Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Gun

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soflasnapper

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...ck-p-1712.html

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

http://usarmorment.com/federal-ae223...ds-p-2164.html

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

http://usarmorment.com/federal-ae223...ds-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...rifles-4.shtml

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

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...ssic-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.

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?

So you are now down to arguing that I was wrong because I was right.

I wondered how long that would take.

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.

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.

That's an interesting revision of history. Let's review. Your first substantive post, in full, to which my reply was directed, was

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soflasnapper

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]

Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Target.