Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[peter12]

Great little article on some of the misconceptions of the Orlando shooting, and why carry and conceal citizens couldn't have stopped the Orlando massacre. HINT: We know that there were several individuals with concealed weapons in the club who chose to keep their weapons holstered.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-gun-runs-too/

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

I believe the AR can very easily modify to allow burst firing as well as a larger clip. In the case of the Orlando shooting the guns were stock as they were bought the day before. Would the AR or a similar weapon be more powerful than a pistol?

It would not be an easy modification. It requires modifying the lower receiver. Not a clue how that is done but certainly beyond your average Joe.

Almost any rifle is far more powerful than any pistol based purely on the amount of barrel it has to build up speed in. Rifle cartridges also have far more powder in the case too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by speede5

I'm no expert but, and somone can elaborate on this, Rifles and pistols are very different in accuracy, velocity, and effect.

I don't know a good analogy, but a pistol is brute force stopping power, Like getting hit is the face with a bat. A rifle shot will go right through you and keep going. They are both lethal for different reasons.

Police use bullets that expand and cut doing massive damage, causing the target to bleed out, penetration is not very deep. A rifle shot causes velocity related damage.

In war rifles are not exactly designed to kill. The full metal jacket is designed to go clean through, leaving a live victim, taking 2 more combatants out of play to tend to his injuries. That said, when the bullet goes through a major organ you will be pretty much screwed.

Weird, I was always taught that it was more likely that a full metal jacket round will have a better possibility of going through barriers that the enemy was hiding behind, thus either suppressing him or getting a lucky hit.

[peter12]

When the US Army transitioned from the M-14 to the M-16, complaints immediately surfaced that the M-16 didn't have a) the stopping power or b) the power to punch through enemy cover.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

It would not be an easy modification. It requires modifying the lower receiver. Not a clue how that is done but certainly beyond your average Joe.

Almost any rifle is far more powerful than any pistol based purely on the amount of barrel it has to build up speed in. Rifle cartridges also have far more powder in the case too.

The more important thing with the rifle over the pistol is that its far more accurate over distance because its a more stable two handed weapon.

Realistically the scenes that they show in movies and TV's of the steely eyed guy blasting someone with a pistol from a half football field away is bullspit. using a pistol is usually hit or miss over a short range, because even the smallest tremble in your hand or with your breathing can send you wide.

A rifle with two handed control is more forgiving of a novice shooter especially and you can hit out over range.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Weird, I was always taught that it was more likely that a full metal jacket round will have a better possibility of going through barriers that the enemy was hiding behind, thus either suppressing him or getting a lucky hit.

It is a less brutal weapon according to the rules of war than a hallowpoint or other projectile which fractures upon impact. Hollowpoints are used by police due to what you mention, the less chance of penetrating an obstacle and injuring those beyond the line of fire.

Originally Posted by peter12

When the US Army transitioned from the M-14 to the M-16, complaints immediately surfaced that the M-16 didn't have a) the stopping power or b) the power to punch through enemy cover.

This shouldn't have been a surprise as the 5.56 calibre of the m16 is significantly smaller than the 7.62 round used in the m14.

Pics!

The round in the middle is the m14 round and the one on the bottom is the m16 round. While the 5.56 doesn't have the punch power of the 7.62 it's an easier weapon platform to use over extended periods (early m16 jamming etc notwithstanding, firing one of those rounds over and over again is murder on your body).

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Realistically the scenes that they show in movies and TV's of the steely eyed guy blasting someone with a pistol from a half football field away is bullspit. using a pistol is usually hit or miss over a short range, because even the smallest tremble in your hand or with your breathing can send you wide.

Exactly. TWD is awful for this. Head shot after head shot after head shot. Not going to happen.

First time I fired a handgun at 5 meters I couldn't believe the spread. They are hard to shoot.

Even a rile at 100 yrds is tough from a standing position but you stand a much better chance than a handgun at that range.

[peter12]

Yeah, it was just meant as corollary to Captain`s point re increased penetration of enemy cover as opposed to inflicting wounds on multiple combatants. The redcoats stopped attacking a long time ago.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is a less brutal weapon according to the rules of war than a hallowpoint or other projectile which fractures upon impact. Hollowpoints are used by police due to what you mention, the less chance of penetrating an obstacle and injuring those beyond the line of fire.


This shouldn't have been a surprise as the 5.56 calibre of the m16 is significantly smaller than the 7.62 round used in the m14.

Pics!

The round in the middle is the m14 round and the one on the bottom is the m16 round. While the 5.56 doesn't have the punch power of the 7.62 it's an easier weapon platform to use over extended periods (early m16 jamming etc notwithstanding, firing one of those rounds over and over again is murder on your body).

Trust me when we started doing transitions from the FNC1-A1 we hated the C7 with a passion.

With the FN you had a much heavier rifle that was probably close to 15 pounds. But the trade off was a Nato 7.62 round that traveled at I think 2700 fps. You could shoot people through a vehicle with it, or if you were lucky hit a guy at over a football field away and drop him.

The problem with the FN was it had a poor spring design so it kicked the crap out of your shoulder. Even the C2 created all kinds of dread because firing that thing guaranteed an end to your pitching career.

When we got the C7's we hated them because of their cleaning protocol, we didn't feel that there was a lot of power to them, but man we were suddenly the supermen of the range because the springs ate all the recoil and you could be really accurate over a pretty long distance. Also smaller rounds meant we could carry more and lighter weight = good.

]

[peter12]

As far as I know, don't squad tactics now mainly centre around using the riflemen to suppress a target in order to allow the squad weapons team to get into position for the kill?

[Doodlebug]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Weird, I was always taught that it was more likely that a full metal jacket round will have a better possibility of going through barriers that the enemy was hiding behind, thus either suppressing him or getting a lucky hit.

http://www.weaponslaw.org/instrument...ue-Declaration

The Laws of War on expanding bullets.

[CaptainCrunch]

OH we knew that part.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Pistols aren't really brute force. Pretty much all the popular pistol cartridges 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP are subsonic rounds meaning they travel below the speed of sound. The main "advantage" of a pistol over a rifle is size and concealment.

The AR15 cartridges (.223) as far as rifles are concerned, aren't all that powerful either. They are only barely larger than a .22 as the name suggests. The main difference is velocity. 3300 fps for the .223 vs 1200 fps for the .22

They also tend to "tumble" when they hit bone thus destroying far more flesh, a doctor was on CNN explaining one victim in the hospital was hit in the wrist but the bullet was found in his shoulder. And the .223 is just one of many rounds for the AR-15.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by T@T

And the .223 is just one of many rounds for the AR-15.

?? It's the only round for an AR15.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

?? It's the only round for an AR15.

You can have an AR fitted different receives. 9mm, 5.56, .223, .22lr, .308 and I"m sure many others.

[GoinAllTheWay]

5.56 and .223 are basically the same thing. .308 is an AR10. 9mm and it's a carbine.

Getting into splitting hairs territory I suppose but strictly speaking, an AR15 only shoots .223/5.56. Chambered for any other round and it's no longer an AR15 only "AR15 style".

[corporatejay]

Serious question for hunters.

Why isn't a single bullet bolt action rifle enough? Like if we just banned all semi-auto weapons would that still work for hunters?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Serious question for hunters.

Why isn't a single bullet bolt action rifle enough? Like if we just banned all semi-auto weapons would that still work for hunters?

Yes, it would work just fine. But it's not about that. It's about freedom. It's about the rights granted under the Constitution. It's about honouring the wishes of the slave owning rich white men whose infallibility extended far beyond women not voting, far beyond owning humans.

It's also about the fact that I cannot achieve a diamond cuttingly hard erection anymore without the sheer killing power a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine provides me with.

[corporatejay]

Ok but even in Canada. I'm very pro hunter and I'm fine with people owning rifles for hunting so I'm actually asking, why not outlaw all magazine based guns

[Coach]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Ok but even in Canada. I'm very pro hunter and I'm fine with people owning rifles for hunting so I'm actually asking, why not outlaw all magazine based guns

I'm not much of a hunter myself but it's huge with my Dad and his family, so I go with them sometimes. I have never seen anyone with something other than a pump action rifle with maybe 6 bullets.

As someone pretty against guns overall, when hunting in the wilderness, it's nice to know you have a few quick shots at something that might be hunting you. But really, anything more than that is excessive.