On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.
Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/
starting at the heading "Velocity."
Sheesh.
.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/
That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:
"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable
one."
Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round!
"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down.
Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between
a 22LR and
an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape,
and how
they affect the internal organs and/or bones.
An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities
We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people
down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing
fatalities. I can give
several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's
needed.
But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as
lethal as
a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more
expensive
ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would
they not
just use 22s?
Again: Sheesh!
- Frank Krygowski
Maybe they know something about their craft.
Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/ 7.62 down to
the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue rifles?
Because they found that the benefits of carrying more lighter rounds
greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier rounds. And because the 223
cartridge was much more deadly once it entered an enemy's body. There
were reports (from special forces who first used these guns) of 223s
leaving gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous designs
would pass through and cause much less damage. Also, the AR-style gun
itself was easier to shoot.
Here, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/
As with tires or anything else there may well be an optimal solution at
some point in time to a dynamic series of problems. That doesn't mean
parameters don't change, at which time something else may be optimal.
Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday) is still
true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than that of a backyard 22
rifle. If it were not, soldiers would be shooting 22LRs in battle.
--
- Frank Krygowski