Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72

Thread: Newtown, Firefighter, Aurora Shooters Used Same Model Gun

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LWW; 12-29-2012 at 11:21 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,878
    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.

  3. #23
    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.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    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.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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..._ammo_021510w/
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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..._ammo_021510w/

    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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..._ammo_021510w/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56◊45mm_NATO
    Last edited by LWW; 12-29-2012 at 09:43 PM.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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/hti.../20070202.aspx

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    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?

  8. #28
    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?

  9. #29
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962
    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?
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •