The AR -15 is more dangerous because of the very rapid 'sustained' fire. Not all semi automatics have the 30 round capability. Not all 'socially acceptable' (interesting carefully selected coin of phrase) hunting weapons are from military. Shot guns and side by side rifles are the first that come to mind. As for it being the weakest round, why would a weapon developed for a military weapon chose such a round? Oh ya, not to kill, just incapacitate the enemy; an old strategy.
Bloomberg takes aim at NRA in anti-gun crusade
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
The M16 was designed to KILL most efficiently, with a VERY POWERFUL cartridge!!!
The M16 is more accurate than the AK47. Both are very lethal military weapons.
M16 can kill at over 1 mile, if you get lucky!
While the M16 .223 slug itself appears small it was designed, with its very high muzzle velocity to tumble upon impact causing severe wounds. At one point its .223 round was almost for banned as being too inhuman for this reason.
AR15 is the civilian version of the M16 with 'auto' disabled but if you know what you are doing auto can be enabled again!
With military spec .233 rounds, the AR15 is just as deadly as the M16!
Military weapons belong in the Military PERIOD!!!
If you want to play with Military weapons, ENLIST!!!.....:eyebrows:
"Rapid sustained fire" is greatly over exaggerated, limited by the shooter's ability and doesn't even come close to the cyclic rate of true automatic fire. 30 round capacity can be achieved with 3 10 round magazines and when no one has the ability to resist, a 5 second magazine change will do little to reduce the damage done. Pump action shotguns were used extensively in the trenches of WWI, Germany even wanted to ban them, yet now it has become a socially acceptable firearm. As for the cartridge, .223 is less powerful than .308 or virtually any other hunting cartridge, this is fact and cannot be refuted. It is also lighter weight, easier to carry and has mild recoil. You cannot condemn the .223 round when it sits near the bottom of the lethality spectrum while more powerful guns remain socially acceptable.
A .22lr can kill you at over 1 mile if you get lucky. That is why firearms require safe handling, they are ALL dangerous, and at some considerable distance. (If you have a box of .22lr read it, most have a warning that they are dangerous out to 1.5 miles).
An AR uses a .223 round, which is a very popular round in the civilian world for hunting coyotes and groundhogs.
What primarily sets an AR15 apart from a hunting rifle is not functional capability, round power, or any of those things--the AR is in fact weaker than many civilian rifles on those categories--it is the particular ergonomics of the design. It has a stock with a pistol grip, sling attachment points at the top, rails on which to mount various devices, and a magazine that can be changed rapidly. These are all ergonomic aspects that make it particularly suitable for military use, and they really have nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanical capability of the rifle itself.
For such a "powerful round" it's strange how the .223 in hunting applications, isn't used for anything bigger than rodents, hogs and coyotes. It's too weak to instantly and humanely kill medium sized game like deer. AR-15s are favoured for their light weight, ergonomics and popularity, not their toddler killing abilities. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. :eyebrows:
In a M16, the Military uses their .223 round to hunt humans very effectively.....ijs.....:eyebrows:
The US Army will dispute your claims as ill informed poppycock!.....:eyebrows:
If you REALLY want to know what the military cares about when it evaluates firearms, it has a long list of things, but there's ONE that it really, really, really cares about:
Reliability.
Nothing matters more to the military than making sure a gun goes bang even if it has been dragged through mud and buried in sand. The second most important thing to the military is that if it does get so full of dirt and sand that it actually does not go bang anymore, is that it be possible to disassemble it on the spot, without tools, and clean it out so that it goes bang again.
That matters FAAAAAAR more to the military than round power, rate of fire, or any of those other things. A soldier with something that goes "bang" is a formidible force. A soldier with a $2500 club--not so effective.
Civilian hunting rifles, and even civilian AR's (the cheaper ones) have a MUCH higher chance of not going bang when you pull the trigger, than the stuff the military fields. Many of the features that differentiate an AR15 from other rifles, in terms of raw functionality, have to do with design ideas that ensure it keeps on going bang no matter what the hell you do to it.
Reliability.
Nothing matters more to the military than making sure a gun goes bang even if it has been dragged through mud and buried in sand. The second most important thing to the military is that if it does get so full of dirt and sand that it actually does not go bang anymore, is that it be possible to disassemble it on the spot, without tools, and clean it out so that it goes bang again.
That matters FAAAAAAR more to the military than round power, rate of fire, or any of those other things. A soldier with something that goes "bang" is a formidible force. A soldier with a $2500 club--not so effective.
Civilian hunting rifles, and even civilian AR's (the cheaper ones) have a MUCH higher chance of not going bang when you pull the trigger, than the stuff the military fields. Many of the features that differentiate an AR15 from other rifles, in terms of raw functionality, have to do with design ideas that ensure it keeps on going bang no matter what the hell you do to it.
So what do you claim is the sustained rate of fire for the AR-15. Sorry one thirty round clip will shoot 30 rounds faster than 3 10 round clips. you estimate of a 5 second change over is pretty liberal for most people, especially in an uncontrolled firefight. Having never done it myself i went to the Web and found this;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...acies-in-new-weapons-of-war-video-fact-check/
Shot guns were around earlier than WWI and were hunting weapons first. I said nothing about pump action shotguns. A single round of .223 might less lethal than most, not really my point, but a three round burst is certainly less weak. You really are all over the map. You also said the .223 was a weak hunting round, with which i agree for all but varmints, so why would so many claim to choose it as hunting rifle?
Agreed and this is where the AK47 wins hands down over the M16.
The AK47 was designed to bang away even when very dirty and NOT jam like the M16 is prone to.....:Eek:
Regarding firing rate, do you really need me to explain what "dependent on the user" means? I'll make it easy for you, some people can pull a trigger faster than others, it really depends on the individual, however they all pale in comparison to actual full auto. Even the claimed 100 rounds per minute is a hell of a low slower than 600-800 rounds per minute in a full auto. Did you see the rest of the article or the video I posted earlier which is part of that article? It illustrates how ineffectual a magazine limit law would be, even if ther was magically a high compliance rate. A .223 AR-15 could make a great varmint hunting rifle, for larger game, an AR-10 in .308 could make a great hunting rifle for that application. I've yet to hear a good reason why ARs in chambered in appropriate calibres for their intended application would make terrible hunting rifles.
Name dropping the US Army isn't some get out of jail free card. A .223 cartidge fires a projectile which is smaller and lighter weight than most other centrefire cartridges, do you need a physics lesson to understand why it would less powerful than a projectile which is larger in diameter and heavier in weight?
It's very high muzzle velocity MORE than makes up for that .....but you and the whole farking US Army knew that already.....:eyebrows:
It's simple physics.....:wink:
Yes, 100 rounds per minute is less than 600, but it will still does a hell of a lot of damage. Just ask the citizens of Newtown and the survivors of the theatre. As far as your full auto point, the people should then feel lucky it was not full auto?
As for 30 round clips for hunting, keep the round to 5 round clips. As said earlier, a need for a thirty round clip in a hunting firearm is just a sign of a lousy shot.No one i know is saying it's a terrible hunting arm, just not it's first purpose, nor needed to hunt.
The reasons the smaller rounds are becoming popular in military weapons are they are easier to carry and aim aim, they tumble when they hit something and have less chance of a through and through. The last reasons cause nasty wounds, again not killing something right away, but you bleed like a pig.
Do you even realize that hunting ARs come with 3 or 4 round magazines, depending on the calibre? Not that I have a problem with 30 round mags.Yes, 100 rounds per minute is less than 600, but it will still does a hell of a lot of damage. Just ask the citizens of Newtown and the survivors of the theatre. As far as your full auto point, the people should then feel lucky it was not full auto?
No one i know is saying it's a terrible hunting arm, just not it's first purpose, nor needed to hunt.
Even with the velocity, .223 is still one of the weakest centrefire rifle cartidges in existence. No amount of your personal ignorance can refute that.
Yeah right ....guess those Army D.I.s in basic training and on the rifle range were ALL pretty ignorant too!.....
