180 at 2700) 8.0..... 20.3..... 12.8
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=197924

The recoil energy & recoil velocity tend to increase as you go down the table.

Appears the AR15 & 9mm pistol malik might've carried, had recoil energy parity, & ar15 half the recoil velocity.
handgun- glock 17 9mm 124 gr) .........NA ...... 3.5 ..... 10.4
handgun- 9mm Makarov (95 at 1025) ....1.5....3.0 .... 11.2
... gleaned from chuckhawks handgun recoil table, & a gun website.

(jto in above link): re the term 'assault rifle': howsoever it evolved, somewhen it has become a political term used today to mainly define rifles with a high muzzle velocity which often have an automatic rifle equivalent in the military {AR15 to M16, AK47, 74}, and which can often be converted back from civilian semi-auto to full automatic by use of a conversion kit or sometimes a simple tool such as a file (not that many assault rifle owners do this, it would be counter productive, just that the capability exists).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. you're opinion here would be interesting

you're words:

"I've argued often here the ar15 & its .223 rockets should be banned due to light recoil."

Politically, we mostly discuss the civilian terms "assault weapon and assault rifle" regarding restriction and regulation. Would it be fair to infer from your position, above, that a semi auto rifle firing .223 having a recoil energy below a certain amount would be subject to extra regulation while a somewhat similar rifle firing the same round with a higher recoil energy would not?

I know there would be figuring about what that energy would be but there might be something quantifiable in that reasoning that could serve as a point of discussion/negotiation.

[1cheapbeemr]

38. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

When I would shoot my dad's Winchester model 70 in 30.06, it would just about take my arm off. When I shot the M16, it was like plinking with a .22.

I tried to lay out here the simple and documented military history, with all the major powers coming to the same conclusion - the original design parameters of the infantry rifle were misplaced, and something less powerful would also allow rapid fire.

The particular genius of the .223/5.56 is that this much smaller but faster bullet causes such catastrophic damage - reading the autopsy reports out of Vegas and such, with doctor's comments that it was common for a bullet to hit in the upper chest, and come out the butt, destroying everything in between.

Thom Hartmann, for instance, advocates a ban on everything semi-auto, but I don't think that's especially useful. That would ban everything from the 20th c. pretty much, and I don't think banning Ruger 10/22's, M1 Garands or the Colt 1911 is needed. The .223/5.56 is its own special nasty case though. For that, a case can be made.

[Straw Man]

39. Hmm ...

When I would shoot my dad's Winchester model 70 in 30.06, it would just about take my arm off. When I shot the M16, it was like plinking with a .22.

Both of those statements are hyperbolic to the point of irrationality. The recoil energy of .22LR in an average rifle is .2; the recoil energy of .223 in a relatively light rifle is 3.9, or twenty times that of the .22LR; the recoil energy of lightly loaded .30-06 is 10.2, or about two-and-a-half times that of the .223. The .223 is much closer to the .30-06 than it is to the .22LR.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

In other words, if a .223 feels like a .22 to you, then you should have no problem with a .30-06.

The particular genius of the .223/5.56 is that this much smaller but faster bullet causes such catastrophic damage - reading the autopsy reports out of Vegas and such, with doctor's comments that it was common for a bullet to hit in the upper chest, and come out the butt, destroying everything in between.

As would pretty much any centerfire rifle round. The high speed and light weight of the .223 bullet make it less apt to penetrate, and more likely to yaw and fragment on contact. The wounds it causes are indeed severe, but that is not due to the type of penetration you describe.

Thom Hartmann, for instance, advocates a ban on everything semi-auto, but I don't think that's especially useful. That would ban everything from the 20th c. pretty much, and I don't think banning Ruger 10/22's, M1 Garands or the Colt 1911 is needed. The .223/5.56 is its own special nasty case though. For that, a case can be made.

And what would you do about reloaders who create their own reduced-power loads for the .30-06 and .308 cartridges to minimize recoil, facilitating rapid fire of their Garands and M1As? Would you ban that as well?

[1cheapbeemr]

40. You do specialize with strawman arguments, don't you?

The assault rifle, from its inception, was designed to be easy to fire, it is. The M16/AR15 especially.

Have you read the autopsy reports from such as Vegas? The Dr.'s comments are very specific as to the damage caused by this round.

When mass shootings are done by re-loaders, we'll worry about that then.

[Straw Man]

41. You don't know what a straw man argument is, apparently.

It involves misrepresenting your interlocutor's position. I haven't done that. I've corrected your faulty or incomplete information. That's a whole different thing.

The assault rifle, from its inception, was designed to be easy to fire, it is. The M16/AR15 especially.

The assault rifle was designed to be a select-fire rifle with a detachable magazine. The 5.56 round was adopted in the '60s to make assault rifles easier to fire and to enable soldiers to carry more ammo. The Europeans persisted with .308/7.62 assault rifles for 30 more years. Somehow it didn't seem to be that much of a problem.

I stand by the fact that larger and heavier centerfire rounds have penetration that exceeds that of the .223/5.56. It's elementary ballistics. The faster, lighter rounds penetrate less but do more tissue damage. Paddock used both .223 and .308 rifles -- nine of the rifles found in Paddock's room were .308, and eight of those were semi-auto.

https://www.ktnv.com/news/las-vegas-shooting/list-guns-and-evidence-from-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/las-vegas-horror-stephen-paddock-ended-massacre-with-his-tiniest-weapon/news-story/b786741b6ae8f7d657164999f02d96c0?nk=9e364eec3a824298877883cde532743d-1535692942

Unless the autopsy doctors were recovering intact bullets -- which is highly unlikely -- they couldn't know for certain which rounds made which wounds. Could Paddock have accomplished his spree with .30-caliber weapons? Of course he could, because he did -- at least partially.

When mass shootings are done by re-loaders, we'll worry about that then.

Paddock purchased some of his ammunition from a reloader.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/charges-file-man-sold-stephen-paddock-ammunition/

Shall we worry about it now?

I repeat: Your premise doesn't hold water.

[jimmy the one]

45. 5.56 vs 7.62

beemr wrote: When I would shoot my dad's Winchester model 70 in 30.06, it would just about take my arm off. When I shot the M16, it was like plinking with a .22.

strawman replied: Both of those statements are hyperbolic to the point of irrationality. The recoil energy of .22LR in an average rifle is .2; the recoil energy of .223 in a relatively light rifle is 3.9, or twenty times that of the .22LR; the recoil energy of lightly loaded .30-06 is 10.2, or about two-and-a-half times that of the .223. The .223 is much closer to the .30-06 than it is to the .22LR.

Fer chryce sake, he's not equating a 0.223 fmj to a 22 long. Beemr said it was 'like' plinking, and 'like' is synonymous with 'similar' in his context, since the recoil wasn't 'taking his arm off' like the 30.06. He's not equating both the 22 calibers recoil, just sayin that there's such little recoil in the m16 it was similar to plinking with a 22.
Then you lie with statistics, saying the .223 is 20 times the recoil of a 22 long, while the 30.06 has 'only' twice+ the recoil of the .223 ar15. By you going 50 mph is closer to 20 mph than 20 mph is to 1 mph.
You picked 125 grain 30.06 vs 62 grain .223, whereas a 150 grain 30.06 would be 17.6 recoil vs 3.9 recoil for the 62 grain .223.
__________________________________________

beemr wrote: The particular genius of the .223/5.56 is that this much smaller but faster bullet causes such catastrophic damage - reading the autopsy reports out of Vegas and such, with doctor's comments that it was common for a bullet to hit in the upper chest, and come out the butt, destroying everything in between.

straw man: As would pretty much any centerfire rifle round. The high speed and light weight of the .223 bullet make it less apt to penetrate, and more likely to yaw and fragment on contact. The wounds it causes are indeed severe, but that is not due to the type of penetration you describe.

Sure it is - beemr said wounds from the .223 were a result of high speed & light weight (which resulted in typical fragmenting as you said). Your mistake is interpreting the doctor's comments and applying those wounds generally and falsely assigning to beemr.
All the doctor said was that it was 'common' to see injuries of that nature - .223 bullets going through a body & causing gaping exit wounds, not that they were the rule. It would be 'common' for a doc to see the 7.62 bullet go thru a chest thru rectum as well, but causing less damage, without cavitating at all or as much as a .223.

comparison of ak47 with m16/ar15
M16 ........ bullet 5.56×45mm ... recoil 3.2
AK-47 .... bullet 7.62×39mm ... recoil 4.4 {6.9 accd'g chuckhawks}
AK-74 ..... bullet 5.45×39mm ... recoil {similar to m16}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

wiki: The original ammunition for the M16 was 5.56×45mm 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.

AK-47's heavier 7.62×39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56×45mm ...The 7.62×39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment in soft tissue and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62×39mm 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.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

So in significant cases the ak47 bullet can act more like a dagger thrust thru the body with no cavitation or fragmenting of bullet, with a greater chance of survival, than the m16's .223 bullet more devastating wounds, which was beemr's, and mine in the past, contention.

Most, if not all, of the 7.62×39mm ammunition found today is of the upgraded M67 variety... However, like the M43, the wounding potential of M67 is mostly limited to the small permanent wound channel the bullet itself makes, especially when the bullet yaws (tumbles)..

I just learned the distinction tween ak47 and ak74, makes it all worthwhile: "The AK-74 assault rifle was a Soviet answer to the US M16." The Russians realized that the M16 had better range and accuracy over the AKM, and that its lighter cartridge allows soldiers to carry more ammunition. Therefore, in 1967, the USSR issued an official requirement to replace the AKM and the 7.62×39mm cartridge.[339] They soon began to develop the AK-74 and the 5.45×39mm cartridge

The [soviet} 5.45 mm bullet tumbles in soft tissue producing temporary cavities at a depth of (3.9 in) and (13.8 in).. The 5.45mm round offers better penetration over the U.S. round. However, unlike its counterpart, the 5.45mm round "does not deform or fragment when striking soft tissues." Nevertheless, during the Afghan war the Mujahedeen called the 5.45×39mm round the "Poison Bullet" due to the severe wounds it produced to extremities and the resulting need to amputate

straw man: I stand by the fact that larger and heavier centerfire rounds have penetration that exceeds that of the .223/5.56. It's elementary ballistics. The faster, lighter rounds penetrate less but do more tissue damage.

So what are you arguing about? you agree the .223 causes more damage.
Me? would rather be shot by an ak47 than an m16. If those were my only two options, that is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. The 5.56 is not a good short range SD ammo

Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variations between different projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as well as Fleet Yaw variations between different rifles, were recently elucidated by the JSWB-IPT. These yaw issues were most noticeable at close ranges and were more prevalent with certain calibers and bullet styles–the most susceptible being 5.56 mm FMJ ammunition like M855 and M193.

What this means is that two shooters firing the same lot of M855 from their M4’s with identical shot placement can have dramatically different terminal performance results: one shooter states that his M855 is working great and is effective at dropping bad guys, while the other complains his opponents are not being incapacitated because M855 is zipping right through the targets without upsetting. Both shooters are telling the truth… Gary Roberts, MD 2009

[Alea]

44. This post is why people that can't gunsplain shouldn't gunsplain

It's more like hyperventisplaining.