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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I still don't get the original purpose. As said above, guns are lethal. The 223s have been proven to kill many folks in rampages.

Discussing this in any manner will just prime negative attitudes towards the weapons if you don't believe we should have such. I agree with that analysis.

We cannot win any argument by claimed a certain gun is 'nicer' than others so we should be able to have it.

Unless, we can invent reliable phasers on stun, this is not a useful path.

[UncleEd]

One more mass shooting with an AR-15 and
the argument for owning them, particularly
with high cap magazines, will be closed.

It might not be logical especially from a
very pro-gun owner's point of view but
that logic will carry no weight.

A counter argument might be statistics
that show the AR-15 in private
ownership hands has stemmed or
stopped a large number of attacks
by criminals etc. Not what "might be"
but what is the current statistical evidence.

[RickB]

Maybe direct the "grapefruit-sized powdered bone" crowd to Blackhawk Down for anecdotal evidence that the M4, under some conditions, creates a wound akin to poking someone with an ice pick, passing right through without doing much more damage than you'd do with a .22 rimfire.

[cw308]

RickB is correct , using a M16 in the military , most 16 rounds were through & through . Only the older M16's did a better job ,the wounds were horrific . The military corrected the problem . A 5.56 round is no different then any other round . Whether a shotgun with double O buck or a 22 lr.they all do damage . It's the shooter you have to be concerned with not the bullet.

[jmr40]

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

That depends on where you live. In South Florida a 100 lb deer is huge, many are under 50. Around 125-180 is typical in many places, but in others over 200 isn't unusual, and in parts of Canada and the NE USA 300-400 lbs isn't unheard of.

But even the big ones aren't hard to kill. A 223 cartridge with a bullet designed for big game kills all of them just fine. You do have to limit range, and pick shots more carefully than with other cartridges. It's no different than choosing to hunt with archery or muzzle loaders.

Many non gun people have been led to believe that the AR-15 shoots a round much more powerful than a typical hunting cartridge. A friend once asked me about why I wanted to hunt with an AR 15. "It is like hunting with a rifle on steroids" he asked. I simply showed him a 223 cartridge and a 30-06 cartridge. He then understood.

Another thing that bothers me is when I see guys with military experience claim that AR's shouldn't be owned by civilians. These guys may well understand military weapons, but they are apparently clueless about hunting weapons. As a hunter I know darn well that many of my hunting rifles and shotguns would be every bit as effective in most of these shootings. Having an AR is not an advantage when walking around shooting unarmed kids in a crowded hallway. It does help level the field when being shot at by multiple attackers.

That is the point that I try to make when talking to people who ask. If "assault weapons" could somehow be banned and all of them rounded up and destroyed it wouldn't prevent any of this. People who want to do bad things will still do it.

[SPEMack618]

The guy who fired a wore out M-16A4 in basic and might have been issued a Beretta while he worked inside a FOB is about as bad as some political pundits when it comes to talking about guns.

As a vet, I loathe the guy or girl who flouts their armed service as some sort of professional qualification to discuss firearms.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

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.

Like the apocryphal story of the old Texas Ranger who carried a cocked-and-locked 1911 on his belt? Someone noticed the cocked hammer one day and asked him if that wasn't dangerous. The Ranger allegedly replied, "Shucks, if it wasn't dangerous I wouldn't carry it."

[rickyrick]

I’m a vet and I had a lengthy service. Very few soldiers are firearms experts, that’s just a fact. I learned more about guns outside the army than I did while in.
When people use that as a qualifier to say that civilians shouldn’t own weapons really, really irks me.
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on social media and in the comments sections too: there’s a great deal of people claiming to be veterans saying that civilians should not own these weapons. A lot of focus is on the caliber, probably even more than magazine capacity. Good thing that I see, real veterans pick apart the frauds fairly quickly and expose them as such. But, there are real vets who say the same rhetoric.

[2damnold4this]

I would ask if it is ok with them if school kids are murdered with handguns, shotguns or other rifles besides ars. Do we want this to be about keeping bad guns out of the hands of everyone or about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people who are shooting up schools?

[Lohman446]

I ask them to remember that police response times are not incredible and that is assuming the call is even made. I then ask them to imagine a scenario where I, haven taken an “upper”, have had s psychotic break and believe killing them is a vital need. I ask them, absent a firearm, what they think their chances are. I then point out that there are actual convicted killers out there inFAR better shape than me. How certain do you want your means of defense to be? Deadly does help with being certain? What about your daughters?

I don’t NEED an AR-15. A 12 gauge, a Winchester model 94, or various other things will work for me. I have the skill and build to use them effectively. I don’t believe the most likely threat is a large gang of skillful operators. However even against a single individual the hypothetical “your” or “your daughter’s” best defense may reside in the deadliness of a weapon like the AR-15 and it’s combination of speed of shots, stopping power, and limited recoil. The effectiveness of the AR15 in the hands of even a minimally skilled user is precisely the reason they should be protected. They are a tremendous equalizer should someone like my 120 lb 18 year old need to stop a 200 pound skilled fighter

[L2R]

Educating someone who has already determined guns are bad is just a bad idea.
Think of the path you are taking them down.

"If you think a 5.56 is bad, you should see what a 30-06 does!"
"did you know that you don't need a bump stock to auto fire an AR, all you need is your belt".

The discussion should be about criminals who commit crimes.
If you are truly concerned about children, look at the top 3 things that kills our youth and let's work on the low hanging fruit.
It should be about the right to defend ourselves and our families.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

But, there are real vets who say the same rhetoric.

Yes, there are. I worked with one for a couple of years (Marine, and -- like me -- a Vietnam veteran). The other one I know is a good friend, and he is a shooter -- but he shoots hunting rifles and has no problem with universal background checks, assault weapon bans, or any of the current crop of useless, anti-gun proposals. In fact, he favors them -- they don't affect what he shoots.

[Yes, I know -- "not yet."]

It's disappointing, to say the least.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by jmr40

Many non gun people have been led to believe that the AR-15 shoots a round much more powerful than a typical hunting cartridge.

Perhaps, but the problem today is that many are convinced that the AR is simply more lethal than most other firearms, and you're not going to convince them otherwise with your esoteric and arcane knowledge of ballistics. Quite the contrary, actually.

If you tell them it's not the round it fires, then they'll move along to the magazine it accepts, then to the fact that it takes detachable magazines, and lastly to the mere facts that it's semi-automatic and a rifle. None of this does us any kind of good.

The whole intermediate-caliber argument needs to be buried in the deep hole. I'd suggest under the reactor at Chernobyl, where it will become so radioactive that nobody will want to dig it back up.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

We cannot win any argument by claim[ing that] a certain gun is 'nicer' than others so we should be able to have it.

Yup. The argument we need to win is whether armed self-defense by private citizens is justifiable. If so, then EFFECTIVE armed self defense is in turn justifiable. All else flows from that.

[turkeestalker]

Yup. The argument we need to win is whether armed self-defense by private citizens is justifiable. If so, then EFFECTIVE armed self defense is in turn justifiable. All else flows from that.

Exactly.
No disrespect, but allowing ourselves to be sucked into believing that we need to defend something like a wound caused by a bullet from a particular firearm is simply handing our opposition the reigns to drive us to our defeat.
We've got to stand firm together.
What Spats wrote, "Not one more inch. We've given enough."

[Buzzcook]

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?

A cartridge/round is made up of four parts, the shell, the primer, the propellant, and the projectile.
The amount and type of powder effects the speed of the projectile and that can have an effect on whether the bullet fragments. The bullet itself depending on construction will fragment or not depending on what it hits.

So you can get a fragmenting bullet in any type of cartridge size. If a person uses a varmint or deer bullet they will be more likely to fragment or deform than a military fmj round.

The mythos of wounds from the AR-15 5.56 cartridge doesn't have as much to do with fragmenting as it does with tumbling. The original bullet was a relatively light 55gr. Stories started circulating that the round wasn't stable. "If it hits a leaf in flight it will tumble", "A tumbling bullet will hit a guy in the heel and exit through his arm pit", and "a bullet will hit a man then tumble through his body".
These are all lines I've heard from a variety of sources, but its pretty much all anecdotal. It is possibly this that reporters are talking about when they describe the wounds of people shot by the .223/5.56.

There are of course other possibilities for how horrible the wounds were. Some victims were shot several times and of course the victims are frequently children.

[TXAZ]

LogicMan,
you're arguing with an ignoramus, who is trying to make an argument out of BS.

The two times I've been 'acosted' by an anti when they find out I have an 'evil' gun, I've asked them what their first hand experience is with specific guns and wounds, then told them straight up they haven't a first hand clue on weapons or wounds.
It works.

[Nathan]

The conversation has to begin with both sides agreeing that having and carrying ALL small arms are protected by the 2nd amendment

Then, ask how they think ammunition should work? Would it be best if it did not hurt the person shot? Would you like a police officer's gun to work like that?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

The amount and type of powder effects the speed of the projectile and that can have an effect on whether the bullet fragments. The bullet itself depending on construction will fragment or not depending on what it hits.

So you can get a fragmenting bullet in any type of cartridge size. If a person uses a varmint or deer bullet they will be more likely to fragment or deform than a military fmj round.

The mythos of wounds from the AR-15 5.56 cartridge doesn't have as much to do with fragmenting as it does with tumbling. The original bullet was a relatively light 55gr. Stories started circulating that the round wasn't stable. "If it hits a leaf in flight it will tumble", "A tumbling bullet will hit a guy in the heel and exit through his arm pit", and "a bullet will hit a man then tumble through his body".
These are all lines I've heard from a variety of sources, but its pretty much all anecdotal. It is possibly this that reporters are talking about when they describe the wounds of people shot by the .223/5.56.

The "stories" are not anecdotal, they are documented. See the link I provided in post #12. The 5.56x45 round upsets (yaws, tumbles) on impact, and it's the extremely rapid tumbling that causes the fragmentation -- not hitting a large bone.

The issue of tumbling in flight is a different issue entirely. The original M16 barrel twist was too slow, and they found out when they got the rifle to Alaska's cold winters that even the 55-grain bullet couldn't be stabilized by the 1:14 twist. They changed it to 1:12, and that solved the problem. Until they adopted the 62-grain M855 bullet, then they had to change the barrel twist rate again.

[riffraff]

What I tend to say to people is fairly simple.

1. There is nothing particularly dangerous about 5.56 versus many other rounds readily available. They are the cheap basic bullet used in many rifles today, some would be better or worse to get shot by than a 5.56 but they are all made to kill. Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands.

2. With tens of millions of them in circulation, AR15's are the most popular gun today and it's been that way for a long time - people like them because they are light, easy to shoot, and are more of a platform that can be easily modified for serious target shooting, hunting, or self defense, and they can shoot a variety of different rounds.

3. I like guns but most importantly the reason we are the greatest nation in the world is our freedoms. I think part of being free is it tends to come with a price, a free place tends to be a little more dangerous. It's terrible what happens sometimes when bad people do bad things but I do not want to see us give up our freedoms because of a few bad people.

Now attempting to state the above to some hardcore anti gun person isn't going to matter. They will not let you finish that. But my mom and aunt for for instance, who are late 60's, never been around guns, certainly never shot one, and do not particularly like them, understood and agreed with those ideas.

Trying to argue technicalities doesn't work - trying to explain to someone who thinks it's out of the realm of possibility why we should be armed to resist a potentially tyrannical government of the future doesn't work. Personally I think it's better to state the simple fact all guns kill, AR15's are extremely popular for some very innocent reasons, and to state that freedoms in this country are important - most people understand the concept that giving up freedom is bad even if they see guns as more of a curse.

[JohnKSa]

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.

All of that is true except for the implication that tumbling and fragmentation are unique to the 5.56/223.

There are many other rifle cartridges with bullets that tumble and/or fragment. An image search using the terms 'wound channels fmj' will turn up a lot of evidence to verify this statement. And it's not just that the statement is true with relatively light and high-velocity bullets/calibers. At least one WWII 8mm Mauser loading was known to tumble.

Tumbling and fragmentation is not even unique to rifles. FMJ handgun bullets often flip at least once if the wound channel is long enough, it just takes them longer to complete the flip than what is typical with the longer bullets typical of rifles. And it's not hard to design a handgun bullet so that it will fragment on impact--a few specialty ammo companies have made a living doing just that.

[LogicMan]

One reason I ask is because there is an ex-Army Ranger Congressman in Florida who did some TV interviews and wrote an article in the [I[New York Times[/I] explaining why he thinks the AR-15 should be banned. I may be misremembering, but I think one of the things he cited was the horrible wounds that the weapon creates. Such people, like it or not, are given more credibility than non-military people, so a non-military gun rights person needs to be able to engage and debate on ALL the issues of this subject, no matter how uncomfortable.

I understand that arguing with anti's won't really convince most of them (although some can be), but the fence-sitters who maybe ask genuine questions can be a different story. For those kinds, you don't want to seem evasive, but want to be able to address their questions. Otherwise it will come across that you just don't want to address that subject. On the wounding for example, I would point out what many of you are:

"We have a right to effective self-defense."
"All rifle shots make nasty wounds."
"How do you quantify or codify between what rounds are "too lethal" versus which are "acceptable?"

And so forth. That shows the fence-sitter that you are fully willing to engage on such parts of the discussion. No different than arguments about magazine capacity and whether you "need" an AR-15 or not. YES, the argument that, "We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a protected 'need' and the right is about possessing arms for individual self-defense and resistance to a governmental tyranny, therefore any bans on any small arms are mostly illegal" is how it SHOULD be, but to many, that just smacks of evasiveness in the debate.

[LogicMan]

One other question, but I have read that the 5.56x45mm, due to its (supposedly) being prone to fragment, can also thus be a round less likely to overpenetrate, and thus can be an ideal home defense round for this purpose. There was apparently an FBI test and report on this where they had a shootout involving handguns and ARs and found that the handgun rounds penetrated more than the AR rounds did. When they investigated, they found that the handgun rounds, due to traveling slower, did not fragment and thus penetrated more, whereas the 5.56 rounds would fragment and thus wouldn't penetrate as much.

I have only read of this report second-hand though, I have not been able to find an actual copy anywhere.

[HiBC]

LogicMan, I don't mean any disrespect.You are trying to do something all too common in our society.
You are building your argument based on labeling something and putting it in a simple box.Its just too flawed to continue.
I'm not going to do it for you,you have to do your own research.Go to the Sierra,Nosler,Speer,Barnes,and Hornady websites and check out how many .224 bullets are available,what their design charactaristics are.

To discuss the AR-15 bullet" is something like labeling and boxing "Native Americans" or "Women" or "White Males" into one monolithic group.
I can assure you within that box will be subsets and individuals who will invalidate any conclusion you may come to...but that does not deter media or politicians.

Edward Abby points that out in his book "Desert Solitaire"

The other problem with your pursuit :

We do have a problem. What greater way to terrorize any people,USA or elsewhere, than a mass killing at a school?

Per Rahm Emmanuel's doctrine of exploiting crisis,the media and political exploitation of pain and emotion begins while the fallen are still where they fell.

Its cynically exploited. The targets?

The 2nd Ammendment,the NRA,Gun Owners Gun manufacturers.

None of those,nor the AR-15,are the root cause ,and no action on any of those will remedy killing.

And I'm recognizing a trend.

Fairly new members with low post counts starting discussions such as this.

With a little orchestration,the discussion will polarize.

And then the posts take on the tone" The status quo you know is untenable.Compromisei is unavoidable. You must concede common sense gun safety measures. Resistance is futile.You must assimilate"

Sorry ,but my robot is saying "Danger Will Robinson"

I'm feeling like I am being mined for ore for the opposition. Trojan.

LogicMan,..I forget where to look them up,some fed gov website.

There are stats on homicides. If you lump all the AR-15 homicides in with all the other long gun homicides...rifles,shotguns,etc,by far,fists and feet kill more people.

I also can't say my source or an exact number,but gun homicides are way DOWN,more than 50%,over the last 15 years or so.

Now,the Doctors who ,understandably,are troubled by ANY high vel rifle wound,not AR-15 wounds,

I wonder how the stats work out for the number of people killed by our health care system versus firearms?

...

[turkeestalker]

YES, the argument that, "We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a protected 'need' and the right is about possessing arms for individual self-defense and resistance to a governmental tyranny, therefore any bans on any small arms are mostly illegal" is how it SHOULD be, but to many, that just smacks of evasiveness in the debate.

The problem is that you've already lost the argument because that is not how it should be but how it actually is.
That is the reality of it all and you've given your opposition the upper hand by not demanding that fact be acknowledged to begin with.
If that "just smacks of evasiveness in the debate", then it was never an actual debate.
Allowing our opposition to control the narrative in such a way simply means that we've already lost by choice.

added:
Including the word 'mostly' in what I copied and pasted above is proof of that, but I've done the same sort of thing.
Not one more inch.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

There are stats on homicides. If you lump all the AR-15 homicides in with all the other long gun homicides...rifles,shotguns,etc,by far,fists and feet kill more people.

I also can't say my source or an exact number,but gun homicides are way DOWN,more than 50%,over the last 15 years or so.

FBI crime statistics. They are available on-line. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-the-u.s.-2014

There are a number of different tables, allowing viewers to look at different parameters. The link is to the 2014 data -- I'm not certain what the most recent is. 2017 may not be finlaized yet.