20" Barreled AR15 Impractical for Close Quarters?

[Sharkbite]

^^^ here we go again. Sigh...

[marine6680]

12ga 00 buck is an effective round, that is not in debate.

I'm not even debating that you put 8 shots into bad guys.


But here are the facts, found from research, testing, and from the people who are experts in the feild of terminal ballistics... And it trumps anecdotal reports from someone who has little knowledge of the actual physics behind the subject...

First... 223/5.56 with proper bullet selection is very effective.

The police in this county use 223/5.56 all the time, and report positive results. They use the round enough to be very statistically relevant.

The different round types between military and police/civilian use means results are not directly comparable. So you can't drown out the civilian side success with a larger data set from the military... They are not comparable sets of data.

The bullets used by the military are not the most effective, even the new 855A1 is less effective than civilian ammo, and it is the best performing military round to date.

No the special ops guys cannot source just any ol' ammo they want. Even they have to follow the rules.

In an intense situation, people tend to pull the trigger more times than strictly necessary to stop the threat. And it is a lot easier to pump out several rounds from an AR than from a pump shotgun. Also, high faith in the shotgun means you are less likely to waste ammo. Low faith in an AR will make you use more ammo.

The ammo used sucks relatively, and it will require more rounds anyway, to make up for that discrepancy.

Confirmation bias is rampant on a battle field... Anecdote is meaningless to knowing reality.

[Model12Win]

Originally Posted by marine6680

12ga 00 buck is an effective round, that is not in debate.

I'm not even debating that you put 8 shots into bad guys.


But here are the facts, found from research, testing, and from the people who are experts in the feild of terminal ballistics... And it trumps anecdotal reports from someone who has little knowledge of the actual physics behind the subject...

First... 223/5.56 with proper bullet selection is very effective.

The police in this county use 223/5.56 all the time, and report positive results. They use the round enough to be very statistically relevant.

The different round types between military and police/civilian use means results are not directly comparable. So you can't drown out the civilian side success with a larger data set from the military... They are not comparable sets of data.

The bullets used by the military are not the most effective, even the new 855A1 is less effective than civilian ammo, and it is the best performing military round to date.

No the special ops guys cannot source just any ol' ammo they want. Even they have to follow the rules.

In an intense situation, people tend to pull the trigger more times than strictly necessary to stop the threat. And it is a lot easier to pump out several rounds from an AR than from a pump shotgun. Also, high faith in the shotgun means you are less likely to waste ammo. Low faith in an AR will make you use more ammo.

The ammo used sucks relatively, and it will require more rounds anyway, to make up for that discrepancy.

Confirmation bias is rampant on a battle field... Anecdote is meaningless to knowing reality.

The fact that you would insult one of our combat veterans by essentially telling him he is a LIAR is frankly infuriating.

davidsog I apologize for this behavior, we owe you better.

[Fishbed77]

The fact that you would insult one of our combat veterans by essentially telling him he is a LIAR is frankly infuriating.

davidsog I apologize for this behavior, we owe you better.

It looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence, or they didn't read the entire post.

I didn't see anyone call anyone a liar.

In fact, it looks like there was agreement on the effectiveness of 12 ga, and there is no doubt that some of the 5.56x45mm loadings available on the the commercial market have more effective terminal ballistics than those issued by the military.

[M1Rifle30-06]

The fact that you would insult one of our combat veterans by essentially telling him he is a LIAR is frankly infuriating.

davidsog I apologize for this behavior, we owe you better.

I don't see how he was calling davidsog a liar at all. He never disputed that he had put 8 rounds into bad guys. He was just saying that anecdotal examples of it taking many rounds to stop someone isn't scientific evidence that 5.56 as a whole is inadequate/not preferable. Rather, he was saying that the military loadings are inferior compared to civilian offerings, and offered scientific evidence to support that. The top 5.56/.223 loadings on the civilian market are just plain superior to M855 or 855A1. Any amount of research into the subject will reflect this. It's not calling anyone anything, it's just stating objective data.

[marine6680]

Model12...

You are active enough on this site to know better than that. I never called him a liar. Only that he has no evidence to back his claims.

I and him are both vets, we just did different jobs. Your reaction, with what seems like only a surface level reading and understanding of my post is insulting/disrespectful to me.

There is a difference between respecting a veteran and an unquestioning and unconditional idoltry of veterans. Being a vet does not automatically make you some saint of a person, incapable of flaws, making mistakes, or outright untruthful. (Not saying that is the case here, just that such is a possibility for any individual)

Next, there is the overlying context of this situation that I guess you are unaware of.

Sharkbite above me is well aware of it, hence his post.


Davisdog has repeatedly tried to pass of his anecdotal account as definitive proof of the total ineffectiveness of 223/5.56. he has repeatedly put out false information, based on poor sources, and has rejected all counter evidence out of hand as being irrelevant. He has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the difference between the military and police/civilian world, and repeatedly ignored the fact that military ammo terminal performance is poor compared to ammo available to civilians. He has also claimed that the spec ops guys somehow get to skirt the rules of war and purchase ammo that is not allowed under the rules of war.


That, on top of the whole "what is and is not valid evidence" thing...

Simply put, anecdotal evidence from boots on the ground is useless on its own... It must be verified. Unfortunately, in a high risk situation with hormones flying... Perception distorts. Plus the fact that a mind not trained in understanding bias and scientific observation is not going to be able to put forth impartial accounts of what happens.

My argument is based on experience with the other individual in other threads on this site. It is also based on a competent understanding of the scientific method, and the logical fallacies and mental biases all people are prone to falling victim of.

[44 AMP]

One should not entirely discount anecdotal evidence. It can be a true and accurate recounting of events that actually happened. It can also be a "sea story". One has to decide for one's self which it is, and give it the consideration each deserves.

Conclusions based on anecdotal evidence can be flawed. SO can conclusions based on "scientific" study. Neither is perfect. Do remember that it is science that said bumblebees cannot fly...

Lots of us here at TFL are veterans. Some of us have been on the "sharp end". Personal accounts of things that really happened are not to be entirely dismissed out of hand, simply because they are not scientific study data.

On the other hand, taking the word of someone who is obviously a batspit wackjob is foolish, whether they are a scientist, or not.

[K_Mac]

M12 what is expected on this site is civil discussion. I was reminded of that by management recently. Davidsog offers his opinions based on his experience. While his service is worthy of honor and respect it does not make him an authority on ballistics or weapons. A 12 gauge pump is a great choice in some situations, but it is certainly not the preferred choice of most professionals and civilians I know when compared to an AR 15 carbine. Stating that does not denigrate anyone or require an apology.

[Metal god]

The age old saying runs true , The best weapon to use for HD/SD is the one you have . If you so get to choose which one to use . I see no reason to go with a 20" barrel when a 14.5" will be just as effective with more room to work .

I was helping a buddy move one time and I saw he had one of those pistol lock boxes bolted to his night stand . He and I had talked many times about what's best for HD/SD and we often concluded it was a long gun . I was always a shotgun guy while he would say AR or AK . So when I see this pistol box on his nightstand and knowing he has his preferred long guns in the closet of the same room . I asked why do you have that pistol next to your bed ? He then gave me the best answer I've heard to date " to ensure I can get to my AR/AK "

Now I've posted this before but I have since abandoned my thinking on a long gun being best for SD/HD and now go with a hand gun . Why ? simple really , I once felt the need to clear my home in the middle of the night and grabbed the shotgun and proceeded to go room to room clearing the house . It became very clear to me very fast that a two handed weapon in close quarters by your self does not work well when needing to open doors , call police and impossible when moving your children to safety . Maybe a semi auto long gun but no way a manually operated long gun would work for my needs and really no long gun is going to work well one handed .

I still believe that many long guns would be better as a stop the bad guy ASAP type of weapon but there are many other things to consider then just stopping power . Stopping power does not mean much if you can't effectively deploy it . So I take my buddies advice or at least thought process . If I need my long guns in a HD/SD situation my handgun will allow me to get to them while still being able to perform other things with my free hand like calling the police or getting my children to safety .

[davidsog]

Only that he has no evidence to back his claims.

Guess the Army was just bored and looking for something to do, huh?

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports
from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements,
some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through”
hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

[davidsog]

marine6680 says:

But here are the facts, found from research, testing, and from the people who are experts in the feild of terminal ballistics... And it trumps anecdotal reports from someone who has little knowledge of the actual physics behind the subject...

First... 223/5.56 with proper bullet selection is very effective.

The Army said:

Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet
yaw

The conclusion from the Regular Army study was to overcome the tendency for thru and thru at CQB ranges was additional training FOR THE AVERAGE SOLDIER.

There are doctrinal and training techniques that can increase
Soldier effectiveness.

The technique of engaging CQB targets with controlled pairs – two aimed, rapid shots as described in Chapter 7 of FM 3-22.9 – was
shown to be significantly better than single aimed shots (see Figure
8). While that should certainly not be surprising to those who
have been using this technique for some time, we now know why.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

marine6680 says:
Davisdog has repeatedly tried to pass of his anecdotal account

No, It is the same report posted in the last thread. I think you just missed the reports significance because it did not fit your ideas.

[Theohazard]

My gosh, davidsog. I simply don’t understand why you continue to ignore the fact that your experience (and the evidence you’re providing) is referring to the use of ammunition types that are known to be poor stoppers. I’m a civilian now, and I’m no longer required to use M855 that’s going to zip through my target and cause minimal damage. I load my HD AR-15 with Hornady TAP, which is a far better stopper than M855

Your repeated claims over multiple threads that a 5.56 is a poor stopper because of our troops’ bad experiences with military penetrator ammo is like me claiming a 12 gauge shotgun is a poor stopper because I used birdshot for HD and had poor results.

[Model12Win]

Originally Posted by Theohazard

My gosh, davidsog. I simply don’t understand why you continue to ignore the fact that your experience (and the evidence you’re providing) is referring to the use of ammunition types that are known to be poor stoppers. I’m a civilian now, and I’m no longer required to use M855 that’s going to zip through my target and cause minimal damage. I load my HD AR-15 with Hornady TAP, which is a far better stopper than M855

Your repeated claims over multiple threads that a 5.56 is a poor stopper because of our troops’ bad experiences with military penetrator ammo is like me claiming a 12 gauge shotgun is a poor stopper because I used birdshot for HD and had poor results.

Stopping power is a myth. No 5.56 has the same energy as a load of buck. Energy does work, and that work, for our purposes, is the destruction of human flesh which causes a rapid hypovolemic state or in the destruction of vital organs in order to incapacitate an assailant.

From my numbers, a charge of 12 bore 00 buck has about TWICE the energy of ANY 5.56 round. Vis a vis, it can do about TWICE the damage of the 5.56. Now add in that each pellet creates its own wound channel and the typical trajectory variations of buckshot in tissues in postmortem autopsies, allows for an increased hit threshold to individual vital structures of the human anatomy.

[Art Eatman]

This has degenerated into off-topic squabbling. Enough.