How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s

[LogicMan]

So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal.

As gun people, I am thinking that we need to know how to explain this to anti's and to fence-sitters. Now I have never shot anybody or hunted any animals, so I do not know wound ballistics first-hand, however from what I have read, one of the problems with hand guns like a 9mm is that while the wound is a lot less severe, the stopping power of such weapons can also be a lot less. For example, I have read about criminals, especially drugged-up criminals, taking a multitude of shots and not dropping, and then there was that woman in Georgia defending herself and her child who shot the guy five times with a revolver and he didn't drop (lucky for her, he ran out of there however as he decided he'd been shot enough).

Now there was a prior thread related to this not too long ago, but it got closed down. In it, I noticed some people talking about animals they'd hunted and how the ammunition had done some real devastation to the internals of the animal. So what I am thinking is that it seems that any kind of ammunition from a firearm that has real stopping power is going to by its nature just be very devastating to the body. With animals and hunting, you want ammunition that will drop the animal quickly, so that it doesn't just get shot, run away, and die a slow death. To bring it down fast, the ammunition thus does severe internal damage it seems.

With humans, it sounds like a similar case. You shoot someone with a handgun, it may bring the person down, or it may not immediately do so, especially if they are a big person and on drugs. However, with something like an AR-15 chambered in .223 or 5.56 or say a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 buckshot or slugs, the effect is very devastating. So what I would explain to anti's and fence sitters, based on my current knowledge if asked, is that yes, those weapons will likely do terrible damage to the body, but that is the point. They are meant to be able to kill someone quickly, not allow the person to keep walking around for some time. So they cause devastating effects to the internals of the body. It is just what's necessary to make them where the person will drop quickly. Handguns definitely can kill, but are more limited due to their size.

Was wondering your thoughts? This is IMO an important part of this subject that we need to be able to explain to people, to everyone from regular folk to government representatives at hearings on legislation.

[Aguila Blanca]

It's a tough sell to people who just don't like or want guns around. To the point that there's not much to be gained by even trying. The people we have to reach and influence are the fence-sitters.

One argument is that, if the .223 / 5.56x45 round is so devastating, why do so many states not allow it for deer hunting on the grounds that it's not high-powered enough to reliably produce clean kills?

Another argument, which we may not want to use, is to acknowledge that the original purpose of firearms was to kill people, that when firearms are used for either hunting or self defense the intended result IS to do damage to the target, so if that's the purpose, it only makes sense to use something that's going to be effective. As Clint Smith and other trainers remind us, the role of a pistol is to let you fight your way to your rifle.

Bottom line for me is that discussing the type or nature of the weaponry involved is allowing the anti-gunners to control the narrative and to control the discussion. If you get sucked into that argument, you're still discussing "gun" violence. The problem isn't "gun" violence, the problem is violence. It doesn't matter if the instrument for any particular incident is a gun, a knife, an axe, a hand grenade, or a rent-a-truck ... the problem isn't the tool, the problem is the person wielding the tool.

[JohnKSa]

There's nothing special about wounds from an AR-15 or a rifle chambered in 223/5.56. Rifles do a lot more damage than pistols, as a result they are a lot more effective. Pistols are used because they're convenient to carry, not because of how effective they are.

Beyond making that comment, I don't think that it's going to be especially productive to try to argue the point with someone who's anti-gun.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's a tough sell to people who just don't like or want guns around. To the point that there's not much to be gained by even trying. The people we have to reach and influence are the fence-sitters.

One argument is that, if the .223 / 5.56x45 round is so devastating, why do so many states not allow it for deer hunting on the grounds that it's not high-powered enough to reliably produce clean kills?

Another argument, which we may not want to use, is to acknowledge that the original purpose of firearms was to kill people, that when firearms are used for either hunting or self defense the intended result IS to do damage to the target, so if that's the purpose, it only makes sense to use something that's going to be effective. As Clint Smith and other trainers remind us, the role of a pistol is to let you fight your way to your rifle.

Bottom line for me is that discussing the type or nature of the weaponry involved is allowing the anti-gunners to control the narrative and to control the discussion. If you get sucked into that argument, you're still discussing "gun" violence. The problem isn't "gun" violence, the problem is violence. It doesn't matter if the instrument for any particular incident is a gun, a knife, an axe, a hand grenade, or a rent-a-truck ... the problem isn't the tool, the problem is the person wielding the tool.

I agree with much of this, but many people will say that this is engaging in excuse-making, that you don't want to deal with the details at hand, that they can understand why someone wants a gun for self-defense, but do they really need an AR-15? We should be able to have answers for this. Having answers isn't always fighting defensively or letting the anti's control the narrative. To me it would be no different than answering questions about magazine capacity or "assault weapons."

Regarding the round not being powerful enough to kill a deer, well I am no hunter, but I would think that is for deer that are significantly larger and heavier than humans...? The round could be very damaging to a human but not to a larger animal. I have no problem acknowledging guns are tools for killing people. What I personally argue is that "killing" does not have to mean murder. But to me, guns are most definitely tools to allow killing and tools of war, because war happens between individual humans and not just between nation-states and soldiers. If someone is trying to kill or maim you, they have declared a state of war on you and you thus have a right to make war back on them.

[JohnKSa]

I agree with much of this, but many people will say that this is engaging in excuse-making, that you don't want to deal with the details at hand, that they can understand why someone wants a gun for self-defense, but do they really need an AR-15?

The first thing I would do is to redirect the discussion so it's about rifles in general and not about AR-15s in specific. There's nothing special about AR-15s or the specific caliber they are most commonly chambered for. It's an issue of rifles vs. pistols, not an issue of AR-15s vs. other guns.

Regarding the round not being powerful enough to kill a deer...

It is DEFINITELY powerful enough to kill a deer, however it is not generally considered to be an ideal big game cartridge and is not legal for hunting big game in some states.

...deer that are significantly larger and heavier than humans...?

No, they're not. In some areas they are significantly smaller and lighter than humans, on average. This kind of thing is going to bog the discussion down and distract from the real point.

The point you want to make is that there's nothing special about wounds from an AR-15 or other rifles chambered in 223/5.56 when compared to other typical rifle cartridges. Rifles just do a lot more damage than pistols, as a result they are a lot more effective.

[HiBC]

Nothing wrong with trying to gain knowledge and understanding.
And,its good if you are going to discuss these matters,you know what you are talking about.

You are pretty much correct about handgun ammo making for a less destructive wound channel. "Just punching a hole"may not be a perfect description with expanding handgun bullets,but its close enough for discussion.
The surgeon may have more to work with.

Its not particularly anything special about the .223/5.56 cartridge,its more about it being a rifle cartridge,and a fairly high velocity rifle cartridge.
If you consider the military rifles from WW1 to the present,nearly all of them have sufficient velocity to make horrific lethal wounds,particularly if fired with expanding hunting bullets.(FWIW,non-hunting,non expanding bullets draw complaints for "penetrating body armor)

I have done a fair amount of hunting.I have seen high velocity rifle trauma.
There is nothing to argue.Words won't describe it well.
I'm not sure a graphic description is in order.
I would not argue the point that high velocity rifle wounds would be a surgeons nightmare,...or death.

Lets look at something else.This "trauma technology" for the hunter is about delivering a quick,merciful death to the animal. Generally,within seconds. If we are going to hunt,that is our responsibility.
But the 2nd Ammendment is not about hunting.
It includes self defense.
We can assume if you are defending yourself,someone is trying to kill you and you want to stop them.
The sort of handgun wounds the surgeons hope to work with may very well allow the murderer to take several hits and keep on shooting.Maybe kill you or several other people.
If you want to stop him immediately,the massive trauma of a high velocity rifle round might be just the thing.

Things,tools,technology are neither good nor bad. Its the use that people put them to that is good or bad.
London has a problem with knives right now.

There is speculation that "Jack the Ripper" was a surgeon who used surgeons tools.
Shall we ban scalpels? No.

[LogicMan]

All good points. A question: is the .223 and 5.56 unique in that they fragment, which from my understanding is what causes the massive damage, or do other rounds such as .308 and 7.62x51 do the same? Or 30.06?

[ms6852]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal.

As gun people, I am thinking that we need to know how to explain this to anti's and to fence-sitters. Now I have never shot anybody or hunted any animals, so I do not know wound ballistics first-hand, however from what I have read, one of the problems with hand guns like a 9mm is that while the wound is a lot less severe, the stopping power of such weapons can also be a lot less. For example, I have read about criminals, especially drugged-up criminals, taking a multitude of shots and not dropping, and then there was that woman in Georgia defending herself and her child who shot the guy five times with a revolver and he didn't drop (lucky for her, he ran out of there however as he decided he'd been shot enough).

Now there was a prior thread related to this not too long ago, but it got closed down. In it, I noticed some people talking about animals they'd hunted and how the ammunition had done some real devastation to the internals of the animal. So what I am thinking is that it seems that any kind of ammunition from a firearm that has real stopping power is going to by its nature just be very devastating to the body. With animals and hunting, you want ammunition that will drop the animal quickly, so that it doesn't just get shot, run away, and die a slow death. To bring it down fast, the ammunition thus does severe internal damage it seems.

With humans, it sounds like a similar case. You shoot someone with a handgun, it may bring the person down, or it may not immediately do so, especially if they are a big person and on drugs. However, with something like an AR-15 chambered in .223 or 5.56 or say a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 buckshot or slugs, the effect is very devastating. So what I would explain to anti's and fence sitters, based on my current knowledge if asked, is that yes, those weapons will likely do terrible damage to the body, but that is the point. They are meant to be able to kill someone quickly, not allow the person to keep walking around for some time. So they cause devastating effects to the internals of the body. It is just what's necessary to make them where the person will drop quickly. Handguns definitely can kill, but are more limited due to their size.

Was wondering your thoughts? This is IMO an important part of this subject that we need to be able to explain to people, to everyone from regular folk to government representatives at hearings on legislation.

LogicMan please look at this link and download all files you want. It is about wound ballistics, hope this is helpful.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by ms6852

LogicMan please look at this link and download all files you want. It is about wound ballistics, hope this is helpful.

Thank you for the information, will make sure to read it.

[HiBC]

There are many bullets loaded,and they all behave differently.
Your criteria of 5.56 vs 7.62x51 ,etc leaves too many variables.
Pure military ball ammo even comes in several varieties.
This stuff has been studied by military,etc,and generally,each wound is a story itself.
In fact,I'm not an expert to tell you if a 62 gr military ball ammo will typically fragment. The 77 gr sniper type rounds are more likely to.
Understand,there is .223 ammo designed to come unglued if it hits anything...a thistle.
Some 30 cal military ball ammo in a percentage of hits will mostly poke a hole,but if it hits bone?
A through the ribs shot on a deer with a 7.62x51 and a typical expanding 150 gr hunting bullet and you may pour the heart and lungs out as a chunky soup.

I really don't think a graphic description of bullet wound trauma is a good idea.

I'm not going to choose to get hit with anything. With equivalent bullet types,I would expect significantly more trauma from the 7.62 x51 or the 30-06,most of the time.I'm not a Veteran or an ER Dr,and I don't have relevant experience with military ammo trauma. I'm just a guy who has done some hunting,not an expert.

[UncleEd]

It's just not the wounds, the shredding caused by
the .223.

It's the delivery method, a weapon designed to fire
very rapidly and have a large capacity of ammunition.
And it's the ability for someone to carry large amounts
of such lightweight ammunition with nearly instant
reloads.

This ability to deliver in a very, very, very short period
of time great lethality would not be duplicated with
a typical four to seven shot hunting rifle such as a
bolt action or lever action firearm.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

There's nothing special about wounds from an AR-15 or a rifle chambered in 223/5.56.

Yes, there is something special about 5.56x45 wounds, at least if using military ammo. The 55-grain and 62-grain bullets are base-heavy. When the tip makes contact with the target, the bullet upsets (often referred to as "tumbling"). The least that happens is a ragged, elongated hole such as you'd see in paper if the bullet is keyholing. But ... the 5.56x45 military ammo is made with a cannelure. If the velocity is high enough (typically within about 200 meters), when the bullet upsets it rotates fast enough that the jacket separates at the cannelure, resulting in fragmentation that makes the wound even uglier.

http://ammo-oracle.razoreye.net/

Scroll down to the section on terminal performance.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

Regarding the round not being powerful enough to kill a deer, well I am no hunter, but I would think that is for deer that are significantly larger and heavier than humans...?

Whitetail deer are smaller and lighter than average adults. Typically they run somewhere around 125 pounds, IIRC.

[turkeestalker]

This ability to deliver in a very, very, very short period
of time great lethality would not be duplicated with
a typical four to seven shot hunting rifle such as a
bolt action or lever action firearm

Which is precisely why I believe there is a need for such firearms by average citizens to own, and our right to do so that is protected by our constitution.

I'm afraid that even engaging in this kind of conversation about what is and is not permissible or acceptable based on lethality or destructiveness, is willingly allowing the further erosion of our rights.

We've given enough, it has to stop.

[turkeestalker]

It is simply another angle to remove the next chip and make the next chip even easier to remove, and the next, and the next.
Enough.

[Aguila Blanca]

For me, anyway, the more I know about how and why the 5.56x45 round is so lethal the less inclined I am to want to discuss it with anti-gunners. Because the fact is that it IS lethal, and it DOES create nasty, ugly wounds. We can't get around that, and if we try to downplay it while discussing it we come off looking foolish. That's why I think it's better just to concede that it's a rifle and it's more powerful than a handgun ... and then get away from talking about guns and move on to discussing the real problem: violence in today's society.

[turkeestalker]

move on to discussing the real problem: violence in today's society

Bingo.

[K_Mac]

It is a losing argument with someone who is convinced an AR should not be legal for civilians. Most of us own ARs because they are very effective at stopping those who would do us violence. Yes, 5.56x45 is a devastating round. It was designed to be. Any argument that tries to minimize that is disingenuous, and any thinking anti-gun zeolot will quickly let you know it.

[zukiphile]

You know what makes a really nice wound? A subsonic solid point 22lr making a nice small neat hole. An ER doc might tell you how much easier it is to address such a wound.

Are firearms made for the convenience of docs?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The AR15, and most modern military rifles, are intermediate caliber rifles that are significantly less powerful than your average hunting rifle.

I’m going to summarize to the point of misinformation because I don’t have time to write even a decent summary of the development of the rifle; but in the late 19th and early 20th century, technology increasing the lethalty of rifles developed much faster than military tactics did. As a result, these rifles, which are the predecessor to most of what are now considered “hunting rifles”, were designed with Napoleanic-era combat tactics in mind involving massed infantry fires at distances of 1000m or more.

As it turns out, once you can deliver accurate-ish rifle fire on an individual target at long distances, infantrymen stop massing in the open. In the modern era, combat usually occurs under 100m and almost always occurs under 300m.* The idea behind intermediate caliber rifles is just to optimize power levels for the ranges where 99% of combat occurs.

As a result, most of the modern “scary” rifles hit with less power than Grandad’s old deer rifle.

*Yes, most of us know about Afghanistan. Let’s make that a different thread if you want to discuss it.

[rickyrick]

If you see what .223 does at close range and haven’t before, you will probably be surprised.
To deny the damage caused by high velocity bullets is dishonest. It’s not the most powerful and there’s plenty to top it.

[Lohman446]

Guns are deadly weapons. The right of individuals to own them and have them in a state that allows them to be readily used for defense as Heller notes is an individual right is predicated on the fact that they are deadly weapons.

We gain nothing in allowing an argument that focuses on "this caliber is simply too deadly" especially if we allow the argument to be focused on the .223.

Think about it. How do you codify the "deadliness" of the .223 (or 5.56 or whatever)? Energy, size, projectile weight? None of these are going to only address the .223. As a "weapon of war" which in countries in Europe has also addressed the 9MM and 7.62 among others. In the end what does it matter? Make the .223 a illegal too specifically and the 6.5CM becomes more widely adopted and has changed nothing.

Guns are deadly. The .223 is not exceptionally deadly or not deadly. For all the doctors talking about "vaporized bone" is there evidence? Physical and graphic evidence beyond accounts should be readily available. Of course a rifle is more deadly then a pistol.

The argument for the individual right to bear arms does not deny the effectiveness of such arms. In fact, to some degree, it relies on it.

[jimbob86]

Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person

There's nothing nice or clean about the wounds created by supersonic jacketed hollow points...... in truth, there is nothing nice or clean about any bullet wound...... that some wounds are less severe than others is a PC distinction akin to some excrement is stinkier than others ..... so you should only be allowed this kind of diet, or this amount of food...... so that your excrement won't smell as bad.

I think this whole line of reasoning is severely flawed: The purpose of the gun is to stop the assailant from doing whatever it was he was doing that got him shot. The "only shoot him a little" flavor of this is total crap. If I need to shoot somebody, I'm doing it with as much gun as is available.......... pistols are portable, and that's why folks carry them. In a fight, I'd much rather have as much as I can have, while still being able to move .....

..... Going down the road of "You only need ________." is stupid. Since when does somebody else get to decide what my Rights are, based upon what they perceive to be my "need"?

[kenny53]

"How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s"
It would be a no win conversation. I have never had someone ask me to defend the types of wounds made by guns. They have wonder why I like guns, why we should have guns, and if I have shot anybody. I would guess if asked I would have to say "with a wound like that their ability to harm has been diminished."

[Big Motor]

An example of an AR-15 failing to stop, would be in Vietnam.

The M16 in Vietnam, failed to stop the NVA/VC on occasion, because they were junked up on opium and/or meth. They took hits from .50 caliber machine guns, and kept coming. Now that would be a devastating wound, a .50 BMG round, into a human body.

That could happen in America, with an AR-15, shooting someone high on meth.
If a critic doesn't understand that, then they are being obstinate, and they are unteachable. High cap mags serve a useful purpose in defense against maniacs, who are not stopped with 2 or 3 shots. Instead it may take 10 or 12, who knows?