General Discussion

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)

125. Okay, here's proof you're wrong.

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:24 PM

Dec 2012

Civil War era Sharps rifle : .45 cal, 300 grain bullet. 2275 ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 4676 Joules.

Ww1 era Springfield rifle: .308 can, 220 grain bullet. 2300 ft/sec muzzle velocity. 3505 Joules of Kinetic Energy

WW1 to present era Lee-Enfield rifle (still in use): .303 cal, 180 grain bullet. 2441 ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 3574 Joules.

WW2 era M1 Garand rifle (standard US in WW2, but used until recent as a sniper rifle): .30-06 cal, 220 grain bullet. 2500ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 4042 Joules.

Vietnam until present era M16 Assault rifle: .223 cal, 62 grain bullet. 3110 ft/sec muzzle velocity. 1767 Joules of kinetic energy.

So, firepower of common military rifles remained somewhat constant during the 100 year period from the civil war until Vietnam. When automatic weapons were introduced during Vietnam, the firepower was REDUCED by over half. Your assertion in OP is not only wrong, it's a pants on fire wrong.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

170 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

With the destructive power of guns increasing year over year something HAS to be done [View all] samsingh Dec 2012 OP

What do you suggest? nt jmg257 Dec 2012 #1

just that something will have to be done and 2nd amendment proponents can't keep ignoring samsingh Dec 2012 #6

Grenade-like bullets? (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #21

Its their "when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" moment. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #29

you just like making shit up samsingh Dec 2012 #114

I tend to agree that it will be economics that causes changes-- marions ghost Dec 2012 #111

A false premise does not lead to a productive discussion slackmaster Dec 2012 #2

no productive discussion has been happening since 1995 samsingh Dec 2012 #3

I'd set the date at 1913 slackmaster Dec 2012 #5

let's try to stick with American history during our lifetimes samsingh Dec 2012 #7

The "destructive power" of guns has not increased in a long, long time slackmaster Dec 2012 #9

well it's not you i'm trying to convince in any case, but expressing my opinion samsingh Dec 2012 #17

12 gauge semiautomatic shotguns exboyfil Dec 2012 #19

Can you find one example of a homicide involving a semi-automatic shotgun with a 20 round magazine ? HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #23

Just wait exboyfil Dec 2012 #30

There's more of them than assault weapon murders sir pball Dec 2012 #31

Right. Handguns are about 75% of homicides. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #44

2.8% sir pball Dec 2012 #51

All firearms are ~75%, handguns are ~50% sir pball Dec 2012 #53

Oh, yes. I agree. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #64

A few years back you could not point to one nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #159

World War 2 M1 Garand vs. 21st Century Gun Nut AR15 + 30 round clip jpak Dec 2012 #128

.30-'06 muzzle energy near 3,000 foot-pounds. 5.56 mm muzzle energy about 1,100 foot-pounds. slackmaster Dec 2012 #130

Yet another gun nuttery deflection - why doesn't the US Army use the M1 Garard today? jpak Dec 2012 #138

If I want to destroy something at 500 or 600 yards slackmaster Dec 2012 #139

No, it is not the weight. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #160

my new favorite response, can I steal it? NightWatcher Dec 2012 #8

Please do. I have more than 1,000 "gun threads" in my trash bin slackmaster Dec 2012 #10

same here Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #12

why do you trivialize rape that way? samsingh Dec 2012 #15

wow that's so witty samsingh Dec 2012 #78

Is this about the Columbine shootings? mmonk Dec 2012 #4

Guns have not become significantly more powerful since about World War I (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #11

You knew shit was going to turn bad when wal-turd ileus Dec 2012 #13

Congratulations...a new world record in hyperbole! HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #14

my point is being made about what is important to some gun proponents samsingh Dec 2012 #16

The only point you've made is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #20

how could it be fabrication when i'm making a forecast? samsingh Dec 2012 #22

Oh, bullshit. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #26

i can see your ability to talk about a point rationally - let me try your reasoning samsingh Dec 2012 #36

I didn't make the claim firepower was increasing exponentially year by year. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #46

you clearly - and i'll type this slowly - don't understand what you are taking about or reading in samsingh Dec 2012 #71

Duh, because your posts are nothing but ignorant babble. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #86

prove i'm wrong samsingh Dec 2012 #91

You made the initial claim, you back it up. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #99

This message was self-deleted by its author samsingh Dec 2012 #100

if gun capabilities have not changed since the late 1800s (i laugh as i type this) samsingh Dec 2012 #104

Many reasons. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #110

so you've answered the question you've been pestering me with samsingh Dec 2012 #115

As an unbiased observer - pretty lame, Sam. jmg257 Dec 2012 #117

ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:HISTORY AND PROSPECTS samsingh Dec 2012 #118

Not true at all. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #126

as a comparison samsingh Dec 2012 #119

Have you ever seen a BAR? The M1918 version? jmg257 Dec 2012 #121

the M14 appears to be pretty bulky. The AR-15 is far easier to handle. samsingh Dec 2012 #122

That is true...which is why they were adopted (m16). Little to do with OP though. Nt jmg257 Dec 2012 #123

this is not a f=ma or e=mc2 discussion samsingh Dec 2012 #124

So you are saying the firepower of a rifle is dependant on its APPEARANCE? HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #127

You're asking him/her to prove a negative. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #59

i'm being asked to prove my forecast samsingh Dec 2012 #69

It's silly when it's being done to you, too. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #73

i was making a forecast - empirical evidence is used to validate a point - not a forecast. samsingh Dec 2012 #75

Actually, empirical evidence is used to substantiate forecasts all the time. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #79

here's one of many web definitions samsingh Dec 2012 #82

OK, let's see the empirical data supporting your "forecast". HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #88

i'm laughing at your complete disregard for what i'm trying to say samsingh Dec 2012 #89

You've made preposterous claims, unsubstantiated by any facts. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #97

why do you think i care whether you address it or not - your acceptance or rejection is completely samsingh Dec 2012 #102

So, you are unable to substantiate even one claim. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #112

guess you can't understand the multiple threads woven in my paragraph samsingh Dec 2012 #113

No, you didn't make a forecast. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #87

firepower has increased exponentially samsingh Dec 2012 #90

Prove it. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #98

you prove it hasn't for every weapon and bullet that is available samsingh Dec 2012 #101

Okay, here's proof you're wrong. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #125

interesting samsingh Dec 2012 #129

Assault weapons are designed for a mobile army. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #131

if they are designed for a mobile army, why are assualt rifles allowed to be owned by civilians? samsingh Dec 2012 #132

Only semi-automatic versions are. Automatics are difficult to own. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #133

is it possible to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon ? samsingh Dec 2012 #134

The parts to do so are as tightly regulated as auto weapons are. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #135

This message was self-deleted by its author samsingh Dec 2012 #136

that's a good control samsingh Dec 2012 #137

Depends on how one defines "firepower" Kaleva Dec 2012 #49

Correct. And those changes reflect the changes in how modern war is conducted. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #61

please explain how guns are getting more powerful backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #18

it's only about guns, that i'm asked to provide links on even the most samsingh Dec 2012 #24

I never called you any names backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #27

i'm not surprised that 'you're a gun owner' samsingh Dec 2012 #32

Slow down. Gun violence is at the lowest level in 40 years Recursion Dec 2012 #34

are you familar with the massacres in the last couple of weeks? samsingh Dec 2012 #37

Yes. Do you remember the 1990s? Recursion Dec 2012 #39

i don't think it matters to the massacred children, their families, or people like me who care and samsingh Dec 2012 #42

Yes, that's the problem with plunging crime rates Recursion Dec 2012 #47

"Plunging crime rates" bongbong Dec 2012 #56

I've never been a "rights" or "defense" person Recursion Dec 2012 #65

LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #66

Ludicrous Recursion Dec 2012 #67

Still LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #68

love the laughing figure - potentially show how important the gun massacre topic may be to you samsingh Dec 2012 #80

Not laughing at the slaughter bongbong Dec 2012 #84

okay, that makes sense samsingh Dec 2012 #93

prove gun control doesn't work samsingh Dec 2012 #77

The District of Columbia (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #140

where are the links and have you isolated out factors such as gang violence and poverty samsingh Dec 2012 #143

DC banned guns. Gun prevalence increased Recursion Dec 2012 #145

if we're talking in good faith, i think other factors have to weigh in samsingh Dec 2012 #146

If you are going to factor in Jenoch Dec 2012 #151

i think we should consider those - especially lives that were saved when a gun was available for samsingh Dec 2012 #152

there are 20 butchered children and adults who put themselves in front of bullets to save other samsingh Dec 2012 #72

cool backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #52

OK, provide proof firepower is exponentially increasing year by year. HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #28

'provide proof' samsingh Dec 2012 #33

The technology of guns is unchanged since the early 1900s for the most part Recursion Dec 2012 #35

bigger caliber bullets, lighter guns, ability to fire more bullets per minute samsingh Dec 2012 #38

Bullets have been getting smaller, not bigger. Guns cannot fire more bullets per minute now... Recursion Dec 2012 #43

Guns easily can fire more rounds per minute now then could be done in the 1890's Kaleva Dec 2012 #60

Yes, if you go back 120 years, that's true. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #62

Slide stocks are relatively new. Kaleva Dec 2012 #63

you asked a question - in your last line - you admit that polymers samsingh Dec 2012 #74

No, it's really, really not Recursion Dec 2012 #141

i don't remember historical incidents where someone massacred dozens of people samsingh Dec 2012 #142

And yet the technology to do so existed Recursion Dec 2012 #144

problem: there are many massacres where guns are involved and guns make samsingh Dec 2012 #147

for the people making the rules - it's about profits and money samsingh Dec 2012 #148

*shrug* the PTB could profit from weed if they wanted to Recursion Dec 2012 #150

actually it has samsingh Dec 2012 #153

Guns make massacres easier. Guns haven't changed in 100 years or so. Recursion Dec 2012 #149

assualt rifles were not available pre world war I samsingh Dec 2012 #154

They were called carbines, and cavalry and dragoons had them Recursion Dec 2012 #155

some changes samsingh Dec 2012 #156

OK, so you're describing changes from the 1940's Recursion Dec 2012 #158

but they're still changing every year - what are they changing? samsingh Dec 2012 #161

Nothing, really. Like I said the main designs today are from the 1950's and earlier Recursion Dec 2012 #163

some research from the net samsingh Dec 2012 #162

Someone introduced a hunting handgun cartridge? Jesus, you're stretching there Recursion Dec 2012 #164

there is a relationship between bullet size, shape, muzzle size, energy, etc samsingh Dec 2012 #165

Only one of those is true (lighter guns). Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #48

"obvious points" ??? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #41

the more time I spend on DU lately EnviroBat Dec 2012 #25

of course, we should just chuck up massacres - or better still - go buy more guns samsingh Dec 2012 #40

In the same boat. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #45

Not only the hysteria, falsehoods, and name-calling, HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #50

The discussions on Meta about deliberate, organized attempts to silence other posters... Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55

And not to Berserker Dec 2012 #57

btw - you're not obligated to respond or even read the whole post of something you don't agree with samsingh Dec 2012 #70

Oh, believe me, I often don't these days. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #81

thanks for viewpoints - they are respectful - and i appreciate that samsingh Dec 2012 #83

I try to keep it that way. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #85

thanks samsingh Dec 2012 #92

bullet dissassembley the antigun Dec 2012 #54

That's a fair point. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #58

Follow Fienstien's example shintao Dec 2012 #76

The premise of the OP is false cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #94

and what sensible gun control would you propose? samsingh Dec 2012 #95

I don't consider the 2nd Amd a personal right, so cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #96

makes sense samsingh Dec 2012 #103

Something does need to be done. CrispyQ Dec 2012 #105

that's what i'm seeing samsingh Dec 2012 #106

more gun deaths - this time inside a police station samsingh Dec 2012 #107

It's every day. CrispyQ Dec 2012 #108

there are what 300 million guns in the country samsingh Dec 2012 #109

keep singing sam marions ghost Dec 2012 #120

Epic fail. closeupready Dec 2012 #116

i think some good points were expressed in this thread samsingh Dec 2012 #157

did they invent some new caliber of bullet or something? what did i miss? dionysus Dec 2012 #166

Everything is 'new' to someone just getting up to speed. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #167

i'm pretty much up to speed samsingh Dec 2012 #168

So now you understand that the only recent changes are in materials and reliability, rather than X_Digger Dec 2012 #169

some stuff coming down the pipe samsingh Dec 2012 #170