MSNBC, Ari Melber just did a fantastic report on the AR15.

[AndyS]

Last edited Tue Mar 23, 2021, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure it will be available on MSNBC.com tomorrow or youtube.

Extremely educational and explanatory as well as exploding gunner myths.

It IS a military weapon, it not defensive, it IS designed specifically to put as many killing rounds down range as fast as possible.

It is not a 'modern sporting rifle' which is a made up term to re-define a gun designed to meet a pentagon request for quote to replace the M-14 infantry rifle.

edit to add, blob:https://www.msnbc.com/52e3f45f-cc83-4ba3-9867-fc0ec9b08039

Thanks to Josh down thread.

[Hoyt]

1. And it's made to look like a military rifle to tickle rube gunners' fancy.

[malaise]

2. Agree

Rec

[Trueblue1968]

3. re-post this all over

[AndyS]

6. When I find a link.

Part of the segment, paraphrasing, was that military brass wasn't prepared for the devastating wounds. Described a Vietnam casualty shot 3 times: first shot through the chest, second shot made the head disappear third shot separated the arm.

At close range the muzzle velocity is in excess of 3000 feet per second. At this speed the bullet turns everything in front of it into an explosive projectile. Human tissue literally explodes.

'Modern Sporting Rifle' is a made up word to disguise a military infantry rifle.

[IcyPeas]

63. Here's the link to the piece...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017647596

It's posted in Videos and multimedia group

[uponit7771]

4. K&R, All Pistol Grip Rifle or anything close should be banned. They're designed for mass kills

[RainCaster]

35. It's not the pistol grip that kills, its the velocity

When those high velocity shells hit soft human tissue, they explode. The small (0.253) entrance wound becomes a 6 inch wound within three inches of flesh depth. These are designed for one thing only, and that is to kill with maximum efficiency. It ain't the grip- it's the tiny bullet backed by a huge-ass shell full of high velocity powder. That produces a tiny bullet which moves at a ridiculous velocity. That has the power to kill anything it hits simply because of it's destructive kinetic power.

Yes, I use this type of weapon for killing small rodents on my farm. I will never use the larger caliber weapons, which IMHO, are only designed to kill humans. (FYI, I only use 0.17 caliber) If you are using an assault rifle for hunting, you are a piss-poor excuse for a hunter. A 30.06 is more than enough to kill a deer or elk. Your need for an AR-15 is based on the bullshit you have been eating from the NRA.

[uponit7771]

38. True, but its the pistol grip that allows for easier aiming while rapid shot at hip level. Germans

... wouldn't have called it an assault rifle without it and the automatic aspects.

[RainCaster]

39. Agreed. It's the automatic feature that makes it more deadly...

Along with the deep magazines that allow more rounds to be shot before reloading. I'm OK with a bolt-action system that gives me a very accurate shot, but realistically no more than 3 shots in ten seconds. If I can't kill by the second shot, I've done something very wrong. I used to have an automatic rifle- I'm better off with my bolt-action, more accurate by design.

[uponit7771]

42. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾

[joshcryer]

5. It's the .223 or 5.56 bullet that is what makes it so lethal.

Read any YouTube comments on these bullets (review videos, watermelon tests, etc) and you'll see creepy comments calling them "communist erasers" and bragging about their lethality toward humans.

All of the worst mass shootings are done by these high velocity bullets that just ravage the body when they hit them. They are designed to kill.

[Zeitghost]

13. Not quite

The .223 Remington cartridge and the 5.56mm military cartridge that is based on it are fairly mild mannered rifle rounds that have less power than most traditional rifle cartridges you might find in hunting rifle. It is generally considered a "varmint round" suitable for ground squirrels and coyote and in many jurisdictions it is not legal for deer hunting due to a lack of power. It's primary reason for being chosen as a military cartridge had to do with it's lighter weight when compared to 7.62mm or the old .30-06, which allowed soldiers to carry a full load of ammunition at a much lighter weight.

Not trying to defend the use or ownership of the AR-15 by civilians. Simply trying to shed some light on the subject. Carbines like the AR-15 or the AK-47 were designed specifically to fire less powerful ammunition than other rifles.

[Klaralven]

19. The requirement for the M-16 was to have equivalent wounding power to the .30 Carbine cartridge

The .30 caliber M1 Carbine fired a 110 grain bullet at 1990 feet per second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine

The 5.56 mm M-16 round fires a 62 grain bullet at 3150 feet per second. It produces equivalent wounding by a combination of greater hydrostatic shock from the increased velocity and bullet yaw.

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

The previous cartridge used in the M-14 was the 7.62 mm NATO which fired a 147 grain bullet at 2800 feet per second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO

The M1-Garand which was standard in WW II as well as the 1903 Springfield which was standard in WW 1 fired the .30-06 round with a 152 grain bullet at 2805 feet per second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield

Note that the military rounds would be full metal jacket, while the civilian equivalents, such as the .223 Remingon, .308 Winchester, and .30-06 would typically be loaded with bullets that expand to produce a much greater wounding effect.

Although this is allegedly required due to humanitarian considerations, it is more likely that it is due to military advantage to wound rather than kill because wounded soldiers distract their comrades and impose a burden on forces to evacuate them and treat their wounds.

[hack89]

66. Full metal jackets are mandated by international law

Due to the perceived inhumanity of expanding bullets.

[Klaralven]

68. But the enemy's willingness and ability to fight is reduce more by wounding than killing soldiers

And the US is only party to laws forbidding their use in regular combat against uniformed adversaries.

Other ammunition can be used in irregular operations.

Police typically use an expanding bullet, partly to prevent over-penetration.

[hack89]

72. The ICC amended the Hague declaration on expanding bullets in 2010

To cover irregular warfare.

[Dial H For Hero]

80. Hence the Army's new 9mm round, the M1153. It's a hollow point.

(M1153 on the left)

[hack89]

87. Which required significant legal gyrations by Army lawyers

Apparently the ammunition was justified on the grounds of certain urban combat situations required ammunition that won't over penetrate. It will be limited to SOF on a case by case basis.

[KPN]

21. That doesn't align with the Ari Melber segment. So you're

saying the information in that segment is wrong? The velocity info, damage info, etc.?

My view is it doesn’t matter. Semi-automatic weaponry designed initially for military use should be banned. We don’t have a legitimate public use for that stuff. Recreational and/or “collector” use isn’t anywhere near adequate justification for the public harm that the weaponry enables.

[Zeitghost]

33. It's accurate but a bit misleading and missing context

The .223/5.56 cartridge is a small, relatively low powered rifle round when compared to a deer rifle or infantry rifles from WWI/WW2. It's not that they aren't capable of carnage, that is pretty apparent. But the rounds themselves are not some ultra powerful or special technology designed to create as much damage as possible from a shoulder fired weapon. It's a lightweight round with sufficient power that can be easily carried by soldiers in large quantities (remember they carry hundreds of rounds). It generally not considered to be effective enough to take deer, especially at any range.

It's the platform, i.e. a semi auto rifle capable of taking detachable magazines, that is the issue, not the ammo a particular firearm uses.

[joshcryer]

44. So, you're saying they're not desgined to be as lethal as possible?

Taking into consideration all the factors? Such as, you know, the ability to carry lots of them, and rapidly unload them on a target, and such?



Mild mannered.

There's a reason when they're utilized we don't see many hospital visits. There are articles about trauma surgeons trying their best to rescue patients who were hit by
.223/5.56. It's the high velocity that inflicts all the damage.

Read this one: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17244882/youtube-shooting-trauma-surgery-zuckerberg-san-francisco-general-hospital

Trying to find the one where the ER surgeon is just devastated to see people with one wound but when they open them up to treat it entire fucking organs are missing. edit: I found it, Parkland ER Doc: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Mild.

It is without a doubt the military uses this bullet for the sole reason of killing other human beings.

[Klaralven]

73. There was a long prior development of .22 caliber, high-velocity "varmint" rifles and ammunition

The objective was to have a highly accurate rifle and ammunition for killing small animals such as woodchuck, prairie dogs, coyotes, fox, etc. at ranges up to 300 yards.

An early introduction from 1930 was the .22 Hornet, which fired bullets ranging from 35 grains to 55 grains at from 3,060 to 2,652 feet per second.

In 1935 the .220 Swift was introduced, which fired 40 to 60 grain bullets at from 4,213 to 3,647 feet per second. At these velocities, barrel erosion becomes a problem.

[joshcryer]

75. I think this is fascinating...

...but when it come to close range, point blank, shots, yeah... high velocity rounds will kill you.

10 feet away, 15 feet away, a .223/5.56 will kill you. Without warning. Doing your daily business.

[Dial H For Hero]

79. Could not the same be said for virtually any centerfire cartridge?

[joshcryer]

99. The thing is...

Hunting rifles, larger rounds, they aren't as easy to use. Your shoulder is going to get a large kick back. You can't dance around tapping people. Thse AR-15 style guns using these high velocity rounds are easy. So easy. And it will happen. Again, and again, and again.

[Dial H For Hero]

104. Lightweight, low recoiling rifles have been around for over a century.

And in any case, one can always get an AR-15 chambered in a caliber suitable for big game hunting such as 6.8 SPC...and I would submit that it could cause just as much mayhem as one in 5.56x45.

[Klaralven]

135. Actually, at close range, point blank, a .22 Short will kill you

The .22 short was loaded to just under the velocity of sound so the bullet did not produce the "crack" of a supersonic round.

Then, with the muzzle blast silenced, it was very quiet.

High Standard made an automatic pistol which would cycle reliably using an of the .22 Short, Long, or Long Rifle cartridges and these, equipped with silencers were used by OSS agents during WW II. The actual ammo was a .22 Long Rifle with a full metal jacket bullet and a reduced powder load to Short velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Standard_HDM

[LiberalLoner]

14. When it hits flesh the round tumbles. Small hole going in, huge hole going out with

Everything it touched turning into something like something out of a blender.

[underpants]

20. Yep tumbling round. Chews up the victim. An injured soldier takes 3-4 out of the fight

a dead one only take some 1 other soldier out for a short time. Yes these have a good kill ability but a good injury is much better in war. At least that how they trained us. Mines are the same way.

[hack89]

27. That is a myth

The 5.56 is not designed to tumble. It will do a lot of damage but nothing compared to a 30 caliber deer round.

[joshcryer]

48. Point blank not much difference between a 5.56 and a 300.

When your internal organs are rendered mush ain't much that can be done for you.

[hack89]

49. There is a huge difference

That 300 hits with over twice the energy. A 5.56 will blow a big hole in you. A .300 will blow off limbs.

[joshcryer]

51. Dead is dead man.

OK so maybe there's a 1% chance of surviving a 5.56 to the chest or something like that. There's a reason the body count is so high when these fucks use 'em. It's the bullet. They're not even shooting a lot, either, we have the Christchurch event which was filmed live to see how some people were single or double tapped.

[hack89]

54. I was arguing the point that 5.56 was not engineered to be uniquely lethal

Like some on this thread maintain. The US Army seems to agree with me as their next generation of rifles will be a 6.8mm design because of soldiers complaining the 5.56 was not lethal enough.

[joshcryer]

55. It's more that people ret-con its lethality.

Rittenhouses lawyers for instance called it a low caliber round and crap. No, it's a fucking killing bullet, it was designed to kill, it has killed many people, and it will continue to do so.

All it takes is one loser or psychopath the idea, and they can go and inflict massive, massive amounts of damage, with relative ease. A planned target? We saw what happened in Vegas.

There will be another one, and another one, and another one, and we won't do shit about it even though it is patently obvious what the they can be used for.

[hack89]

65. That statement applies to all rifles

So do we ban all rifles? But then for every one person killed by a rifle, 9 are killed by a handgun so do we ban those too?

[joshcryer]

67. Yeah man.

We ban all high velocity smaller caliber rounds not used for hunting.

You guys saying rifle rounds, 300 rounds, make the point.

These are not for shooting deer, they're for war. Ban war rounds. EZ Pz lemon squeezy.

Give us 300 cal all day fucking long.

[hack89]

70. Hunting rounds are much more lethal than smaller caliber rounds

A round needed to kill a 2000 lb elk has to be much more powerful than a round needed to kill a 200 lb man. That .300 hits with over twice the energy as a 5.56.

You do realize, don’t you, that converting an AR15 to a larger hunting round like a 6.8mm simply requires buying a new upper?

And that AR10s come in a multitude of large “hunting” caliber?

[joshcryer]

100. Yeah but good luck using 300 rounds...

...in a mass shooting event. Most of the guns are fucking bolt action. It kicks you back if you're in a standing walking position. Accuracy in these mass shooting events goes down significantly the higher the caliber.

In fact I'd wage that the new higher caliber military rounds, after they go through testing in a wartime environment will be seen as too cumbersome and not worth it. We'll have to see though, hit me up in 20-30 years.

[hack89]

102. The AR10 comes in 7.62mm NATO

Same round that many successful battle rifles like the M-14 and FN FAL. Those combat proven rifles had reputations as being extremely accurate.

As for 6.8mm, US special forces have been using it over a decade - it has been extremely successful.

[joshcryer]

103. Please don't conflate the M60 with the AR15.

A battle is different from door to door ground fighting...

To be clear, any freaking high velocity round is *capable* of killing lots of people.

But none like the .223/5.56.

Yet.

[Dial H For Hero]

107. There's nothing uniquely lethal about 5.56x45 as compared to all other rounds.

I can assure you that 7.62x51 (just for example) is equally, if not more, capable of killing someone.

[joshcryer]

110. Except the WASR-10 sells for 3x the S&W Sport II.

Get your shit together, you know why these idiots chose AR-15 style rifles and it baffles me you don't get it.

High velocity round? Check.

Cheap? Check.

$15 extended magazine? Check.

[Dial H For Hero]

119. And there are AK's on Gunbroker right now for under $800.

The cheapest S&W Sport II was a bit over $700. Almost the same.

But AR's are modular and can be accessorized to a far greater degree than any AK, which is much of their appeal.

[hack89]

111. I didn't. You have no clue what an AR-10 looks like, do you?

7.62 and 6.8 are much more lethal than a 5.56. And they come in rifles identical in size as a AR-15.

[joshcryer]

113. You still haven't accepted that higher rounds don't matter...

...in close mass civilian casualty events. Saying "something is more powerful" is meaningless when both will have the same result. $700 for a S&W Sport II when it's not sold out. A buck a round. Wanna shoot up a preschool? $1 per life. That's what these guns offer.

[hack89]

117. So there is no point in focusing on the bullets, is there. Nt

[joshcryer]

118. There is.

A 9mm isn't going to cause the same injuries. I posted several links to ER doctors, some of whom specialize in gunshot wounds, illustrating the difference.

[Dial H For Hero]

121. No one is disputing that a centerfire rifle round is more lethal than a pistol round.

What's you solution to that? Outlaw some rifle rounds?

[joshcryer]

124. Yes.

You guys have already made the case for me. Big rounds for hunting. Small mags or bolt action. No more bullshit military style rounds for the public. A 9mm will stop a home intruder. If government tyranny actually happens, we'll adapt and create the shit necessary to defend ourselves. It's simple.

[Dial H For Hero]

127. So which rounds do you propose outlawng? What's your definition of a "military-style round"?

[joshcryer]

129. I don't know.

What round do you guys prefer for hunting? Any high velocity round below that.

What is intended for deer should be used for deer.

Ban magazines. Bolt action only. This shit should be simple.

[Dial H For Hero]

132. Well, that does make you propsal a bit difficult.

What round do you guys prefer for hunting? Any high velocity round below that.

It depends. If one is hunting groundhogs or coyotes, the 5.56x45 is ideal.

Deer? .243 Winchester is a good round, so is .270 Winchester.

Elk? .30-06, 7.62x51, .300 Winchester Magnum.

Bear? .45-70, .458 Magnum.

So you see, you really do need to refine your proposal. Military cartridges are routinely used for hunting, and always have been.

Ban magazines. Bolt action only. This shit should be simple.

You want to outlaw all rifles expect single shots? Good luck getting a law that makes 99% of rifles illegal passed.

[Straw Man]

138. Simple?

Ban magazines. Bolt action only. This shit should be simple.

The vast majority of bolt action rifles use magazines. There are a very few bolt-action target rifles that are single-shot.

This shit isn't simple. Treating is as such results in legislation that is as useless as it is contentious.

[Dial H For Hero]

81. The 5.56x45 round used in most AR-15's has been a popular hunting cartridge for over half a century.

It's typically used on varmints such as coyotes and groundhogs.

[Straw Man]

64. Yup.

Dead is dead man.

OK so maybe there's a 1% chance of surviving a 5.56 to the chest or something like that.

There is very little chance of surviving any centerfire rifle round to the chest at close range. The .223/5.56 is not magic. It's a fast, lightweight spitzer bullet, so it does yaw more than a heavier round when it hits something, but in the end it all comes to to mass and velocity. There are plenty of other cartridges that outperform it.

I wouldn't judge the performance of a cartridge by the actions of a deranged murderer. Was he stopping to make sure each victim was dead before moving on to the next? I highly doubt it.

[joshcryer]

69. Christchurch was streamed live.

He one tapped or double tapped his victims. At close range. One guy heroically tried to stop him. Gone instantly (not a head shot, he was chest/torso shot). No ones calling this round magic. But as a high velocity round at close range it is as lethal as any commonly used round you can conjure. The dismissive attitudes toward this high velocity high damage round is fucking hilarious. You guys know I'm right.

[Straw Man]

108. That means nothing in this discussion.

But as a high velocity round at close range it is as lethal as any commonly used round you can conjure.

Exactly. So why have you been trying to claim that it's more lethal? No one is dismissing its lethality. You are overplaying it. Do you want the .223 banned? Would you be happier if mass killers used .30-06, or .30-30 like the deer hunters do? You're not making any sense.

[Dial H For Hero]

52. The 5.56x45 round has less than half the energy of the .30-06 we used in WW1 and WW2.

[Klaralven]

7. It was designed by Eugene Stoner of the ArmaLite division of Fairchild

Actually, Stoner designed the AR-10 for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge. It was unsuccessful in the competition for what became the M-14 rifle of the US Army.

The company then submitted a scaled down 5.56 mm version in the subsequent competition for a lighter rifle. It won the competition and became the M-16 Army rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite

Eugene M. Stoner, left, and Mikhail T. Kalashnikov hold the rifles they designed, taken May 1990.

[AndyS]

17. Yes, and Stoner nor any of his family ever owned an AR-15 or advocated it be available to the

general public.

The reason it is so popular is that prior to this RFQ all military weapons were designed and manufactured through Springfield Armory which is a Pentagon agency. They own all rights and patents attached to the rifle and can be let out for manufacture by contractors that have no right to the design.

The M-16 was the first let out for competitive bids for design.

So, the taxpayer paid for all the R&D and the gun industry made a mint filling Military orders. They retained the design and patents. Then they produced the prototype AR-15 for public sale and made a lot of money.

The M-14 is design is owned by Springfield and although a semi auto is available (the mini-14) it is more expensive and plagued with accuracy and other issues because the maker had to re-invent the wheel without government support.

In a nutshell and not specifically totally accurate to a gunner's standard but close enough for reasonable people.

[underpants]

25. The pistol grip also adds to sales. That's why it was banned for a while after the law

In 1993 I think. It quickly got back into production. A regular rifle grip/trigger set up simply doesn’t sell as well as what people see in the movies.

[Straw Man]

8. There's a problem with one of Ari's characterizations.

It IS a military weapon, it not defensive, it IS designed specifically to put as many killing rounds down range as fast as possible.

The military version is capable of firing in full-auto mode, in other words, like a machine gun. As long as the trigger is held, the gun will fire continuously, at the cyclic rate of 950 rounds-per-minute until the magazine is empty, which with the standard 30-round magazine would take approximately two seconds. The civilian version requires one pull of the trigger to fire each shot, as mandated by law. There is not a human alive who can pull a trigger 30 times in two seconds.

You can certainly argue that the actual rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon is too high for public safety and that there should be more regulation of such weapons, but the characterization of the civilian AR-15 as a military weapon is not a sound basis on which to base your argument. It simply isn't true.

[ashredux]

10. It is velocity....it is a Killing Machine

[Straw Man]

12. As is any hunting rifle.

The main criticism of AR-style rifles is and has been rate-of-fire.

[ashredux]

18. standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 foot pounds.

Bring your data. It isn’t just rate of fire

[Zeitghost]

34. You are correct

It's just that is a relatively low power for a rifle cartridge. The AR-15 gains it's advantage by being lightweight and easy to use and carry over heavier more powerful rifles.

[Straw Man]

41. And a 125-grain .308 Winchester goes 3,100 fps and delivers 2,668 foot pounds.

Almost the same velocity and more than double the energy. That's data.

So are you asking for the .223 round itself to be banned? On the basis of muzzle velocity and energy? That's some pretty weak sauce.

[ashredux]

23. Such a high velocity shell can enter your shoulder and travel through your internal organs

The concussion of the shell hitting the body damage internal organs

It IS designed to kill people....

[Willto]

61. All Bullets

are designed to kill. The .223 is no more effective at killing humans than any of two dozen other rounds. In fact its less lethal than many I could name. Lets stay focused on the weapon itself. That is the real problem here.

[hack89]

28. A 30 caliber deer round is even more lethal

Basic physics- high velocity with a larger heavier round.

[joshcryer]

47. Point blank one single bullet will almost certainly kill you.

Automatic fire is used for suppression not accuracy. You really don't need it. Christchurch shootings prove this. And we have live video feed of exactly how utterly lethal they are. He one or two tapped each of his victims. Any shot to the torso was virtually lethal.

[Straw Man]

59. As will any hunting cartridge.

.30-30, .308, all of them. You cannot convincingly argue that the .223 round is uniquely lethal. Hunters practice to kill deer by hitting them with one shot to the torso. It's what they do.

Ballistic table of rifle cartridges -- velocity/energy, at various distances:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table2.htm

Automatic fire is used for suppression not accuracy. You really don't need it.

That's what the military uses it for. A mass killer has different goals. A mass killer doesn't necessarily "need" accuracy, either. Would the Las Vegas shooter have been able to kill 61 people from his hotel room window without his jury-rigged bump-stock full-auto capability? I very much doubt it.

[joshcryer]

76. The .223/5.56 is unique in mass, concerted, killings.

Guy wants to check out, wants to go out in a blast. It's the bullet of choice. For good reason. It does it's job. Baffled by people downplaying this bullet, tbh.

[Dial H For Hero]

82. It's simply the most common chambering of the the most popular rifle in America.

There are a host of other cartridges that for practical purposes do the same thing.

[joshcryer]

95. Ooh ok. It's just popular.

It wasn't tested by the military to be useful, the pros and cons of other high velocity rounds weren't thought about, the weight vs carry weren't considered. It is what it is. lol

[Straw Man]

105. I don't understand this fixation on the .223/5.56.

Why do you insist on making it something it's not? Yes, it's lethal. It's not uniquely lethal.

Aren't we supposed to be the party that believes in science? As opposed to articles of faith?

[joshcryer]

106. It absolutely is uniuqely lethal.

The topic of this post illustrates that.

[Dial H For Hero]

112. This simply isn't the case. Are you saying that somone hit by a 5.56x45 is two or three times as

likely to be killed as if they were hit in the same part of the body with a 5.45x39, or a 7.62x51?

[joshcryer]

115. Close range in a mass shooting event?

Absofuckinglutely.

[Dial H For Hero]

122. Absurd. The 7.62x51 round has twice the energy of the 5.56x45.

A .22 caliber 62 grain bullet going 2900 fps is not two to three times more lethal than a .30 caliber 150 grain bullet going 2700 fps.

[joshcryer]

126. A .223 is in the chest will kill you...

...99% of the time. At close range.

[Dial H For Hero]

128. 99% of the time? Citation, please.

[joshcryer]

130. OK

[Dial H For Hero]

133. How does that support your assertion that 99% of those hit in the chest by a 5.56x45 round die?

[Straw Man]

114. Cognitive dissonance.

But as a high velocity round at close range it is as lethal as any commonly used round you can conjure.

It absolutely is uniuqely lethal.

How do you explain these mutually contradictory statements that you have made?

[joshcryer]

116. Because of its self-admitted by commonality.

As other users in this thread have illustrated.

[Straw Man]

120. What on earth are you talking about?

The discussion was of the lethality of the cartridge itself, not how many people have been killed by it. If the latter is your criterion, then we should be banning the lowly .22 rimfire, which has killed more people than any other cartridge simply because it is by far the most common caliber on the planet.

[joshcryer]

131. I don't know of any mass shootings...

...utilizing a .22.

[Straw Man]

136. You've never heard of Virigina Tech?

Where the shooter killed 32 people with two pistols, a 9MM and .22?

[Dial H For Hero]

109. No one is saying that the round won't kill someone, but there's been a myth about it being uniquely

lethal as compared to all other rifle rouonds for decades. It's simply not the case.

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. Need a radical rethink of these weapons.

Too many weirdos going for these weapons with eliminationist fantasies. Time to give AR-15 owners options....(1) sell back to USG at fairmarket value or (2) store at a armory where you need to shoot at military approved target sites. At some point, treat AR-15s as a illegal weapon that carries federal charges and penalties.

[jmbar2]

26. Exactly this!

These weapons play into elimination and domination fantasies.

I was in another forum today that erupted in gun thumper posts when the gun control discussion was happening in Washington. Some of those posts, I believe, were Russian trolls, egging them on. They were seriously triggered by gun control discussions.

[ShazzieB]

43. "...seriously triggered by gun control discussions."

Pun not intended, I presume, but definitely apropos!

[jmbar2]

56. pure coinkydink

[Dial H For Hero]

84. That is indeed radical, which is why such a proposal doesn't have the slightest chance of passing.

[Ohioboy]

11. You don't even have to shoot well to kill a lot of people, just point and keep pulling the trigger

[Evolve Dammit]

15. It's time they were banned. Enough. Hunting rifles, shotguns fine. Enough. General Wesley Clark

"You want machine guns? We got 'em. Join the Army." Not going to argue weapon lethality and the subtleties of air speed velocity. Enough. They are weapons of mass killing and need to be crushed to make Teslas. OK, maybe the last line was a sarcastic stretch...

[monkeyman1]

22. agreed 100 %. spent 3 yrs in v.n. jungles . to many wanna be's military clown's

[IcyPeas]

16. Ari showed this list... These shootings are increasing

Link to tweet

?s=19

[burrowowl]

31. Scary!

[joshcryer]

50. Ever since I saw the Christchurch mosque shootings...

...and saw how utterly trivial, and I mean trivial, it is to inflict massive amount of damage against people, it became clear that the .223/5.56 needs to be banned for civilian use in any semi-automatic rifles with magazines limited to 5 rounds.

If we need to be against government tyranny we can manufacture the necessary equipment in short order.

[Ferrets are Cool]

24. Nothing "smart" people didn't already know.

It's just a shame that it has to be explained to stupid people.

[George II]

29. I don't know how much detail they went into, but was ultimately designated the AR-15...

...for ArmaLite model 15, was designed in 1956 for military use (AR is not "Army Rifle" as some people think) ArmaLite was located in Hollywood California of all places!

They had serious financial problems and limited production capacity, so they wound up selling the design to Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut (only about 5 miles from me) It was originally intended for military use, somewhere along the line they decided to sell it to civilians.

In 2019 they announced they would stop making the AR-15 for civilian purposes (why did they ever in the first place?) and earlier this year they were acquired by a European firearms manufacturer, Česká zbrojovka Group in the Czech Republic.

Hopefully Česká will move them over to Europe - we don't want them.

[BlueTsunami2018]

30. I recently purchased one.

I never expected to. But with tensions so high before the election and the very real possibility of the country going full on fascist, a friend and I went and bought S&W Sportsman AR-15s.

To me, there is no doubt that the main purpose of the weapon is exactly as stated above. This is not a hunting rifle, this is designed to take down as many people as you can in as short a time as possible. I think perhaps we may have bought more gun than was necessary for home defense. I don’t expect a biker gang to show up at my door any time soon nor do I see a zombie apocalypse in the offing. I almost certainly do not need it at this point.

But man, it is really fun to shoot. I have to admit that. It’s just fun to ping different targets at varying distances. My dad used to take me shooting when I was a kid but only with handguns. This is an entirely different thing.

If somehow these guns get banned, I suppose I would give it up if properly compensated but I really don’t see my owning one as a dangerous thing for society. I’m sure millions of other people see it the same way.

The problem is keeping them away from people who shouldn’t have them or any gun at all. Extended background checks will help but I’m not sure there’s any way to prevent this kind of thing from happening completely, short of eliminating guns altogether. That’s simply not going to happen. There are hundreds of millions of them out there. It would be near impossible to do.

[SYFROYH]

32. I'll reserve judgment until I see the report

But as a rule, belt fed machine guns were designed to send as many bullets down range as possible.

Not semi-autos with 30 round mags.

[3catwoman3]

36. The ones that come in colors and have cutesy designs...

...are particularly horrifying.

[IcyPeas]

89. I saw this decal on the back of a jeep shortly after Sandy Hook and it is still for sale on Amazon

this makes me truly sick.

[3catwoman3]

92. I don't know if I can think of anything more depraved...

...than the people who told the Sandy Hook parents that they were faking it.


We can lump in all those who deny tragic events - especially Holocaust deniers.

[1cheapbeemr]

37. It's the cartridge that makes it all possible

The world's armies, when creating the first infantry rifles using modern gunpowder, before WW1, had the goals of accuracy and lethality at very long range, based on the assumed practice of aimed rifle fire. The resulting cartridges were similar in size and power, typified by the American 30.06. These cartridges also shared the characteristic of having a sharp recoil, punishing even. Anything more powerful was more than many men could comfortably handle.

WW1 provided lessons not readily learned - the majority of combat occurred at much closer range than had been assumed - the long range ability was a waste. The ammo required was heavy to carry, the heavy kick slowed the rate of fire.

During WW2, the Germans gained a keen grasp of the obvious - they developed a cartridge that was the same caliber, but they cut the cartridge length, cutting the gunpowder - resulting in a round with a much lighter kick, so much so that this could be fired full auto, making every infantryman a machine gunner. The world's first assault rifle, the Stg 44, was born, the term assault rifle coming from Hitler himself.

America was a little slow in coming around to embracing the obvious, but when it did, it decided to follow a new theory - instead of maintaining the original caliber - make the bullet smaller and faster. The 5.56, aka .223.

I qualified on the M-16 in basic - very light recoil, very easy gun to shoot. Not like my dad's 30.06, which about took my arm off. It's what makes it the nasty mass murder weapon it is - even someone with a complete lack of muscle tone like Adam Lanza can wipe out a 1st grade classroom. Add a bump stock and the average fat guy Vegas shooter can run up quite a score. I worked the Celebration of Life of one of his victims. Lovely young woman. Asian as it happens. Will never forget her parent's faces, old country, absolutely stricken. The Vegas doctors published their findings afterwards - the special horrors created by the .223 cartridge. A 9mm pistol bullet creates a passage in the body, the .223 essentially creates an internal explosion. An effective military weapon, has no place in civilian life.

[AndyS]

40. My condolences for your experience. Shouldn't happen to anyone.

I'm also qualified on the M-16, the M-14, the M-60 and the 1911. Of them all the 16/AR-15 is the most deadly. That's what the Pentagon RFQ asked for and that's what they got.

[joshcryer]

58. Hey AndyS it's been posted if you want to edit your post:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/here-s-proof-that-ar-15s-are-weapons-of-war-108989509942

[NewHendoLib]

45. I remain very thankful that I have ZERO interest in guns. None. ever.

Never shot one, touched one, held one.

I simply don't get it.

[BobTheSubgenius]

46. I guess it's a "modern sporting rifle" if the aim is to put a whole ton of lead into a deer.

Or whatever it is you might be trying to kill.

[Willto]

53. It's not the Cartridge

it's the magazine capacity and the rate of fire. Almost any rifle chambered for a deer cartridge is more powerful than a .223 AR-15. The difference is that deer rifles designed for hunting typically only hold about 5 rounds and are commonly a bolt action design which has a much slower rate of fire. Thirty round magazines are typical for AR-15s (100 round mags can be had as well) and even the semi-auto versions have a very high rate of fire. That is why these things are the gun of choice for rampages like this.

But from a pure power stand point a .223 pales in comparison to a 270 or a 30-06 commonly used by hunters. A 30-06 with a 150 grain ballistic tip would explode your chest like a cherry bomb going off inside a watermelon.

The US went to the 5.56x45 or .223 for a variety of reasons and none of them had anything to do with it being more lethal than what they had been using. 1. It's a smaller lighter round so a soldier can carry more rounds of ammo on them. 2. In the age of modern mechanized warfare soldiers are rarely engaging one another farther away than 400 yards and therefore the big full power rounds like 30-06 just aren't needed.

Oh, and the pistol grip has absolutely nothing to do with an Assault rifles effectiveness. There is no functional difference in what you can do with one that has it verses one that does not.

[joshcryer]

57. Dude, point blank there's virtually no difference.

Your chances of surviving a .223 to the chest may be 1% or something like that, but it doesn't matter. We have the statistics and numbers on just how utterly effective they are at mass casualty events. If you watch Christchurch you can see he at most double taps people, he is very methodical and taps over and over, hitting each person once or twice at most, he reloaded one time. Killed almost 60 people. With a "large capacity" 30 round magazine.

[Willto]

60. Did you even read my post?

I said that the magazine capacity and the rate of fire is what make these weapons so lethal. I was merely responding to the people trying to act like there is something especially lethal about this cartridge. There isn't. It's one of the weakest center fire rifle cartridges out there. So lets stay focused on the weapon itself. No one needs 30 round magazines and semi automatic assault rifles. The caliber is the least important aspect of what makes these assault rifles deadly and will just make us look silly getting side tracked on it.

[AndyS]

62. Hey Will, you're right on all points.

We all agree on fire rate and reload speed.

It doesn't mean much if you're shot with a 7.62 or a 5.56. You're fucked either way.

The only point made is that the new, faster round does more damage on a shot by shot comparison.

Whoopie shit! You're screwed either way.

That said the .223 at 3100 feet per second at close range was designed to meet military needs to increase lethality in a lighter weight package.

[joshcryer]

71. I did and all due respect...

I agreed with your points, but I wasn't liking the magazine description. Many, many states ban magazines beyond 10 rounds. CA is currently under an injunction for banning magazines over 10 rounds. It will probably pass in the end, but it will be months if not years before it goes into effect. Meanwhile psychopaths can get 30 round mags all day every day for $15. They are selling out. America has a problem.

[SYFROYH]

74. I wouldn't say fantastic

I'm not calling the people quoted in the Vietnam era report liars, but its physically impossible for a single 5.56 round to take off a head of an adult. The physics just don't make sense in such a claim. I'll let the interested person look up the terminal ballistics data on 5.56 compared to previous infantry rounds like the 7.62 and 30-06. 5.56 ammo is merely the lightest, smallest ammo sufficient for their purpose.

Melber, like a lot of anti-AR15 people, like to conflate the semi-auto AR15 with the select fire/fully automatic M16 issued to combat military. Sure, Melber includes a "damning" quote that the guns are the same in semi-auto mode which is true of virtually every semi-auto rifle ("assault weapon" or not). Its almost a stupid thing to have to say that semi-autos perform like guns in semi-auto mode.

He likes to call the semi-auto AR15 a weapon of war, but we know it's not because we don't issue semi-auto only M-16s in combat situations. I'd like to see the reaction of our military if we required our military to go into war with semi-auto AR15s. Go ahead Melber, go ask some boots on the ground folks or generals. Let's see how that weapon of war claim holds up.

But they can be used for mass shootings, which the vast majority aren't. He's right about that.

[AndyS]

77. Oh give me a break.

"I'm not calling the people quoted in the Vietnam era report liars" and then you do.

The only difference between the AR and current M4 is two rounds per trigger pull. The current issued M4 selects between single and 3 round burst. IT IS NOT FULL AUTO. Whoope shit.

The difference is minimal. I won a $10 bet by proving I could put 400 rounds per minute down range largely on target at 100 yards with a Bushmaster. At 200 rounds per minute I could put all of them on target (human size plastic cut-out). Tho I'm sure my accuracy would fall off if I were under fire or otherwise distracted by people screaming, 20 first graders can be so shrill.

IT IS A MILITARY WEAPON BY DEFINATION. It was developed as a prototype to meet an RFQ for the pentagon. That makes it a military design, period.

You can, and often do, quibble about semantics which are meaningless. Differences without distinctions.

Of course you still cling to idea that about 3% of voters overturned 40 years of congressional control of congress in 1994 instead of the Contract for America, a brilliant political move by Newt Gingrich to solidify the Republican vote. The CFA had 10 planks, not a single damn one mentioned guns, gun rights or the Clinton AWB so what can we expect?

Gun control is a winning issue for Democrats.

[SYFROYH]

78. Gun control, in general, is a winning issue, but banning commonly owned rifles may not be so great.

AndyS, the army did away with the 3-round burst a while ago. M4s are issued select-fire with full-auto because for full-auto matters.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2015/07/04/army-continues-rollout-of-more-durable-full-auto-m4a1/#.YFt1HeaPrFg.google

The AR that was submitted for testing and evaluation had full-auto capability. There is a difference which is why the military requested it and why AR15s don't have it.

By your definition, even pump-action shotguns, revolvers, and lever-actions are military weapons or weapons of war because their basic designs were for military adoption.

You may have a bionic trigger finger, but most people don't.

Bill Clinton still clings to the idea that the NRAs response to the AWB contributed to the congressional takeover.

[Dial H For Hero]

83. Let's grant for the the sake of argument that the AR-15 is a military weapon. So what?

An M1 Garand is a military weapon. Perfectly legal.

A Colt 1911 is military weapon. Perfectly legal.

The fact that a particular weapon is military issue is, in and of itself, irrelevant as to its legality.

[Straw Man]

137. Your information is out of date.

The current issued M4 selects between single and 3 round burst. IT IS NOT FULL AUTO.

Since 2014, the Army has been in the process of replacing/converting burst-fire M4s to full-auto M4A1s. Burst-fire was a half-assed attempt to save ammo, and it did so at the expense of reliable functioning and consistent trigger pull. In any case, a 3-round burst essentially triples the rate-of-fire of a semi-auto only weapon.

[BannonsLiver]

85. I see our resident gunners are out in force in the thread.

Using their NRA taught obfuscation techniques.

[AndyS]

86. 👍

[EX500rider]

88. "Using their NRA taught obfuscation techniques" Commonly know as "facts" ?

[BannonsLiver]

90. there there.

[hunter]

94. Gun fetishes are disgusting.

I don't think they realize how bad it all sounds in polite company.

Like a random old guy on a park bench eyeing little girls with bad intent.

[joshcryer]

101. I have absolute respect for some gun guys here.

And agree with them completely on many topics, including guns. But I feel some may have fallen into the trap of downplaying this gun and its bullet for no good reason. I still respect them, however, and I know they mean well. I don't know if it's because of the potential looming AWB or not, but we need something to be done. This is bullshit. That some guy, at the end of his rope, can go get an AR-15 style weapon and go on a spree is devastating to this country. I want to go shopping and not have to think about this kind of thing. Because I always told myself I am going head on toward the shooter (because I can't live with myself if I didn't), and it's going to get me killed. I shouldn't have to be thinking about that shit if I am in a public space. It's bullshit.

[Dial H For Hero]

125. You find gun enthusiasts comparable to child molesters? Really?

What an....interesting....perspective.

[hunter]

134. Aqualung is only watching...

Gun fetishists are only imagining...

Most of them anyways.

Personally, I don't let anyone I'd care to shoot live in my head.

Life's a lot more pleasant that way.

I've seen people shot, I've seen suicides, I've been threatened by people holding guns.

Gun love is something incomprehensible to me.

Yep, just like those creepy old guys who want to have sex with fifteen year olds.

Satisfied?

[Calista241]

91. Just FYI, the military is considering replacing the M-16 / M-4 platform with a larger caliber

bullet because the 5.56mm bullet isn't powerful enough. The new 6.8mm rifle caliber is seen as a compromise between the current 5.56mm and the old 7.62mm rounds.

The reason for this is that the Army is concerned the 5.56mm does not have the mass to penetrate newer types of body armor under development. The new 6.8mm standard retains most of the velocity of the 5.56mm, and performs better at longer ranges, at the cost of increased recoil (though not nearly as much as the old 7.62mm round). The military has deemed this increased recoil an acceptable tradeoff.

Special Operations Command has largely already made this switch, and the US Army is expected to begin purchasing new rifles in this caliber for mass distribution in FY22.

[AndyS]

93. Yes, I was aware there was a new RFQ for a more lethal rifle.

One reason was that past 100 yards the .223 tends to bounce off windshields (or anything at an angle) for lack of kinetic energy.

Any idea who developed the new rifle?

Makes no difference I guess as it will hit the civilian market as soon as it's adopted. Just what we all need, a more lethal weapon . . .

[joshcryer]

97. Yep, the semi-auto version will be on the market...

...the next day. And the bullet manufactures will be hopping on that shortly after.

And when the next mass shooting happens with a .223/5.56, we'll hear the same shit.

"It wasn't the most lethal bullet."

"It wasn't designed to kill there are more deadly bullets."

"It's common."

xd

Gotta love it.

[AndyS]

98. Lather, rinse and repeat . . .

[Dial H For Hero]

123. The 6.8 SPC has been an available chambering for AR-15's for some time now.

I have one myself.

[joshcryer]

96. only cause ISIS and other groups have started utilizing bp vests

Really.