Also…obsessed? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I’m a casual gun owner and shooter. Casual. Not obsessed. Even a casual shooter knows about stuff like this. A casual car enthusiast would know the difference between an I4 and a V6 and a V8 and a supercharger and a turbocharger. An average computer user should know the difference between 1 gig of RAM and 2 gigs of RAM. What if some politician tried to outlaw computers that use more than 1 gig of RAM? What if he said that “no reasonable person would need more than 1 gig of RAM.” Would I be “obsessed” for calling him out on this? (I guess so, by your definition.)
Yeah, come on Princhester. Everybody knows the difference between a full-power cartridge and an intermediate cartridge. Chrissakes any child could tell you that. I’ll bet you don’t even know what the grain count is for a Wolf 223 Full Metal Jacket round is. What is ya … ign’rant or something?
What is the difference between an M16 and an AR-15?
When firearms are being carried by GlennBeckians rambling on about Communist Nazis trying to kill Grandma, I think of them not as high-powered rifles, not as assault rifles, not even as pretend military rifles. I think of them as ‘widdle gunnie-wunnies’.
I am not making a statement here one way or another whether regulations make any sense on the basis of this “minutia”.
I will say however that if anyone is pointing a gun at me and shooting I will make no distinction about what kind of gun it is. There will be no, “Pfft…it’s only an AR-15…that’s a wimpy rifle” from me. I am sure it can poke holes in me suitably well and while another gun may cause more damage if it hits me that is somehow small comfort.
I believe his point is that a “high-powered” rifle would be something more like an elephant gun- slow rate of fire, extremely powerful rounds, etc. Both impractical and too expensive for use against people. So in this case, the minutiae do matter.
In this case that matters actually.
Given other posts here it seems there are superior rifles to be had out there and the AR-15 is kinda “meh” on the spectrum of rifles that are good at their job (unless people are leaving out some upsides to using an AR-15 over a .458 Win Mag).
So, why this gun? Given the guy’s statements and being where he was with a rifle I am guessing he wanted “scary rifle”. His purpose was to intimidate and scary looking rifle did that better than less scary rifle would.
Scary name, too.
Seriously, what does the “AR” in AR 15 stand for?
About two cubic inches of metal. Very important inches, the M-16 can fire three shots at once (or even all its shots at once), and the AR-15 can only fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. But they are largely identical.
According to Wiki:
AIUI, and I may be wrong, the AR-15 is essentially an M16 without the capability for automatic, vice semi-automatic, fire. On the one hand, the rounds are the same, so any wounds from the two weapons are going to be very similar. On the other hand, it’s still a small caliber round: .223. Smaller than most hunting rounds, and doing less damage. One of the reasons why the switch to the M16 happened (again, AIUI) is that it was determined that from a military standpoint, wounding an enemy soldier is often as effective for taking him out of the fight as killing. And the .223 round is so much smaller, that what it gives up in range, is more than compensated for by the ability to carry more rounds.
To label the AR-15 as a high powered rifle, which seems to be equating with the power, range, and destructiveness of something firing the .50 cal Browning Machine Gun round (which was the focus of the original high power rifle ban in California) seems more than a bit surreal to anyone with a bit of knowledge about guns. In effect - if the AR-15 is a high powered rifle, what rifle doesn’t qualify for that classification? I don’t know of any rifle round smaller than the .22, that is currently in common use. While the .223 round for the AR-15 isn’t exactly compatible with the .22 or .22 LR, it’s not exactly a huge difference, either.
When people and politicians misuse technical terms like high powered rifle to garner support for a bill that has little to do with any rational application of the same technical term, it looks a lot like pandering to the electorate’s ignorance. Which is highly frustrating to watch, no matter where one might stand on the issue in question.
ETA: Whoops. I see the original question had already been answered.
I’ve heard this often, but find it hard to swallow whole. Not a drop of snark intended, but from whence? An abdomen wound might eventually kill, but the victim might have considerable time to pull a trigger, and also no longer be constrained by issues of survival. Perhaps it is a disturbin’ legend?
Keep in mind, the soldier in the field throughout recent history has always demanded a weapon that makes the other patriot dead, dead, dead, and right now. For instance, the .45 Colt Army automatic was developed due to our experience stealing the Phillipines from Spain, fanatic Moro tribesmen would be shot with the standard side-arm and just keep-a-comin’. Of course, the side arm is usually intended for use by an officer, so maybe that had something to do with it.
(Aside: an acquaintance of mine who served in Viet Nam claimed it was not uncommon for the VC to take a mortally wounded soldier, prop him up behind a machine gun, and fill him full of china white smack, and use him to delay attacking forces while they beat a retreat.
I find this story dubious on a number of grounds, not least of which is that he was just about the only Viet Nam vet I ever met who actually liked talking about his combat experience. Plus, even if the soldier were expendable, the machine gun was not. In addition, the guy totally creeped me out.)
If we assume that wounded soldiers will be treated the way we treat them, wounding makes a lot of sense. First, another soldier (or several) has to see to his safety. Then, you’ve got to get a medevac unit in- chopper, or whatever. I presume western armed forces units delay advances while waiting for their wounded to be evacuated. Then your enemy’s medical personnel have to treat him.
All this costs varying amounts of time and money- time and money that would otherwise presumably go into the direct war effort. For obvious reasons, urgency and medical care are not really issues you have to worry about with a dead soldier.
I believe the round tumbles, making a larger wound.
Tumbles? You mean spins? All rifle rounds do that.
No, tumbles. That’s why those rounds are preferred for use against gymnasts.
Spinning rounds are more effective against aerobics instructors. Duh.
But what do you use if Cirque du Soleil’s smug self-satisfaction drives you over the brink?
Rounds of drinks.
Semtex.
Wait. Why would a deaf cobra stop up its ear so it couldn’t hear the snake-charmers’ song? I mean, it’s already deaf, right?