• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The AR crew likes the destruction designed into this gun

After all this...do you realize how silly this sounds? In the AR 15 platform, the .223 5.56 is one of THIS MANY
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR[1]
.17 Winchester Super Magnum[1]
.22 Long Rifle[2]
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire[1]
.17 Mach IV
.17 Remington Fireball
.17 Remington[1]
.204 Ruger[1]
.222 Remington
.223 Remington - Original AR-15 caliber: .223 cartridges may function in a 5.56×45mm rifle, however 5.56×45mm cartridges can produce excessive pressure in a .223 rifle. On the other hand, a .223 Wylde chamber is used on .223 caliber rifle barrels to allow them to safely fire either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.[3]
.22 PPC
.22 Nosler
.224 Valkyrie (necked down 6.8SPC) [4]
.223 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25-45 Sharps
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine[1]
.30 Remington AR[5]
300 OSSM[3]
300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)[5]
.300 Whisper[5]
358 Yeti - Wildcat [6]
375 SOCOM
.40 S&W[7]
.410 Shotgun
.45 ACP[8]
.450 Bushmaster[1]
.458 SOCOM[9]
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf[10]
5.45×39mm[1]
5.56×45mm NATO - Original AR-15A2 caliber: can also safely fire .223 Remington[1]
FN 5.7×28mm
6.5mm Grendel[1]
6.8×39mm (.277 Wolverine)[11][12]
6.8mm Remington SPC[5]
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm[5]
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical[5]
7.92x33mm Kurz
9mm Parabellum[2]
10mm Auto[8]
And then there is the AR 10 category...
.220 Swift
.22-250 Remington
6mm-250
.243 Winchester - same bolt as 7.62×51 (worn-down barrels can be re-bored to take 6.5 Creedmoor or 7.62×51)[3]
6MM Remington
6MM Creedmoor
257 Roberts
6.5×47mm Lapua
6.5mm Creedmoor - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
.260 Remington - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
7mm-08 Remington
7.62×51mm NATO - Original AR-10 caliber
.308 Winchester - considered interchangeable with 7.62×51mm NATO according to SAAMI.
.338 Federal
.358 Winchester
.45 RAPTOR
.500 Auto Max
.300 Winchester Magnum [13][14][15]
.30-06 Springfield [16]
7mm Remington Magnum[17]
.270 Winchester[18]
.25-06 Remington[18]
.338 Lapua Magnum[19]
 
VanceMack said:
After all this...do you realize how silly this sounds? In the AR 15 platform, the .223 5.56 is one of THIS MANY
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR[1]
.17 Winchester Super Magnum[1]
.22 Long Rifle[2]
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire[1]
.17 Mach IV
.17 Remington Fireball
.17 Remington[1]
.204 Ruger[1]
.222 Remington
.223 Remington - Original AR-15 caliber: .223 cartridges may function in a 5.56×45mm rifle, however 5.56×45mm cartridges can produce excessive pressure in a .223 rifle. On the other hand, a .223 Wylde chamber is used on .223 caliber rifle barrels to allow them to safely fire either .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.[3]
.22 PPC
.22 Nosler
.224 Valkyrie (necked down 6.8SPC) [4]
.223 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum[3]
.25-45 Sharps
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine[1]
.30 Remington AR[5]
300 OSSM[3]
300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)[5]
.300 Whisper[5]
358 Yeti - Wildcat [6]
375 SOCOM
.40 S&W[7]
.410 Shotgun
.45 ACP[8]
.450 Bushmaster[1]
.458 SOCOM[9]
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf[10]
5.45×39mm[1]
5.56×45mm NATO - Original AR-15A2 caliber: can also safely fire .223 Remington[1]
FN 5.7×28mm
6.5mm Grendel[1]
6.8×39mm (.277 Wolverine)[11][12]
6.8mm Remington SPC[5]
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm[5]
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical[5]
7.92x33mm Kurz
9mm Parabellum[2]
10mm Auto[8]
And then there is the AR 10 category...
.220 Swift
.22-250 Remington
6mm-250
.243 Winchester - same bolt as 7.62×51 (worn-down barrels can be re-bored to take 6.5 Creedmoor or 7.62×51)[3]
6MM Remington
6MM Creedmoor
257 Roberts
6.5×47mm Lapua
6.5mm Creedmoor - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
.260 Remington - same bolt as 7.62×51, and can be formed from 7.62×51 brass
7mm-08 Remington
7.62×51mm NATO - Original AR-10 caliber
.308 Winchester - considered interchangeable with 7.62×51mm NATO according to SAAMI.
.338 Federal
.358 Winchester
.45 RAPTOR
.500 Auto Max
.300 Winchester Magnum [13][14][15]
.30-06 Springfield [16]
7mm Remington Magnum[17]
.270 Winchester[18]
.25-06 Remington[18]
.338 Lapua Magnum[19]
Click to expand...
The ar15 military platform that shoots the NATO shell is what??????
 
jbander said:
The ar15 military platform that shoots the NATO shell is what??????
Click to expand...

Which one? The 9mm? The 5.56x45mm? The 7.62×51mm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't disagree with most of that article, but the first point is ludicrous. A shotgun is by far the best gun for home defense. If you was kicking someone's door in would you rather them to have a rifle on the other side or a 12 gauge loaded with 3-1/2 inch super magnums? That load of buckshot would damn near cut you in two and they don't even have to really aim it.
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as the best gun for home defense. it depends on where you are in a home and who you might have to defend. Try carrying an infant and using a shotgun for defense
 
jbander said:
The ar15 military platform that shoots the NATO shell is what??????
Click to expand...

no such thing-come back to this when you learn that the military platform is a M16 or M4
 
jbander said:
Can anyone tell me what the hell he is saying. The nato round 223 is a hell of a lot more lethal then a >223 rem.. for lots of reasons , from higher pressure to Decreased twist to lengthened leade to increase pressure to ballistic yaw and ballistic breakup. No comparison. You people need this lie in a big way don't you.
Click to expand...

The nato 5.56 is not a hella lot more powerfull than 2.23, it is the nato version of the same round, much as 7.62 x 51 is the nato version of .308.
The 5.56 is nearly identical in pressure to .223, and twist rate is independant of round used, that is in the rifle, most .223 use what was considered more deadly 1in7 twist while 5.56 outside the m16a1 used the 1in9 twist. Some use a 1in13 twist, these are all rifle specific, not ammo specific.

If you could come to this conversation with even the slightest knowledge you may have ground to stand on, but being the case you don't you are in bad standing to argue anything you do not have the slightest clue about.
 
beerftw said:
The nato 5.56 is not a hella lot more powerfull than 2.23, it is the nato version of the same round, much as 7.62 x 51 is the nato version of .308.
The 5.56 is nearly identical in pressure to .223, and twist rate is independant of round used, that is in the rifle, most .223 use what was considered more deadly 1in7 twist while 5.56 outside the m16a1 used the 1in9 twist. Some use a 1in13 twist, these are all rifle specific, not ammo specific.

If you could come to this conversation with even the slightest knowledge you may have ground to stand on, but being the case you don't you are in bad standing to argue anything you do not have the slightest clue about.
Click to expand...
You have no Idea what I know , it is totally apparent by your response , This thread is about both the M16 and the NATO shell. So your way behind this conversation. Somewhere that most you gun Bubbas heroes come from. You gun bubbas are the ones who know nothing about this issue , you characters have told me as fact both side of every one of your gun bubbas issues or statements , saying X is and saying x isn't. So I'll stand by what I know any day over what I know for a fact you gun bubbas know little about. And the twist is as important as velocity is in tissue damage , so sorry buddy you failed.
 
jbander said:
You have no Idea what I know , it is totally apparent by your response , This thread is about both the M16 and the NATO shell. So your way behind this conversation. Somewhere that most you gun Bubbas heroes come from. You gun bubbas are the ones who know nothing about this issue , you characters have told me as fact both side of every one of your gun bubbas issues or statements , saying X is and saying x isn't. So I'll stand by what I know any day over what I know for a fact you gun bubbas know little about. And the twist is as important as velocity is in tissue damage , so sorry buddy you failed.
Click to expand...

your stupid anti gun posts are a pathetic mixture of stuff you google, but don't understand, outright lies, insults of gun owners, and silly anti gun propaganda. Its so bad it helps the pro gun arguments
 
jbander said:
Bull**** every picture with the surgeons comment above it will show how ignorant you gun bubbas are,
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am one of those folks that look at bullet wounds. You should see what happens when you get a load of birdshot to the leg looks like. You would rather get hit with a .223.

You sir just don't know what you are talking about.
 
jaeger19 said:
Not at all. I am one of those folks that look at bullet wounds. You should see what happens when you get a load of birdshot to the leg looks like. You would rather get hit with a .223.

You sir just don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
and you bore the hell out of me. I'll go with the consensus of 90% of the surgeons who have worked with these wounds . Not some gun Bubbas.
 
jbander said:
and you bore the hell out of me. I'll go with the consensus of 90% of the surgeons who have worked with these wounds . Not some gun Bubbas.
Click to expand...

credible proof needed. BTW surgeons would note most hunting rounds cause worse wounds
 
jbander said:
We better make something real clear, Why would I care what you think about me or anything I write here. If it troubles you, go someplace else. I just really don'r care what you think.
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated over and again that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to ammo. A news article of the event described in the OP would probably clarify some things.
 
beerftw said:
The nato 5.56 is not a hella lot more powerfull than 2.23, it is the nato version of the same round, much as 7.62 x 51 is the nato version of .308.
The 5.56 is nearly identical in pressure to .223, and twist rate is independant of round used, that is in the rifle, most .223 use what was considered more deadly 1in7 twist while 5.56 outside the m16a1 used the 1in9 twist. Some use a 1in13 twist, these are all rifle specific, not ammo specific.

If you could come to this conversation with even the slightest knowledge you may have ground to stand on, but being the case you don't you are in bad standing to argue anything you do not have the slightest clue about.
Click to expand...

That’s kind of the point. There are several ‘NATO’ rounds but for some weird reason people that obviously don’t have much of a clue about guns and munitions cling to silly articles and promote them as if they are experts. FFS the ‘NATO’ 7.62 is much more powerful than the 5.56. You’d think all us bloodthirsty bastards would be buying and building ALL the higher caliber rounds with the AR 10 platform and not screw around with the .223.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
That’s kind of the point. There are several ‘NATO’ rounds but for some weird reason people that obviously don’t have much of a clue about guns and munitions cling to silly articles and promote them as if they are experts. FFS the ‘NATO’ 7.62 is much more powerful than the 5.56. You’d think all us bloodthirsty bastards would be buying and building ALL the higher caliber rounds with the AR 10 platform and not screw around with the .223.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Some people just don't understand firearms, or the fact twist rate has more to do with accuracy combined with ammo rather than destructive power. In most modern firearms twist rate makes an accuracy difference depending on the ammo, however I like to play around with antique blackpowder guns, and learned let's say a 1in66 twist will shoot dead on with a patched round ball but not hit the broadside of a barn with a sabot or a bullet, while a faster trist rate will hit dead on with a bullet or a sbot but not hit the broadside with a patched roundball, the twist rate seems to effect accuracy more than anything over certain types of ammo, as some rounds need a different rate of spin to stabilize than others.


The 7.62 is also much weaker than 30-06, which was a pre nato round, something he does not realize, as I think he assumes being a nato round must mean it is more powerful than a civilian round, which is not true, in the case of 7.62x51 it is identical to .308 and weaker than 30-06 it replaced, but the military does not choose it's ammo based off what has the best energy/velocity it decides based off ballistic characteristics, moa, as well as mission fiunctionality, and with the 7.62 the military decided the extra power was not needed as the round performed nearly as well as 30-06 in any role the military would use it in.
 
beerftw said:
Some people just don't understand firearms, or the fact twist rate has more to do with accuracy combined with ammo rather than destructive power. In most modern firearms twist rate makes an accuracy difference depending on the ammo, however I like to play around with antique blackpowder guns, and learned let's say a 1in66 twist will shoot dead on with a patched round ball but not hit the broadside of a barn with a sabot or a bullet, while a faster trist rate will hit dead on with a bullet or a sbot but not hit the broadside with a patched roundball, the twist rate seems to effect accuracy more than anything over certain types of ammo, as some rounds need a different rate of spin to stabilize than others.


The 7.62 is also much weaker than 30-06, which was a pre nato round, something he does not realize, as I think he assumes being a nato round must mean it is more powerful than a civilian round, which is not true, in the case of 7.62x51 it is identical to .308 and weaker than 30-06 it replaced, but the military does not choose it's ammo based off what has the best energy/velocity it decides based off ballistic characteristics, moa, as well as mission fiunctionality, and with the 7.62 the military decided the extra power was not needed as the round performed nearly as well as 30-06 in any role the military would use it in.
Click to expand...
but...it SAID 'NATO'. Its right there!
 
TurtleDude said:
credible proof needed. BTW surgeons would note most hunting rounds cause worse wounds
Click to expand...

I would figure it would have to be urban doctors to never have seen damage from a hunting rifle. Down here in rural areas it is more common, most of the ones I heard of involved someone not wearing orange but instead full camo while poaching and getting shot by another hunter who did not know they were there. The rest started and ended with hold my beer and watch this sh&^ which was their own faults drinking while operating firearms, or letting someone near them drink and operate a firearm.


Many hunters around the country carry womens tampons while hunting just in case of accidentally being shot, as they work amazingly well to plug up gunshot wounds short term.
 
jbander said:
You have no Idea what I know , it is totally apparent by your response , This thread is about both the M16 and the NATO shell. So your way behind this conversation. Somewhere that most you gun Bubbas heroes come from. You gun bubbas are the ones who know nothing about this issue , you characters have told me as fact both side of every one of your gun bubbas issues or statements , saying X is and saying x isn't. So I'll stand by what I know any day over what I know for a fact you gun bubbas know little about. And the twist is as important as velocity is in tissue damage , so sorry buddy you failed.
Click to expand...

If you know so much show me what you know, because so far you have only shown ignorance of the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom