PDA

View Full Version : Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Gun



Qtec
12-27-2012, 03:23 AM
Geez....wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XzQ1BS7gU&noredirect=1


There's something about this Bushmaster AR-15: Both Adam Lanza and William Spangler, the two gunmen in the Newtown and firefighter shootings, respectively, got their hands on the same make of semi-automatic, the .223 caliber rifle, pictured right. This popular sporting gun seems to be the weapon of choice for many a mass murderer. It's also the same gun used by James Holmes, of the Aurora theater shootings last summer, as well as Jacob Tyler Roberts, the mall shooter from a few weeks back. What is it about this Bushmaster that makes it so available and desirable for these gunmen?

Q

LWW
12-27-2012, 06:04 AM
How about, in your own words, you explain why.

Qtec
12-27-2012, 07:19 AM
How about, in your own words, you explain why.


What is it about this Bushmaster that makes it so available and desirable for these gunmen?

You are the gun nut! Answer the question.


Q

LWW
12-27-2012, 11:33 AM
I heard they both liked pickles on their hamburgers also.

Stretch
12-27-2012, 01:52 PM
While our wannabe local gun nut plays with his pickle on this issue, i can say that a quick search indicates there are over 300 million guns in the USA. More than 3 million of which are assault weapons. It's not hard to get your hands on one, legally or otherwise. What makes them desirable for gunmen bent on destruction more than anything is that you can load them up with clips that hold as many as 20 or 30 rounds so that they can slaughter their victims more efficiently before having to reload. Light, maneuverable, accurate, dependable, low recoil, puts it at the top of every mass murderers christmas wish list. St.

LWW
12-27-2012, 02:35 PM
Then why don't we have three million mass murderers?

Are you aware the 5.56 NATO round is a relatively feeble round if ones goal is to kill something as large as a human?

Are you aware most owners have the weapon for either home defense ... being that the round is designed to not ricochet and to severely maim a target instead of killing them ... or as a varmint gun a they will sent coyotes, opossums, wildcats, wild boars, wild dogs and the like to Allah with great haste?

Of course you aren't.

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 04:03 PM
But children will uzually need more than one shot. So, to be on the safe side, best get some extra clips.
mac.

Soflasnapper
12-27-2012, 04:49 PM
A longish discussion thread on this round disputes your characterization. http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

(http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge)As a varmint gun, they apparently cut the varmint in half:


anybody who doubts the 5.56 needs to go shoot a grown dog with it and watch it rip the dog in two pieces,maybe more. no lie,iv done it.

But here's the author's couple of starting points before the comments begin:


There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4?


Now the real debate begins… How truly deadly is the 5.56? Well, this past April when I was going through Combat Skills Training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, one week was spent in Combat Life-Saving class (CLS). The medics who instructed us had slide show after slide show of combat injuries they have treated over their last three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. And let me tell you, these were not for the weak stomachs among us. If you are reading this article, I bet you are the same type of person as I to ask, “What calibers caused those wounds?” These men and women have seen the worst injuries of coalition forces and enemy combatants alike. The Geneva Conventions state that medics must provide medical care to all captured enemy personnel when able. Therefore, many Taliban and Jihadist fighters came across their operating rooms. After class one day I asked all of them, “Do any of you doubt the killing power of the 5.56 round?” They all answered with a resounding, “NO.”


I’ve never been prviliged to serve in the armed forces, but I have talked with many – MANY – guys who have been in combat. I have studied the subject for many years and here’s a summary:
1) Special forces veteran from Vietnam with YEARS of combat experience: “Anyone who questions the .556 has never been in serious combat. The round causes horrific wounds. Of course, if they didn’t hit an enemy in the head or chest, it might not stop him right away, but the 7.62 wouldn’t likely do any better.”
2) Combat medics think the .556 is more incapacitating than the 7.62 X 39 AK round.
3) The 7.62 X 51 U.S. round does unquestionably have more “knockdown power; however, it fragments and yaws less effectively than the .556. It is debatable whether the 7.62 is more effective at close range. Over 350 yards, or through vegetation, the 7.62 is superior.
4) Officers writing after-action reports generally report favorably on the .556. Civilian gunwriters almost uniformly bemoan the “lack of stopping power” of the .556.


As a 68W, a combat medic for you civies, I have seen more pictures of the best and worst of both rounds in training than most service men see in their tour. I have seen US boys with faces completely destroyed by a 7.62 still live and have it put back together and come out being able to fight. I have seen exit wounds from a 5.56 so large that you could stick your fist inside and not get it bloody. I can tell you right now, the 5.56 is more than capable in its role, mid range engagement.


I do close qt combat have been in the service since 89 still in Spc forces and mainly do counter terriost now. Close qt nothing beats the 5.56 round it’s a nasty mean load dosent take me more than a dbl tap and it’s over. I Nvr shoot once it’s not taught nor a good idea


The Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL) took a look at this issue during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2005. What MCCLL found was that the numerous “first hand” accounts of 5.56 deficiencies in combat were neither accurate nor “first hand.” After extensive interviews with actual shooters and witnesses, MCCLL determined that the 5.56 round utilized in the M16 family of weapon systems performed remarkably well in the combat environment, and that the numerous reports of failure had no basis in fact.


I completely agree with u . I have read many articles about combat effectiveness of 556 in iraq and afghanistan and i had concluded that decrease in stopping power of 556 only occured when it is used from a m4 carbine or other carbines which is essential in urban cqb.


The .556 was an excellent round in Iraq. It easily penetrated car windshields and exploded insurgent brain matter with enthusiasm. All that was missing was some classical music while our M16s went to work. Bottom Line- If you doubt the .556, you lack combat experience.


I used both NATO 7.62 and 5.56mm firing weapons during my military career, and found both to be highly effective in the right situation. The South African Defence Forces R-1 (FN 7.62mm SLR) built under licence would go through an African termite ant hill, which will stop a car dead in it’s tracks, and kill the aggressor on the other side of it. The R-4 and the shorter barrelled R-5 (Israeli Gallil 5.56mm) were effective close quarter battle weapons, both reliable and accurate up to 500 metres and 300/350 metres respectively. For target shooting or the sheer pleasure of it the R-1′s 7.62 mm wins, but in combat the R-5′s 5.56 mm would be my weapon of choice.

cushioncrawler
12-27-2012, 05:17 PM
I estimate that if u got every cartridge in the usofa and made one big cartridge, that big cartridge would be 100m long.
This iz based on 64 billion small cartridges 25mm long.
Some cartridges are over 50mm long, which would make a one big cartridge 200m long.

And if the 64B iz too low, eg if it shood be say 8 times that figure, counting imported stuff, and counting defence forces stuff, then that 100m or 200m might double to 200m long and 400m long.
mac.

LWW
12-27-2012, 05:49 PM
It's a shame you don't understand hat you read.

The NATO 5.56 is in fact designed to deliver a hideous wound no matter where it hits someone ... and for a good reason.

First off, nobody really anticipated at the 5.56 rounds design stage that it would be used against an uncivilized opponent such as e Taliban, and yes ... even the Soviets were civilized in comparison.

Back to to the intent of inflicting a hideous wound. Civilized armies care for there wounded. If a soldier is dead, he's out of the battle ... one down. If he's lightly wounded, he may fight on. If he's hideously wounded, but alive, he's out of the battle ... as is at least one other soldier needed to recover and care for him.

IOW a most effective combat round and a most deadly round are not the same thing.

As to why the BUSHMASTER AR-15 is so popular ... it's like asking why you see so many Hondas and so few Bugattis.

The BUSHMASTER is a mass produced and inexpensive variant of the AR-15 and, IMHO, a bare step above junk.

Soflasnapper
12-27-2012, 06:24 PM
The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

You say it isn't, that it's a "feeble" round when it comes to killing something as large as a person. Apparently, and contrary to much rumor, it is quite deadly.

Further comment from the same source:


Food for thought: The DC Sniper used a 5.56. All but one victim died from one shot. range was usually @50 meters – always torso shot.

Reading more between the lines of the commentary, the round loses effectiveness at a certain range (but is good to 300 m or more), doesn't PENETRATE armor or body armor so well as heavier rounds do, and doesn't go through brush and foilage in the field as well as a heavier round. It may also not be as lethal as quickly-- but it's not that people won't bleed out from massive cavitation exit wounds, they will.

There is some consensus that most issues with that round come from using a too short barrel, and that having a longer barrel is what is needed:


Comment #75 and comment #113 nailed the hammer to the head . Barrel length plays a massive and I mean MASSIVE role in the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO .M4 carbines are not adequate for engagements beyond a stone throw . Yes an m4 will kill you at mid to long range ” IF ” your shot placement is perfect … Good luck on that in combat . When the army chopped 5.5 inches off the barrel of the AR platform they also chopped the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO in half . If you want to put an attacker on its back with one shot , the m16 is your ticket … Not the m4 . I do think that the fs2k is a step in the right direction , it is a good compromise , it maintains barrel length so that the 5.56 NATO retains its potential and it still allows the rifle itself to remain compact enough for entering and exiting vehicles … Just my two cents . Adequate barrel length ( 18+ inches ) + compact ( fs2k for example ) + adequate velocity ( keeping a 5.56 NATO round above 2700 fts for as long as possible to permit long range reliable bullet fragmentaion ) + 55gr 5.56 NATO = Super deadly within 150 yards … Blows holes in a person the size of basket balls deadly … Or just stay with the m4 carbines and keep having to put 5+ rounds to a attacker before they go down … Your choice … Chose wisely .

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/787646583a8eac6787730cb06bf679ac?s=64&d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a 11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D64&r=R Dec 3, 2012
8:10 pm
#152 Walt (http://futurefirepower.com) :
Saw pics brought back from nam by cuzz the tissue damage by the m16 was unbelievable 1 round takes a leg off 2 or 3 cut the body into halves made a 44 mag look like a bbgun.

LWW
12-27-2012, 10:22 PM
The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

You say it isn't, that it's a "feeble" round when it comes to killing something as large as a person. Apparently, and contrary to much rumor, it is quite deadly.

It's a shame you know nearly nothing on the topic ... nor have the sense to realize it.

First off ... to break this down so even a gun nitwit can follow along ... yes, a 5.56 NATO toud can be deadly. For that matter a .22 LR can be deadly. For that matter, a thumb to the base of the throat can e deadly ... shall we ban thumbs?

But this is all rrelevant to the topic.

The point remains that if the goal is killing humans ... singularly, or in mass ... the 5.56 NATO isn't the best choice. It isn't the second best choice. It's not the third best choice. It's not the fourth best choice. It's not the fifth best choice.

To be honest ... is close quarter combat, if your goal is to kill a human, I doubt that it's as good a choice as a Louisville Slugger or a framing hammer.

But it has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip and guys carry it in made for TV movies so it's real scary looking ... and the spoonfed dembots will believe whatever they are told to believe.

If you want to kill humans with a high degree of success ... a .30-06 woud be a much better choice.

Listen to your dad ... you could learn a lot.

Soflasnapper
12-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Please describe and contrast your combat experience with these rounds to the medics and Marines and sniper-qualified commenters whose replies I copied above. I will mention, as you appear to have missed it, that they disagree entirely with your assessment, so it will be interesting to learn upon what experience your disagreement is based.

It seems we already know that answer, as proposed by the OP:


There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4?

Please explain how blowing basketball sized (one person said as to the M-16, fist-sized, for the M-1) exit wounds out the back side of those hit with such rounds is not lethal, and a round sufficient to cut a large dog in half will not kill a person.

Also, note that the larger amount of ammo that these lighter smaller rounds allow to be carried, and the superiority of maintaining targeting with the lighter rounds' less recoil on auto fire, also commend the rounds' performance.

LWW
12-28-2012, 02:06 PM
Please describe and contrast your combat experience with these rounds to the medics and Marines and sniper-qualified commenters whose replies I copied above. I will mention, as you appear to have missed it, that they disagree entirely with your assessment, so it will be interesting to learn upon what experience your disagreement is based.

It seems we already know that answer, as proposed by the OP:



Please explain how blowing basketball sized (one person said as to the M-16, fist-sized, for the M-1) exit wounds out the back side of those hit with such rounds is not lethal, and a round sufficient to cut a large dog in half will not kill a person.

Also, note that the larger amount of ammo that these lighter smaller rounds allow to be carried, and the superiority of maintaining targeting with the lighter rounds' less recoil on auto fire, also commend the rounds' performance.

They aren't disputing me ... as I said, it's a shame you don't understand what is being told to you.

Now ... here comes your worst nightmare. Truth.

Comparing the Soviet craptastic AK with the US M16/AR15:

- The 5.56 NATO round weighs 55 grams, the AK fires a 7.62 122 gram projectile.

- The 5.56 carries 167 ft/lbs less energy than the 7.62 ... which is very nearly the max torque output of a 2013 VW Jetta 5 cylinder, which puts out 177 ft/lbs of torque.

- The 7.62 round will penetrate 26 inches in ballistic gelatin, the standard used to simulate a human torso, versus the 5.56 which will penetrate 11 inches less.

- The AR/M16 is the far superior weapon in outdoor combat because it is lighter by far, more accurate at distance by a good bit, and being a lighter projectile it does have a longer maximum range ... which means nothing in a 30 by 30 room.

- NATO itself uses te 7.62 round for up close and personal weaponry, for several reasons. Among these that the stopping power is so much higher ... and the accuracy of the AR/M16 at a distance disappears because of their raised sites which bring parallax into the equation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/7.62x51_5.56x45.JPG

7.62 AK round on left ... 5.56 NATO center ... AA battery right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/M16_and_AK-47_length_comparison.png

Raised AR/M16 sights, have to be high to be seen over the arry handle, top ... nearly flush AK sights bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

The argument that an AR/M16 can make a fugly wound does not disprove my point, it makes my point.

That the round can also be deadly is asinine ... it's a military rife for Christmas sake.

It's value in combat however are accuracy and stopping point at a distance, reliability, and being very light weight.

In close quarters combat hwever, it's an absolutely miserable choice.

Put me in such situations against an insane shooter, and I'll take my Sig P228 ... yes, I realize none of you know what that is ... 9MM with a 10 round and take my chances.

In fact, in that scenario, I'll take my chances with the claw hammer. My mobility and accuracy is far better ... and if he hits me it robably won't be fatal, at east not instantly. If I get a hit on him ... he'll likely never be troube again.

Soflasnapper
12-28-2012, 02:32 PM
That's a long way around to refuse to admit you have no combat experience with this round, let alone nothing to compare with these men's experiences.

You could have just admitted that no one you ever shot with a 5.56 round ever survived.

You could have just admitted that your experience with 5.56 round wounds in combat as a rifleman or a medic was zero.

You took way too many words to fail to admit anything, or answer a single one of the questions asked of you.

You know what? An artillery shell, or the shell from one of the old naval vessels' 17 or 19 inch guns makes the AK round look like a airgun pellet. The biggest naval guns fired something about half the weight of a Volkswagen. None of which would make their .50 caliber machine gun rounds 'feeble.'

The OP nailed you-- armchair general, gun hobbyist, and whatever level of military service you may have, apparently never having fired a shot in anger.

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:09 PM
That's a long way around to refuse to admit you have no combat experience with this round, let alone nothing to compare with these men's experiences.

That's because they don't dispute my position.

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:11 PM
You could have just admitted that no one you ever shot with a 5.56 round ever survived.

So unless I personally shoot another human I have no idea what the round is capable of?

Are you aware others read that nonsense and form opinions about you from it?

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:18 PM
You could have just admitted that your experience with 5.56 round wounds in combat as a rifleman or a medic was zero.

Irrelevant since your data supports me and not your imbecilic notions on the topic ... as I said, your problem is you don't understand what is in your link.

Now ... would you like to discuss actual hands on experience with 5.56 rounds?

I've fired thousands of wounds, own two AR rifles, have seen what hey will do to large and small varmints ... OTOH you watched Rambo fire an M60 one handed and pontificate as if you had a clue.

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:21 PM
You took way too many words to fail to admit anything, or answer a single one of the questions asked ...

I believe that translates as you had no desire to learn anything so you read none of it.

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:25 PM
You know what? An artillery shell, or the shell from one of the old naval vessels' 17 or 19 inch guns makes the AK round look like a airgun pellet. The biggest naval guns fired something about half the weight of a Volkswagen. None of which would make their .50 caliber machine gun rounds 'feeble.'
Anyone who would contend that a .50 cal isn't ... at the most ... relatively feeble in comparison to an artillery shell is a moron.

Again, you don't understand hat is being told to you

Go back and read what I said and have your ad explain it to you.

LWW
12-28-2012, 03:31 PM
The OP nailed you-- armchair general, gun hobbyist, and whatever level of military service you may have, apparently never having fired a shot in anger.

1 - If the OP is reading this, you have convinced him that your knowledge on the topic is nonexistent.

2 - I have never fired a shot at a human in anger, or absent anger.

3 - When the bullet hits ... it is devoid of emotion.

Gayle in MD
12-29-2012, 11:19 AM
Geez....wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XzQ1BS7gU&noredirect=1



Q

This is yet another time when the majority of Americans realize the obvious insanity in having such weapons available to any but law enforcement and military, and want them banned, including jail time for those caught with them, owning, buying or selling, yet we have to put up with a bunch of irrational RW idiots, and their BS Denials.

I, for one, will sign every petition, make relentless calls, and e-mails in protest, demanding that they are banned, and hope we can get rid of them all, once and for all!

The usual Straw Man arguments are as absurd as ever.

g.

LWW
12-29-2012, 11:29 AM
Geez....wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XzQ1BS7gU&noredirect=1



Q

Which of those weapons qualify as an assault rifle?

What stops either of the methods shown from being used on any gun?

Oh ... that was really impressive how they killed the water and snow.

The gun ignorance on display in this thread is simply amazing.

Soflasnapper
12-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

LWW
12-29-2012, 09:24 PM
Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

You really should read up a bit on the science of ballstics.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

You really should read up a bit on the science of ballstics.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/


Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

You really should read up a bit on the science of ballstics.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56◊45mm_NATO

LWW
12-30-2012, 03:44 AM
Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

BALLISTICS

"February 2, 2007: Troops from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are still complaining about the "inadequate stopping power" of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 family of assault rifles.¬ Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away. The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.¬

The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment.¬ The army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070202.aspx

LWW
12-30-2012, 03:53 AM
The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

The question is exactly that.

Your buddy started with the implication that a BUSHMASTER AR-15 was selected by these murderers because it was the ultimate in lethal weaponry.

The reality is that the BUSHMASTER is a lower end AR, that a long range rifle would be far from the ideal weapon uder such circumtances and that the 5.56 NATO is far from the deadliest round out there.

Your claim that it can be lethal is nonsensical ... by that logic a BB can also be lethal, so shall we also consider a DAISY RED RYDER to be the ultimate deliverer of death?

LWW
12-30-2012, 04:34 AM
And after reading SOFLA's link ... who would have guessed it to be selectively quoted to present a false point.

I wonder why the follwing was left out:

"When the 5.56 round was first designed by Remington, it was meant to tumble through a target, not kill with brute force."

"This change increased the accuracy of the 5.56 round out past 500 meters, but decreased its lethality when striking a body."

"This article is meant as a predecessor to a piece in the making on the advantages to switching to a round such as the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. The 5.56 round is effective, but could be better."

"My squad member told me ,when he was in Iraq during the invasion, the trouble they had taking down the Saddam Fedayeen. He told me that the marines he was with had to shoot this one fighter nine times and he was still trying to get up"

"Technically I wasnít saying that the 5.56 is a better round than the 7.62, or has more killing power. I just was stating its differences. The 7.62 is a deadlier round ..."

"But if you ask those who were in Vietnam what they thought of their training rifles (7.62) in comparison to their field rifles (5.56), they would gladly shoulder the weight of a 7.62 round vs. a 5.56."

"The 5.56◊45 is too velocity dependent for itís wounding capability, which dosenít make it consistent in itís performance. In Iraq alot of the reports of the 5.56◊45 failing to stop enemy combatants is because the short barrel of the M4 which gives it a fragmentation range of only 45-50m. This is one of the reasons why theyíve come up with rounds like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 grendel was for better performance out of short barrels and at longer ranges."

"It is ridiculous to even compare the 5.56 to the 7.62X51 (.308 Winchester), the 5.56 may have a 300fps velocity advantage, but the puny 62 grain bullet vs. the heavier 149/150 grain .308 cal bullet canít penetrate as deep, hit nearly as hard or compare to the .308 at long ranges. The 7.62X51 has a larger frontal area, much higher kinetic energy and is vastly superior at any range. The .223 Remington was designed for small game under 100 lbs like coyote and fox not big game. If the author used 5.56 on deer sized game he broke the law. It is illegal to use anything under .24 cal. on big game in all states Iím aware of. Game and Fish departments made this law for a reason; it is inadequate on large animals! It doesnít have the power period."

So ... did you not bother to read what you linked to?

Or ... with no knowledge of weaponry, did you just not understand it?

Or ... did you selectively quote the article to present a false claim?

LWW
12-30-2012, 07:30 AM
Witness the totally craptastic BUSHMASTER AR-15 brand new:

http://youtu.be/oeQiQY19wFg

BTW ... what has stopped several of these maniacs isn't the end of a clip, but the jamming of a POS AR.

Qtec
12-30-2012, 07:36 AM
You still don't understand.

No...that would be you.

Here you go putting words into my mouth.


Your buddy started with the implication that a BUSHMASTER AR-15 was selected by these murderers because it was the ultimate in lethal weaponry.

BS. You made that up.


Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Gun

Geez....wonder why?

Q.......rubber band?

LWW
12-30-2012, 08:42 AM
Then tell us why, if tht wasn't your implication ... even though we both knw it was.

BTW ... here is your OP:

"There's something about this Bushmaster AR-15: Both Adam Lanza and William Spangler, the two gunmen in the Newtown and firefighter shootings, respectively, got their hands on the same make of semi-automatic, the .223 caliber rifle, pictured right. This popular sporting gun seems to be the weapon of choice for many a mass murderer. It's also the same gun used by James Holmes, of the Aurora theater shootings last summer, as well as Jacob Tyler Roberts, the mall shooter from a few weeks back. What is it about this Bushmaster that makes it so available and desirable for these gunmen?"

Run snoopy run!

Soflasnapper
12-30-2012, 12:45 PM
So ... did you not bother to read what you linked to?

Or ... with no knowledge of weaponry, did you just not understand it?

Or ... did you selectively quote the article to present a false claim?

These are fair questions, which I will answer.

1. Of course I read the entire piece.

2. Of course I understood what everyone was saying in the thread, both the point the OP made and all the respondents' points as well.

3. In a piece with many hundreds of responses, going to scores of page loads, I could not quote everything (which is why I provided the link). However, in no way did I present a false claim, or misrepresent the consensus of the respondents' positions. Several of the answers did tend to support your claims, but the OP did not, nor did the vast majority of those responding. I was presenting the other side from yours, and left quoting the few who tended to support your position for you to cite.

Here, if you noticed, even in quotes somewhat supportive (not entirely) of your position, some of the key points I made are supported by these very posts. For one, that the deficiencies of the round's instant (one shot) lethality or stopping power relative to other larger rounds are related to the short barrel length of the M-4, for example. I mentioned that (as it doesn't have anything to do with the round but the weapon), and either you ignored it or used it as an example of my lack of understanding. And now quote it back to refute me (?). LOL!

But as to it's losing fragmentation wounding power past 45 to 50 meters, that is irrelevant in the close quarters shooting of these mass murdering sprees. If it takes a while for death to occur, again, that is irrelevant in shooting unarmed victims. What is relevant is being able to carry into the field and deploying a large amount of ammo to be sprayed into gathered human bodies, and at a decently bargain price for the weapon.

That a .50 calibre sniper rifle's round is far more powerful a round, or that an AK's round is more powerful, doesn't mean they make for a more suitable mass slaughter scenario, which has additional components such as the number of rounds one can send down range at targets.

And if leaving out easily found contrary points is thought a problem, your selective quoting of one opinion that 5.56 ammo is illegal in all states when used for larger game is exactly that, as it is refuted later in the body of the responses.

Look, a Yugo (if one could still be found) is no match for a Maserati. But it's still a car, and capable of doing what cars do. If I said a Yugo is a feeble car if you intend to transport human size passengers, that is simply wrong. It might in some respects be BETTER than a Maserati, if you want to transport 4 people, or don't have the six-figure price tag to get one in the first place. It would be feeble if you are talking max high end speed, acceleration, or if for some reason you wanted high fuel consumption.

Whatever the 5.56 round cannot do as well as some other rounds is a function not only of the round but its delivery method (barrel length), distance of targets, body armor, hyped up radicals on drugs or ideology, none of which makes it unsuited to killing humans from its round characteristics, per se. Will it penetrate an engine block and disable a vehicle? Probably not. And that's not the question of importance.

It's more than adequate for killing civilians in a mass murder event, and it has done so, repeatedly. That's what you denied, calling it ineffective, lacking in strength to do that, weak (synonyms for feeble). It's plenty effective at killing humans.

One of respondents discussed his forensic examination of a large number of bullet-wounded people. All those hit by the 5.56 round expired, whereas other various rounds had survivors of those hits. And the 5.56 round victims were not all killed by head shots, or shots in the T-area.

LWW
12-30-2012, 02:40 PM
That a .50 calibre sniper rifle's round is far more powerful a round, or that an AK's round is more powerful, doesn't mean they make for a more suitable mass slaughter scenario, which has additional components such as the number of rounds one can send down range at targets.

Proof again that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1 - The AK clip carries a typical 30 rounds, and up to 100, per clip ... identical to the AR capacity ... so they are each capable of firing the same amount of rounds per clip.

2 - The AK is a far more reliable and jam free weapon than a BUSHMASTER AR-15, so per clip it is quite reasonabl to say the AK will fire 60 rounds in the time the BUSHMASTER will fire 60 rounds.

3 - The 7.62 carries a far higher amount of energy than the NATO 5.56 making it a much deadlier round.

4 - The NATO 5.56 round's ability to shoot flatter is negated at such short distances.

5 - The parallax induced from the sights being on the handle make them useless at short range.

6 - The unwieldy size of a rifle makes it a much less desirable than a .45 ACP JHP at these ranges.

7 - Anyone who doesn't think a Yugo is a feeble car doesn't know much about cars.

8 - I've held this back for awhile, hoping against hope you would think this through. The rounds you have been reading about the USMC using in Afghanland are not the standard NATO rounds. They are the new SOST rounds ... developed because of all the feeble features of the standard 5.56 round, and doe so in an attmpt to lift it's lethality to being comparable with the 7.62 while maintaining the weight advantage.

Although the SOST rounds can be bought by civilans, there is no evidence they were usedin any of these shootings ... and if they had been, it would still have solved only one of the problems.

The SOST rounds are so pricey that even the USMC uses them sparingly, and in certain specialized missions only.


9 - SOST rounds at $209.95 for 240 rounds, and sold out due to USMC orders:

http://usarmorment.com/federal-mk318-mod0-556-62-grain-sost-240-rounds-in-stock-p-1712.html

Standard NATO 5.56 rouds from he same mfr and same vendor, 500 for $219.95:

http://usarmorment.com/federal-ae223j-223-556x45mm-fmj-500-rounds-p-2164.html

Standard NATO 5.56 surplus rounds at $81.30 per 200 rounds:

http://usarmorment.com/federal-ae223j-223-556x45mm-fmj-500-rounds-p-2164.html

At gunshows, surplus 5.56 NATO rounds from Euro nations can be had for a god bit less. Last purchase I made was 200 rounds for about $45.00.

10 - A BUSHMASTER AR-15 runs $729:

http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-rifles-4.shtml

A proper 5.56 starts at $1,399 and an quickly run north of two grand:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig556-classic-swat.aspx

11 - It is highly unlikely that anyone buying a bottom end AR would spring for ultra premium rounds. It would be analogous to someone putting SHELL V-POWER or SUNOCO BLUE-100 OCTANE in the aforemntioned Yugo.

12 - Although we often disagree, I generally respect your opinion ... but on this one you aren't even close.

Soflasnapper
12-30-2012, 06:57 PM
Anyone who doesn't think a Yugo is a feeble car doesn't know much about cars.

The idea that it wouldn't get you across town to your job isn't correct. It would lack a good 0-60 mph time, fail to crack 90 mph (prolly), and etc. However, as a commuter car, it would get the job done. One wouldn't need children as the only passengers for it to be able to do the job. Re-reading what I said, I made the proper qualifications. Not a great car, which was obviously my point, AND yet perfectly fine for transportation of adults, including a capacity to run at the posted speed limit in all cases.

The AK clip carries a typical 30 rounds, and up to 100, per clip ... identical to the AR capacity ... so they are each capable of firing the same amount of rounds per clip.

At a considerable extra burden of size and weight. Given a certain size duffel bag, more 5.56 clips fit, and at a lower weight to lug.

As a reminder, you may now cease stating other rounds are better, as that has been stipulated to already. Of course they are (which I repeat, is beside the point, and not what you said that I objected to).

If you want to really make your point, write SigSauer and mention the rifle they offer in your link is ineffective and shoots feeble rounds, and ask why they persist in the fraud that such weapons are worth purchasing, if all they shoot are such pitifully inadequate (to the point of justifiable scorn) 5.56 rounds. Do you think they are relying on idiotic consumers, who are the only ones who would fall for such a poor choice in weaponry/ammo? Are they engaging in constructive fraud on consumers to offer a weapon shooting this round? Or selling it simply for marksmanship practice plinking cans and bottles in the great outdoors?

Does NATO use such rounds for their forces only out of a corrupt financial arrangement with the vendors?

LWW
12-31-2012, 03:03 AM
So you are now down to arguing that I was wrong because I was right.

I wondered how long that would take.

Soflasnapper
12-31-2012, 11:56 AM
Nope, you were wrong and stay wrong, on the argument in chief.

You essentially said the 5.56 round rifles were limited in capability to a varmint gun, like a stock .22 rifle would be, certainly not something that could reliably kill something the size of a human.

That remains wrong, however much more capable other rounds and other rifles may yet be beyond the lethality of the 5.56 round in general or the BushMaster rifle in particular (your original comment prompting my pushback was about the round, not the BM per se). I acknowledged the latter, that there are better rounds, and definitively disproved the former, that it is only effective against smallish game, in my review of the thread.

Whatever expertise you may have displayed as to guns and ammo, you lack as much in following a line of argument involving any level of nuance. As we've seen before. Unless it's a ruse of some kind, a trick of rhetoric in order to never admit mistake or error. I lean toward this last explanation.

As in the final point about how many rounds one can carry between the 5.56 and larger rounds. However one wishes to measure it-- by weight, by volume, by what will fit in a given sized duffel bag or magazine locker-- you obviously get many more rounds with the smaller 5.56. A totally simple point, and instead you make a claim about rapidity of fire being the same, with your unknowable fudge factor of jamming v. less jamming required to make that point valid. Meaning, of course, that if there isn't a jam, there isn't the same volume of fire but less, using the heavier round you reference.

You are frantically spinning to try to save face, and grossly misleading in the process.

LWW
12-31-2012, 06:40 PM
Your lack of understanding is amusing.

The entire thread s about why the BM was chosen.

My claims are that the BM is a jam prone POS ... the sight system of the AR in general makes it horribly inaccurate at short distances ... the round is underpowered compared to other choices ... and a rifle in general is far more unwieldy and far more difficult to put sights on target than a pistol.

So ... if a killer wants to commit mayhem, everything about that setup is wrong.

So ... why do nutcases pick this weapon?

There is a reason ... and I hoped against hope that one of our resident weapons experts would actually think on their own and figure it out.

The reason is that Hollywood has glorified the M-16 as being the ultimate killing machine, and those who know weaponry realize that i is an awesome weapon on an open field of combat ... and a miserable one in the typical school/mall/theater setting.

This also explains why the average mass murderer isn't the "GUN NUT" but instead is usually the anti gun leftist that goes off the deep end and buys what the TV tells them they should buy.

Soflasnapper
12-31-2012, 11:17 PM
That's an interesting revision of history. Let's review. Your first substantive post, in full, to which my reply was directed, was


Then why don't we have three million mass murderers?

Are you aware the 5.56 NATO round is a relatively feeble round if ones goal is to kill something as large as a human?

Are you aware most owners have the weapon for either home defense ... being that the round is designed to not ricochet and to severely maim a target instead of killing them ... or as a varmint gun a they will sent coyotes, opossums, wildcats, wild boars, wild dogs and the like to Allah with great haste?

Of course you aren't.

And the fact is, apparently, there is nothing deficient about this particular round, or even this particular weapon, for mass slaughter of unarmed civilians.

Or else, again, why would SigSauer associate themselves with such a bad weapon shooting a bad round, and of course, NATO (using the round)?

It doesn't appear that the BushMaster has the same sights as the AR-15, although that isn't clear.

LWW
01-01-2013, 05:17 PM
And the fact is, apparently, there is nothing deficient about this particular round, or even this particular weapon, for mass slaughter of unarmed civilians.

Are you simply illiterate in your native tongue, or are simply mad?

NOBODY has said the 5.56 NATO round is insufficient to kill a human, the claim was that is a relatively* feeble round if that is one's goal.

* relatively (ˈrɛlətɪvlɪ)

— adv
in comparison or relation to something else; not absolutely


[quote]

cushioncrawler
01-01-2013, 06:05 PM
Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Target.

cushioncrawler
01-01-2013, 06:12 PM
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/hidemat/pool/F26large.jpg

LWW
01-01-2013, 06:22 PM
Or else, again, why would SigSauer associate themselves with such a bad weapon shooting a bad round, and of course, NATO (using the round)?

Severl, obvious, reasons.

1 - NATO does not use this round for this ... close quarters combat ... purpose.

2 - For this purpose, NATO uses the SOST round which is the same caliber ... but a truly different animal. You obviously haven't had the slightest curiousity to learn the difference ... so I will, again, attempt to educate you on the topic.

The standard 5.56 NATO round is designed to tumble and fragment when hitting a human, thus disintegrating into several smaller projectiles causing disabling ... but far from always lethal ... wounds that are way more often than not survived. Compounding this, to hit another human at fragmentation speed at 100 yards and more requires a muzzle velocity of round mach 3. At this speed, and at close combat range, the round will pass a human ... assuming it misses bone ... leaving an extremely small and clean wound.

The SOST ... SPECIAL OPERATIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ... is an "OPEN TIP" design that incorporates a lead core copper clad front half of the projectile while the back half is solid copper rear half.

The result of this is that when the bullet hits the body, the lead will flatten out, increasing the round size from .223 caliber to 4 to 8 times that instead of disintegrating into BB'ish sized fragments. This flowering of the bullet from a SOST round is why the massive exit wounds are observed.

The SOST was developed because of the inherent short range deficiencies of the 5.56 NATO round. The standard round is an excellent choice for long range combat as it shoots far flatter and in a much tighter spiral... which equates to huge accuracy increases ... as well as the ability for a soldier to carry roughly twice as many rounds. The accuracy at range, in combination with allowing twice as many rounds to sent downrange does make up for the lower punch in the big picture.

The standard M16 has raised sights which allow for simple adjustments compensating for gravity's effect on the round. The same sights are useless at close range. The military's close combat M16 loses the carry handle and raised front sights for a " FLAT TOP" design ... hence eliminating the parallax. They also use a shorter barrel and stock, alleviating the maneuverability problem.

3 - SigArms is a for profit company, meaning they make full auto military arms, and what the public wants to buy ... and people who want an AR that isn't junk want a Sig. BTW ... if you ever want a home defense weapon, a Sig pistol with Federal HydraShock rounds, essentially a SOST pistol round, will IMHO do the job better than any handgun out there.

4 - Sigs are accurate straight out of the box at an almost supernatural lever and jam far less than one in one thousand rounds. I bought mine for use in target shooting competitions.

If you ever tried it, you would find that many of skills needed in billiards cross over to target shooting and widlife photography.

LWW
01-01-2013, 06:28 PM
It doesn't appear that the BushMaster has the same sights as the AR-15, although that isn't clear.

Here's what would be obvious, if you knew what you think you knew ... a BUSHMASTER AR-15 is an AR-15, just asa Sig AR-15 is an AR-15.

The differences are not f design, but of production tolerances ... crap on a BUSHWHACKER, incredibly tight and consistent on a Sig ... quality of materials, etcetera.

LWW
01-01-2013, 06:30 PM
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m158/hidemat/pool/F26large.jpg

Any round that takes five rounds in the chest at close range to kill a man is ... relatively feeble.

Soflasnapper
01-01-2013, 06:57 PM
Any round that takes five rounds in the chest at close range to kill a man is ... relatively feeble.

What showing is there that it took more than one? If you double tap someone to the head, does that mean you needed the second round?

The DC sniper mainly killed everyone with a single bullet. The bullet? The feeble, when it comes to killing man-sized creatures, 5.56 round. (And not the SOST variety.)

LWW
01-01-2013, 07:39 PM
What was the distance involved?

50 to 100 yards.

Were stock sights used?

No, a "RED DOT" reflex sight was used.

Was the shooter a nut job kid sans training?

No, John Allen Muhammad qualified at the US Army's highest marksmanship level for an M-16.

Were the shootings done with a hand held weapon?

No. The shooter used a rifle tripod from the modified trunk of a parked vehicle.

Did the shooter kill with a single shot?

No, the average was three shots per shooting.

Did the shooter use standard 5.56 NATO rounds?

No, the shooter used .223 REMINGTON hollow points, similar to the SOST rounds.

So, in closing, in the DC sniper shootings we had a highly trained shooter, firing from a tripod mounted in a 4,000 lb base, using a more lethal round with an electronic sighting system ... and they needed thirty nine rounds to achieve ten kills of targets in an unobstructed field of view.

And your point is exactly what?

LWW
01-01-2013, 07:44 PM
What showing is there that it took more than one? If you double tap someone to the head, does that mean you needed the second round?

What shoes it is that there are five rounds in the chest ... if he goal s to kill a many as possible, why shoot someone five ties? Unless the first ... and second ... and third ... and fourth didn't achieve the desired result.

LWW
01-02-2013, 10:17 AM
More on the 5.56 NATO round:

"February 2, 2007: Troops from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are still complaining about the "inadequate stopping power" of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 family of assault rifles.¬ Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away. The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.¬

The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment.¬ The army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070202.aspx

These problems are why the SOST round was developed.

The problem, in reality, is that REMINGTON .223 is an abolutely devastating, athough expensive, round that the SOST attempts to mimic ... but hollow points rounds such as the REMINGTON .223 are illegal in combat.

The workaround, as explained earlier is that the SOST uses a hollow point lead oud with a very thin copper shield over the front alf of the bullet ... and the solid rear half acts sort of like a hammer behind it.

The SOST round really, IMHO, violates the intent ... if not the letter ... of international law.

Soflasnapper
01-02-2013, 10:49 AM
Did the shooter kill with a single shot?

No, the average was three shots per shooting.

Most of what you said was true, but this isn't, or is misleading. A string of the victims were killed with one bullet. So unless you are equivocating 'shots' for 'hits,' that cannot be right. Which takes away from your correct points.


On the morning of October 3, four people were shot within a span of approximately two hours in Aspen Hill and other nearby areas in Montgomery County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_County,_Maryland). Another was killed that evening in the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia), just over the border from Silver Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring,_Maryland).


At 7:41 a.m., James L. Buchanan, a 39-year-old landscaper known as "Sonny", was shot dead at 11411 Rockville Pike near Rockville, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville,_Maryland). Buchanan was shot while mowing the grass at the Fitzgerald Auto Mall.
At 8:12 a.m., 54-year-old part-time taxi driver Premkumar Walekar was killed in Aspen Hill in Montgomery County, while pumping gasoline into his taxi at a Mobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil) station at Aspen Hill Road and Connecticut Avenue.
At 8:37 a.m. Sarah Ramos, a 34-year-old babysitter and housekeeper, was killed at 3701 Rossmoor Boulevard at the Leisure World Shopping Center in Norbeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbeck,_Maryland). She had gotten off a bus, and was seated on a bench, reading a book.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#cite_note-wp20021004-10)
At 9:58 a.m., in what was to be the last killing of the morning, 25-year-old Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera was killed while vacuuming her Dodge Caravan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan) at the Shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell) station at the intersection of Connecticut & Knowles Avenues in Kensington, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Maryland).
The snipers then waited until 9:15 p.m. before shooting Pascal Charlot, a 72-year-old retired carpenter, while he was walking on Georgia Avenue at Kalmia Road, in Washington, D.C. Charlot died less than an hour later.

In each shooting, the victims were killed by a single bullet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet) fired from some distance. The pattern was not detected until after the shootings occurred on October 3.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#cite_note-latimes-20021004-11)

/Wiki

LWW
01-02-2013, 11:07 AM
Here : http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070202.aspx

You will find that the round, in a hollow point, will in fact match the 7.62 NATO ... did you ever wonder why they kept the 7.62? Did you notice the standard 5.56 wasn't even deemed worthy of testing for this use?

Now that the round's power is possibly fixed ... we are left with theweapon itself being a horrible choice.

If you notice are several pistol rounds that will deliver one shot stopping power of 90% or higher ... they all work from a much smaller, and easier to conceal/wield pistols ... they all can be used from a far more reliable and jam free weapon ... many can be used in a pistol mag holding as many rounds as the AR, or a rifle such as a "TOMMY" hoding ar more ... None have the paralax issue of the AR at short range

Using your DC sniper example of 39 rounds needed to bring own 13 humans ... 33% ... would place it at the low end of the chart.

I don't think it's that feeble ... but this chart is based on center of mass hits, difficult at best with said wepon under said situation. Luckily for victims, these type of school/mall/theater shooters use the Hollywood "SPRAY AND PRAY" method of aiming.

This is born out by the shooter in Newtown firing 100 rounds to take down 28 victims ... that were in the same room with him. That's a 28 stopping power rate.

The leftists who are wiling and gnashing their collectivist teeth about what a "GUN NUT" did should be glad it wan't actually a gun nut.

If you doubt that, research Charles Whitman ... killed more people and wounded more people, and did it from a far greater distance and with far fewer rounds than the Newtown shooter.

BTW ... he didn't choose a weapon chambered in 5.56 NATO.

LWW
01-02-2013, 11:12 AM
You just don't get it ... if someone fires 100 rounds at me and misses with 99, I coudtill be killed with a single bullet.

All this demonstrates is that the 5.56 NATO is a reasonably effective round ... at dance.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2013, 02:50 PM
Although this is somewhat tedious, it's been fascinating as well, especially in reading the fierce disputes, pro and con, between knowledgeable and experienced shooters. In reading all the TWELVE PAGES of comments following the StrategyPage article, I find a large number of complaints, disbelief, etc., as to the point of the article in chief.

This was a very pertinent comment:


In first person accounts of every war I've ever heard of, this sort of stuff is always a factor. It doesn't matter what the attack is made with. One Congressional Medal of Honor recipient (posthumous) was in a foxhole with other soldiers when a grenade was thrown in. He sacrified himself by throwing himslef on top of the grenade, with results all of you can probably guess. As he lay in the foxhole dying another grenade was thrown in. And he was sufficiently not-incapacitated by a point blank handgrenade detonation into the torso to flop over on top of it, too.

The point is well made by FBI researchers in the following article (www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html) : "The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds."

Part of the problem is that our expectations shape our perceptions. If you're carrying a full-caliber M1 Garand and shoot a German SS trooper in the torso and he keeps coming you think. "Damn that was one tough, Nazi b@$t@rd." If you are carrying a light-weight assault rifle and shoot a Jihadist in the chest and he keeps coming you think. "This M-4 is a piece of $h!t."


The site above goes into a lot of the psychological aspects of knockdown. The state of mind of the victim has an impact on their actions much greater than the impact of the bullet. Many victims of shots by .22 longrifle go down and into shock even though their wounds are not fatal. On the other hand vitims of point blank handgrenade detonation into the torso sometimes retain their ability to function.



Which is to say, extremely lethal wounds which will certainly cause death may not do so in an instant, or with the first hit, in time to prevent the wounded party from continuing to return fire.

The complaint about the firepower of the 5.56 round is that at ranges over 200 meters, center of mass aimed hits do not immediately incapacitate the target, who continues to fight (even as they may be bleeding out to a certain death). Also, at closer ranges if the round hasn't begun to yaw and tumble to exponentially cause a huge wound from fragmentation, and if no bone is hit, it can do a through-and-through flesh wound of limited lethality.

Something I didn't know was cited: that Petraeus was hit by an accidentally discharged 5.56 round at about 40 meters, in the side of his chest. Dr. Bill Frist (later a GOP senator and Senate leader) performed a 5-hour surgery on him. The comment was, well either that was a weak round, or a very tough Petraeus, and they chose the latter explanation.

LWW
01-24-2013, 01:42 PM
Well our resident leftists can proudly say they were pimped ... again ... by the thieving, lying thugs in the Obamedia.

Desperate to use this tragedy for political gain and ban these inherently EEEVILLL AR-15 rifles ... which oddly enough is a weapon ideally suited for defending "WE THE PEOPLE" from an oppressive state ... it turns out that no weapon was used in the shootings other than pistols, which for this purpose would be the weapon of choice.

So, what are we left with?

El Dubb Dubb was, again, correct.

Snoopy, again, obediently swallowed the spoon fed lie he was told to believe by the Obamedia.

Sofa spent weeks, again, obediently defending the lies spoon fed to him by the Obamedia.

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2013, 03:48 PM
it turns out that no weapon was used in the shootings other than pistols

If it 'turned out' that way, someone should tell the medical examiner. He was quite clear in his press conference that 'all of the bodies' he'd examined so far (7 of them) were all slain with 'the long rifle/arm/gun' (forgot the term he used and agreed to upon reporter query). Multiple shots, 2-7 per individual, solely from the Bushmaster. So on what are you basing this claim? That now they say the only guns found on the scene were the (now said to be four) hand guns?

In what way was the accurate video taping of the medical examiner's remarks, which I've accurately characterized above (easily found, I've seen them everywhere) part of Obamedia lies?

BTW, you remember how you said the Bushmaster's ammo was illegal to use for deer hunting, and unsuited for larger game?

Hannity had on an NRA spokesmodel world shooting champion demonstrating shooting with various arms and sized rounds. After shooting the AR-15, she remarked that its adjustable/collapsing stock allowed her FIVE YEAR OLD NEPHEW an easy use of that rifle of hers 'to harvest his first deer.'

The woman, who was shooting at an NRA range, is Co-Host of Friends of NRA (http://www.newshounds.us/Co-Host%20of%20Friends%20of%20NRA%20tv%20series.) tv series.

A link to a video of that segment from his show, here at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_finds_a_hot_lady_to_showcase_the_ar15_and_ other_semi_automatic_guns

So at least this one shooting expert, an actual world champion markswoman, trusted the gun and the feeble round to both legally and humanely kill a deer in the hands of a 5 yo. LOL!

LWW
01-25-2013, 03:55 AM
If it 'turned out' that way, someone should tell the medical examiner. He was quite clear in his press conference that 'all of the bodies' he'd examined so far (7 of them) were all slain with 'the long rifle/arm/gun' (forgot the term he used and agreed to upon reporter query). Multiple shots, 2-7 per individual, solely from the Bushmaster. So on what are you basing this claim? That now they say the only guns found on the scene were the (now said to be four) hand guns?

In what way was the accurate video taping of the medical examiner's remarks, which I've accurately characterized above (easily found, I've seen them everywhere) part of Obamedia lies?

BTW, you remember how you said the Bushmaster's ammo was illegal to use for deer hunting, and unsuited for larger game?

Hannity had on an NRA spokesmodel world shooting champion demonstrating shooting with various arms and sized rounds. After shooting the AR-15, she remarked that its adjustable/collapsing stock allowed her FIVE YEAR OLD NEPHEW an easy use of that rifle of hers 'to harvest his first deer.'

The woman, who was shooting at an NRA range, is Co-Host of Friends of NRA (http://www.newshounds.us/Co-Host%20of%20Friends%20of%20NRA%20tv%20series.) tv series.

A link to a video of that segment from his show, here at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_finds_a_hot_lady_to_showcase_the_ar15_and_ other_semi_automatic_guns

So at least this one shooting expert, an actual world champion markswoman, trusted the gun and the feeble round to both legally and humanely kill a deer in the hands of a 5 yo. LOL!

I see you are an obedient tool to the very end.

Dear leader forbids you knowing the truth, so do not read the following: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

Qtec
01-25-2013, 06:13 AM
Why didn't Hannity show this clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XzQ1BS7gU

Q

Qtec
01-25-2013, 07:39 AM
Sandy Hook Shooter Adam Lanza Wore Earplugs
January 06, 2013|By DAVE ALTIMARI and JON LENDER, daltimar@courant.com, The Hartford Courant

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza armed himself with hundreds of bullets on Dec. 14 before he entered the Newtown school. But he also did one more thing.

He put in a pair of earplugs.

Investigators don't know whether the earplugs are significant to their probe, but they have speculated as to whether Lanza used them because it was a habit from shooting at gun ranges, or to muffle children's screams during his shooting rampage.

It is one more strange detail left behind by the strange, rail-thin 20-year-old.

"It's just weird [that he popped in earplugs] given what he was about to go do," a source said. "It's not like he had to worry about long-term protection of his hearing because he had to know he wasn't coming back out of the building."

As police wrap up at least the crime-scene portion of their investigation into Lanza's murderous spree that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 first-graders, the earplugs are not the only evidence that shows Lanza might have carried habits either from the shooting range or the virtual world of video games into his real-world massacre.

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

More than a week after the shooting, investigators were still finding bullets under doors and in carpets and walls in the school as they tried to match the casings to the magazines.

Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently.

Investigators have not said how many shots Lanza fired with the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle after he entered the school by firing half a dozen rounds through the glass at the school entrance. Sources said that he fired approximately 150 rounds during the shooting spree.

Besides the earplugs, he was wearing all black clothes under a drab olive green utility vest with pockets filled with 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster.

Lanza left a shotgun, capable of firing 20 rounds, in the trunk of the car. [ ie what you saw in the vid link you posted.]


What you are claiming is that this mentally impaired individual, who has planned this slaughter, goes to the school with the WRONG AMMO!
They found that at least 150 rounds were fired. Not bad for someone shooting with a pistol.


Q

Soflasnapper
01-25-2013, 11:52 AM
I see you are an obedient tool to the very end.

Dear leader forbids you knowing the truth, so do not read the following

Au contraire! I have heard of this '4 handguns only' (with him) claim (from NBC reporting), as I referenced directly in my response. As the link itself says, there are contradictory claims all over these details.

But you take anonymously sourced cites from FEDERAL LE, FROM NBC, to be the opposite of controlled media? Apparently you do, and why isn't that a mistake?

The 'left the Bushmaster in the trunk' story appears false because the video of the clumsy and untoward handling of the long arm in the trunk, against the forensic rules of handling evidence, seem to show a shotgun, not any kind of AR-15 variant.

And you cannot have missed the medical examiner's contrary claims before the cameras, based on his own examination of 7 dead people.

This is all admitted in your own linked article:


The correspondent makes it clear over and over again that he confirmed this information with federal and state officials. Now, a lot of media reports contradict this one, but somebody’s lying. The report that an ‘AR-15-style’ assault rifle was in the trunk of murderer Adam Lanza’s car is up for dispute as well. If one examines footage from police breaking into Lanza’s car, one sees police clearing a round from a “long gun of some type” that does not appear to be ‘AR-15 style’ or ‘assault-style.’

True. So is this now month-old claim from NBC (older, actually), still anyone's story or not?

Apparently, although it was long reported he had the two hand guns only for that kind of sidearm, it was ramped up to 4 to make it plausible that so many rounds were fired in so short a time frame as claimed.

And you buy this changed scenario out of a grudge you hold with some people you don't even know? That's not wise.

LWW
01-26-2013, 04:23 AM
Have either of you ever even fired a gun ... the ignorance on display in this thread is astounding.

Qtec
01-26-2013, 05:05 AM
Have either of you ever even fired a gun ... the ignorance on display in this thread is astounding.

What does that have to do with anything?

You still haven't commented on the vid that I posted, which shows how to make an AR-15 a fully automatic by using a rubber band...or any of the other inconsistencies I mentioned like having the WRONG ammo.

Q

LWW
01-26-2013, 06:17 AM
What does that have to do with anything?

You still haven't commented on the vid that I posted, which shows how to make an AR-15 a fully automatic by using a rubber band...or any of the other inconsistencies I mentioned like having the WRONG ammo.

Q
It verifies that you don't realize tat you don't have a clue.

Tell the truth ... you would be terrified by a BB gun.

Qtec
01-26-2013, 07:00 AM
It verifies that you don't realize tat you don't have a clue.

Do you think the video is a fake? If so, I have plenty more where that came from.

Granted, I am no expert but its pretty clear in the video that its easy to turn a semi-automatic into a fully automatic with a rubber band.

Say its not so.

Q

llotter
01-26-2013, 11:34 AM
I thought the Bushmaster was found in Lanza's trunk and that he just used pistols. That is what was reported in the beginning.

Soflasnapper
01-26-2013, 11:44 AM
That was the initial report. Then it seemed the long arm videoed being taken from the car trunk was a shotgun, not the Bushmaster. Then somewhere along the way the medical examiner or coroner said all the gunshots in the people he'd seen had come from the Bushmaster (alone), while stating he knew a lot about calibers of ammo, as much as the police. A reporter asked what about the gun being in the trunk? The ME said that was an erroneous report.

So, confusion all around. I don't know that there's been a definitive (changed) story, or why we'd believe it now anyway.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2013, 12:29 PM
They also showed on the same day, the stray bullets which bounced off the school door and blasted into a nearby car, showing the massive holes which the exploded bullets from the gun he used to shoot his way into that building, had created.

Let's face it, even after at least three Military Generals, including colin Powell, and General McChrystal, have stated clearly that this assault weapon, their own words, same one in Q.'s video, are MILITARY STYLED ASSAULT WEAPONS, fit only for mass murder, the right is still denying it.

Are any of us really surprised that the same RW mentality which denied everything that Bush did, would also deny the reality of these assault weapons, and the very words of the Medical examiner, and atleast three Military Generals?

No surprise.

While displaying gross ignorance, the right lauch personal attacks, and arrogant condescension of those who actually know the correct information.

Nothing new there!

Soflasnapper
01-26-2013, 07:15 PM
The funniest detail about this 'assault weapons' furor is that the GUN MANUFACTURERS and the GUN SHOPS created this terminology themselves, to boost sales.

So to the degree that it's a muddled and imprecise term, which is blamed on liberals' or Democrats' ignorance, it was instead based on marketing from the industry itself.

hondo
05-07-2014, 03:14 PM
It verifies that you don't realize tat you don't have a clue.

Tell the truth ... you would be terrified by a BB gun.

January 26,2013! It appears that this is the last time you have posted as LWW.
Like Hondo on another forum, you are not banned. Yet since then you have used other usernames solely to harass Hondo.
I harassed no one on AZ. Simply changed my username to avoid harassment.
I'm not saying you should be banned for posing as Lenin and WV Slim and maybe Johnny D.
I'm simply wondering why I was banned for life on AZ for simply trying to avoid conflct. Wilson said I was posting under 3 different names which is not rue.
Feel free to post this on AZ but I know if you do you will only post parts only because that's what you do, . Right?

JohnnyD
05-07-2014, 08:59 PM
January 26,2013! It appears that this is the last time you have posted as LWW.
Like Hondo on another forum, you are not banned. Yet since then you have used other usernames solely to harass Hondo.
I harassed no one on AZ. Simply changed my username to avoid harassment.
I'm not saying you should be banned for posing as Lenin and WV Slim and maybe Johnny D.
I'm simply wondering why I was banned for life on AZ for simply trying to avoid conflct. Wilson said I was posting under 3 different names which is not rue.
Feel free to post this on AZ but I know if you do you will only post parts only because that's what you do, . Right?

STOP harassing members.

hondo
05-07-2014, 09:39 PM
STOP harassing members.

2609 posts all directed at me. Never about the topic.
You still haven't, Joey.

Vladimir Ulyanov
05-08-2014, 02:54 AM
January 26,2013! It appears that this is the last time you have posted as LWW.
Like Hondo on another forum, you are not banned. Yet since then you have used other usernames solely to harass Hondo.
I harassed no one on AZ. Simply changed my username to avoid harassment.
I'm not saying you should be banned for posing as Lenin and WV Slim and maybe Johnny D.
I'm simply wondering why I was banned for life on AZ for simply trying to avoid conflct. Wilson said I was posting under 3 different names which is not rue.
Feel free to post this on AZ but I know if you do you will only post parts only because that's what you do, . Right?

So you admit to posting on another forum under different names and then accuse others of doing same. Is this how you be civil?

hondo
05-08-2014, 05:16 AM
So you admit to posting on another forum under different names and then accuse others of doing same. Is this how you be civil?

It appears that you're only intent is to shadowpost me and not talk about issues. So, I am putting you on ignore. Perhaps I'll see you in another lifetime. Bye, Larry.

Vladimir Ulyanov
05-08-2014, 10:36 AM
It appears that you're only intent is to shadowpost me and not talk about issues. So, I am putting you on ignore. Perhaps I'll see you in another lifetime. Bye, Larry.

You seem to believe that not having you post in comment to me with your snide remarks is punishment to me? Maybe LARRY dares but I do not.