In addition to “fragmenting,” I’ve heard .223 “tumbles” on impact. I believe neither is true.
I’m pretty sure that the latter is.
This article says the difference is that the AR15 rounds are lighter than 9mm pistol rounds, but much higher velocity. And in the animation, the AR15’s .223 is shown to flatten and tumble as well as impart a bigger shock wave.
I suppose that compared to other rifle rounds, the AR15 is not much different.
Because of its greater mass, the 7.62 mm round (like in an M-14) will often just go straight through you and come out the other side, leaving a relatively smaller hole than the 5.56 mm. Just one of those things.
Those tumbling rounds- are they available to buy like other ammo? How are they for hunting and target shooting, which (other than self-defense) are the purported purpose for AR-15s?
AFAIK, 5.56 mm (0.223") rounds are tumbling by default. It’s a matter of mass, speed and body density.
I’ve never hunted, but my guess is that they’re less effective for hunting, among other reasons because they shred too much of the meat. Serious hunters use 7.62 mm.
Interesting. So if a .223 round “tumbles” when it hits a person, and a .308 goes “straight through,” is the former actually more deadly, despite it being a smaller round?
Either 5.56 or 7.62 will easily penetrate a person. The 7.62 will make a larger “temporary cavity” as the flesh is pushed out of the way, this makes for a larger injured volume. Both will tumble as the spin rate is chosen to be stable in air, not in much denser flesh.
Military bullets are full metal jacket and do not usually fragment, but hunting ammo is designed to expand to leave a bigger, more jagged hole and cause more bleeding. The tradeoff is less penetration. A terrorist/murderer won’t feel the need to abide by the 1899 Hague convention and so could use either cheap FMJ or more expensive hunting bullets
Anecdotally I have heard that during the battle of Mogadishu people hit with the 7.62 were more likely to go down and stop fighting than those hit with 5.56. That is usually blamed on the 5.56 ammunition being too slow out of the new shorter barrel rifles (shorter than is legal for civilians in the US). Newer ammo is said to no longer have this problem.
For about 30 years the rounds used by the US Army frequently did not tumble. The M855 was designed to be able to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800m when fired from a M249 squad automatic weapon. The downside is that when fired from an M16 they had a tendency to go straight through like the 7.62mm round from the M14 but leaving an even smaller diameter hole. Those rounds are still widely available and generally on the cheap side on the civilian market. The new design introduced in 2010 that corrects for the “ice picking” problem is rare on the civilian market and expensive.
The tendency to tumble sounds like a big deal but it is really not. The military is constrained by the Hague Convention of 1899. They are not allowed to use expanding bullets. Having a bullet that tumbles, thereby reducing overpenetration, is useful for the military as a workaround. Expanding bullets are perfectly legal for civilians and are the norm for ammunition designed for hunting.
If you want to maximize lethality against large game or against humans for self defense don’t use US Army designed ammo. Go for the good civilian stuff.
Good God, it was never my intent to solicit advice on lethal weaponry and the killingest ammo. If this thread closed now it would be ok with me.
I think the original question was adequately answered: pistol grips on a longarm weapon do nothing specific to make it a “better people killer”.
The discussion has moved on to other aspects of “better people killer”, in keeping with how the topic was originally titled. Morbid topic, but that’s what the OP was about.
Plus it’s something that has been discussed in many other threads. But hey, it happens.
To go back around to the OP question all this is also always brought about when “assault weapon” laws get discussed in the USA, and will include in the definition things such as pistol grips, quick change mags, changeable barrels, collapsible/folding stocks, mounting rails, large cap mags, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs (really? was there a mass bayonetting I did not hear about??) etc. Again it’s not that any of that makes it more inherently deadly shot by shot, it’s that the sort of putz who wants to pull this sort of s**t is likely to embrace the marketing for often-superfluous “tacticool”.
Although the 2nd amendment simply grants the right to bear arms, apparently nobody gets upset about bans on things like swords or bayonets, which I presume are a logical part of a 1790 militia.
I don’t think there are any bans on swords or bayonets.
There are bans on switchblades, and also bans on “ballistic knives” (basically a knife that can shoot its blade at someone, either through a spring-loaded blade or other means). After the Civil War there were a lot of bans on various types of guns and knives, mostly targeting concealed weapons. Most of those laws have been amended or repealed, though some remain, mostly in the South.
Some of those laws exist for quite racist reasons. Some of the concealed knife laws in states like Texas remained in effect long after the Civil War because folks were afraid of Mexicans carrying around concealed knives.
For what it’s worth, it’s also perfectly legal to own a cannon. You just can’t load it with explosive ammunition (that turns it into a “destructive device”).
This is getting a bit off-topic for a thread about what makes an AR-15 a better people killer though.
I’m a bit surprised they aren’t seeking decriminalization of Tommy guns.
In CA there is a law that prohibit carrying a “dirk or dagger: concealed. I know of at least one arrest of a dude who have a samurai sward- since the sheath 'concealed it”. It was dismissed. On FB, our Sheriff’s dept has bragged about arresting some perp for this, but it was clearly a normal kitchen knife.
Those are legal.
Sorta. You have to get a special Federal Permit. And in some states they are illegal, such as CA.
Well, they are not actually outlawed federally. Just that as with all real full auto guns the legal and administrative requirements for a regular civ to get their hands on one make it an expensive PITA to acquire. And individual states can ban them.
Some harder core “2A Community” voices have touched on that they want to roll back a number of federal gun control laws going back to different points of lesser restrictiveness, such as to before 1986 and the closing of the new MG market, or even as far as all the way to the 1934 NFA so all the special different rules for automatic weapons (and ATF itself) go away.