On 1/17/2020 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.
Not as deadly generally as 7.62. Or a Barrett .50 for that
matter. Special Forces still make excellent use of .22 for
some types of action (as a recent post noted). No matter
how you try to spin this, an AR-15 semi is not magic, and a
..223 is not magic either. They are both mediocre in a range
of weapons by any measure.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971