The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**Aguila Blanca** · April 11, 2013, 06:38 PM

In reading about both the Sandy Hook massacre and all the political fallout from the incident, I keep coming back to the characterizations of the rifle used as a "military style assault weapon," and "designed to fire as many bullets as possible in a short time. And, of course, the demonization of "large capacity" magazines. I finally decided to look at what the numbers really tell us.

The Connecticut State Police have been sitting on a lot of the information they have uncovered, but recent articles have finally confirmed that the shooter fired 154 rounds of .223 (unless it was 145 -- the State Police math on that doesn't add up) and that six magazines were used in all (not all shot to empty). And a very recent article indicates that the Connecticut State Police now think the shooter had no more than five minutes from the start of the attack to when he ended his own life.

So -- 154 shots evenly spaced over 5 minutes (or 300 seconds) works out to 0.51 shots per second, or one shot every 1.96 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire is 30.6 rounds per minute. That's hardly machine gun speed.

But wait ... if he used six magazines and the last was in the rifle when it was recovered, there were five magazine swaps. We can't know how long those took. We know the kid probably practiced, but he was still probably not quite in Travis Tomasie territory. To be conservative, let's allow five seconds for each magazine swap. That reduces the actual time available for shooting to 275 seconds. The average rate of fire is now 154 / 275, which gives us 0.56 shots per second. That translates to one shot every 1.79 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire is 33.6 rounds per minute. Still not exactly up there with even a slow machine gun.

To take it a step further, suppose all the kid had had available was 10-shot magazines. That would have meant 15 magazine changes, which at five seconds per would have deducted 75 seconds from his shooting time. So the rate of fire would then have been 154 / 225, which is .68 rounds per second, or one round every 1.47 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire would then be 40.8 rounds per minute.

If I remember correctly from my Vietnam days, I believe the rate of fire for the M16 was something on the order of 800 rounds per minute (at least, until the pencil barrel melted). What's the rate of fire for an M4 carbine? I'm sure it's orders of magnitude greater than 40 rounds per minute.

More importantly, the difference between the actual average rate of fire with 30-round magazines and the projected rate of fire with 10-round magazines simply does NOT support the anti-gunners' claims that ten-round magazines would have saved lives at Sandy Hook. When real bullets are flying, the difference between 33 rounds per minute and 40 rounds per minute just doesn't mean much.

April 11, 2013, 06:38 PM	#1
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,476	Basic math In reading about both the Sandy Hook massacre and all the political fallout from the incident, I keep coming back to the characterizations of the rifle used as a "military style assault weapon," and "designed to fire as many bullets as possible in a short time. And, of course, the demonization of "large capacity" magazines. I finally decided to look at what the numbers really tell us. The Connecticut State Police have been sitting on a lot of the information they have uncovered, but recent articles have finally confirmed that the shooter fired 154 rounds of .223 (unless it was 145 -- the State Police math on that doesn't add up) and that six magazines were used in all (not all shot to empty). And a very recent article indicates that the Connecticut State Police now think the shooter had no more than five minutes from the start of the attack to when he ended his own life. So -- 154 shots evenly spaced over 5 minutes (or 300 seconds) works out to 0.51 shots per second, or one shot every 1.96 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire is 30.6 rounds per minute. That's hardly machine gun speed. But wait ... if he used six magazines and the last was in the rifle when it was recovered, there were five magazine swaps. We can't know how long those took. We know the kid probably practiced, but he was still probably not quite in Travis Tomasie territory. To be conservative, let's allow five seconds for each magazine swap. That reduces the actual time available for shooting to 275 seconds. The average rate of fire is now 154 / 275, which gives us 0.56 shots per second. That translates to one shot every 1.79 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire is 33.6 rounds per minute. Still not exactly up there with even a slow machine gun. To take it a step further, suppose all the kid had had available was 10-shot magazines. That would have meant 15 magazine changes, which at five seconds per would have deducted 75 seconds from his shooting time. So the rate of fire would then have been 154 / 225, which is .68 rounds per second, or one round every 1.47 seconds. In standard terms, the rate of fire would then be 40.8 rounds per minute. If I remember correctly from my Vietnam days, I believe the rate of fire for the M16 was something on the order of 800 rounds per minute (at least, until the pencil barrel melted). What's the rate of fire for an M4 carbine? I'm sure it's orders of magnitude greater than 40 rounds per minute. More importantly, the difference between the actual average rate of fire with 30-round magazines and the projected rate of fire with 10-round magazines simply does NOT support the anti-gunners' claims that ten-round magazines would have saved lives at Sandy Hook. When real bullets are flying, the difference between 33 rounds per minute and 40 rounds per minute just doesn't mean much.