• 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!

5.56 vs .30-06

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
13,179
Reaction score
3,662
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?
 
Because assault rifles are scary.
 
Most "gun control" arguments seem to boil down to a gun's potential for criminal abuse. The semi-auto rifle with the larger capacity magazine is "scarier" in the hands of a "mass shooter".

Of course, most criminals prefer to use handguns so the AWB idea is simply to get the camel's nose (back) under the tent. If the potential for criminal abuse argument passes constitutional muster for banning scary black rifles (used in very few crimes) then banning handguns based on that same (potential for criminal abuse) "logic" is a slam dunk.
 
Most "gun control" arguments seem to boil down to a gun's potential for criminal abuse. The semi-auto rifle with the larger capacity magazine is "scarier" in the hands of a "mass shooter".

Of course, most criminals prefer to use handguns so the AWB idea is simply to get the camel's nose (back) under the tent. If the potential for criminal abuse argument passes constitutional muster for banning scary black rifles (used in very few crimes) then banning handguns based on that same (potential for criminal abuse) "logic" is a slam dunk.

So then why aren't they trying to ban handguns instead of scary black rifles?
 
So then why aren't they trying to ban handguns instead of scary black rifles?

Because that would face massive public resistance and would be ruled unconstitutional even if it could be slammed through congress (and phased in?) like PPACA was. The AWB passed once before and would be the perfect vehicle for incremental amendment to include a magazine capacity limit for all semi-auto guns (as some states have implemented).
 
Because assault rifles are scary.

Exactly. And that's the same reason they're popular. They're a sexy-looking fashion statement.
I've said here before, if you met me or one of my friends in the bush and you were packing one of those rifles we might not actually point and laugh but you'd probably get grinned at.
 
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?

That's all fascinating, but I haven't seen a single proposal by gun grabbers that involves banning the 5.56 or .223 rounds.

Instead, they want to ban certain semiautomatic rifles based on meaningless features, regardless of what they are chambered in.
 
That's all fascinating, but I haven't seen a single proposal by gun grabbers that involves banning the 5.56 or .223 rounds.

Instead, they want to ban certain semiautomatic rifles based on meaningless features, regardless of what they are chambered in.

Why would they want to do that? The rifles they want to ban function the same as the rifles they don't want to ban of the same caliber.
 
Because assault rifles are scary.

If you're talking about "assault rifles" those are specifically the rifles that soldiers are issued which are either full automatic or burst fire and are not available to the public.

"Assault weapons," on the other hand, is something totally different. Its a term anybody can apply to anything they don't like, however when people talk about assault weapons they're often talking about semi automatic rifles that fire the same caliber as a soldier's rifle but that don't function the same, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. They're no more scary than other semi automatic rifles which look different but function identically.
 
Exactly. And that's the same reason they're popular. They're a sexy-looking fashion statement.
I've said here before, if you met me or one of my friends in the bush and you were packing one of those rifles we might not actually point and laugh but you'd probably get grinned at.

That just proves you really don't understand what makes the AR such a great weapon system. The are an extremely reliable and very modular system that with the same rifle I can push out two pins and go from a rifle set up for home defense to one that is great for long distance shooting. With an upper swap I can go from shooting super cheap 22 rounds to hunting hogs with a 300 blackout upper.
There is a reason they dominate in the vast majority of shooting competitions that involve a rifle, be it 3 gun or service rifle matches and pretty much everything in between.
 
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?


You are making the assumption they don't want to ban other guns. Listen to these people talk on tv and in the political forums. They praise the gun control laws of the UK and Australia. They fraudulently talk about how gun control worked in the UK and Australia. Even though those countries have had low amount of homicides even before implementing their draconian gun control laws and their homicides haven't even gone down much since those laws were enacted. They just can't outright say they want to ban all semiautomatic firearms or all firearms in general because they do want to win the white house and other elections. So they have to hide behind terms like assault weapon, military style assault weapon or rifle or any term to fraudulent make these weapons appear to the general public as something the military uses in order to try to ban them. Their call for an assault weapons ban is just an attempt to get their nose in the tent towards banning other firearms.
 
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?

The 30-06 was for many years the most popular hunting round as well as used by the military, it had more punch than a .308 and was very versatile in loads making it usefull to hunt a wide variety of game. However the biggest selling point in the past was that it was milsurp, after ww1 and ww2, the surplus guns and ammo could be gotten cheap, and even in battle worn condition meaning private joe in the trenches never cleaned his rifle and it got a pitted bore and he dropped the rifle more than once, it still held acceptable accuracy.

The army left 30-06 for two reasons, in terms of ballistics the 30-06 was far superior to the 7.62x51, however the latter was deemed close enough, but the 7.62 allowed short action rifles which the 30-06 did not, and was lighter, the other major reason was nato, 30-06 was not in their inventory except for leftovers from ww2 and britain who actually used it in small numbers until the 90's(not sure why they had their own standard). Now the us military still has 30-06 guns and ammo in stock, just not for general issue, they keep them for armor testing as the 30-06 ap is still considered the gold standard in armor testing.


The 5.56 is accurate enough and deadly enough, though it suffers at longer ranges, but truthfully infantry do not fight at those ranges anymore, it is not ww1 where your sight was adjustable for 1 kilometer up to 3 miles depending on which gun you had, and in reality anything past 1k yards or meters on those old rifles was for volley fire anyways not accurate fire. In terms of effectiveness the 5.56 is far less lethal than most other rounds, and fear tends to overtake rationality in peoples minds, i think of the witch hunts, witches were scary and had to burn them to save their crops, reality was there were no witches, people just get fear stuck in their heads and let emotion over ride any logic or facts causing them to make hasty and often damaging actions.
 
That's all fascinating, but I haven't seen a single proposal by gun grabbers that involves banning the 5.56 or .223 rounds.

Instead, they want to ban certain semiautomatic rifles based on meaningless features, regardless of what they are chambered in.
Oh they are working up to it in incremental steps.
They are and have made some places 21 the age to buy any ammo.
Some places ask for I.D. to prove your 21 (even when you obviously are a lot older).
 
Why would they want to do that? The rifles they want to ban function the same as the rifles they don't want to ban of the same caliber.
Simple. They don't know straight up about firearms. No pistol grip and wooden stock = not a scary looking rifle.
But on the other hand... Pistol grip and synthetic black stock = a scary rifle.
 
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?



I think it's primarily the AS (Assault Style, AR/AK since "AR" does not stand for "Assault Rifle" in the model AR15 rifle) that is the concern. The 5.56 high pressure is more of a torture than a death result that a .30-06 would be. It tears the live target up inside and would not be recommended for, say, deer hunting. Unless you’re not going to take the meat. Which I believe in most states would be illegal. I’m not so sure the mass killers that use AS rifles even know all this. They’re just attracted to the “assault” style, which is largely cosmetic. It's the style that turns them on.

The military use an assault rifle that has fully automatic option that is mostly used for suppression or the rare event of being assaulted by a tight group of the enemy shooting at you. The semi option is used for killing as it is much more accurate and likely to hit the target aimed at.
 
On this thread we still have yet to hear from people who do want to ban the .223 or 5.56 rounds or some of the weapons that fire such rounds and why they want to ban them. When will they speak up?
 
On this thread we still have yet to hear from people who do want to ban the .223 or 5.56 rounds or some of the weapons that fire such rounds and why they want to ban them. When will they speak up?

If does seem logical that if they perceived 5.56 and .223 rounds to be more dangerous than other rounds or that the rifling of the AR15 mythic ally makes what ever fired out of more dangerous than other then they would demand that the rounds themselves be banned or that the rifling be changed to make sure the round doesn't cause the damage it causes. But its not about the perceived rounds lethalness or the damage it may cause.
 
In this day and age, the gun grabbing crowd is up in arms about banning the AR "assault style" semi automatic rifle that is in 5.56 caliber. They call it a weapon of war even though it is not used on the battlefield, not the version that is sold in gun shops which is always semi automatic. On the battlefield they use full automatic and burst fire weapons. A weapon that can fire a 5.56 round can also fire a .223 round. The 5.56 and .223 are identical in caliber size although the 5.56 has higher pressure. The 5.56 bullet is commonly used on the battlefield as the bullet for a soldier's primary weapon even though the soldier's weapon functions differently than a weapon of that same caliber sold at gun shops. The .223 bullet is not used on the battlefield and instead is a round commonly used for hunting varmint. The common AR or Armalite version of the 5.56 semi automatic might look like its used in war but its not. They do make other semi automatic rifles in 5.56 that are not on the AR platform and don't look like they would be used in warfare.

The .30-06 which was and is a popular bullet for hunting larger game such as deer used to be used in warfare and was the bullet that was fired from the soldier's primary weapon in WWII, the M1 Garand. By the time of the Vietnam era the Army had switched from the .30-06 to the 5.56 for two reasons. First of all, the 5.56 being a smaller and lighter bullet, soldiers were able to carry more ammo. Second of all, a .30-06 is much more likely to kill than a 5.56. Obviously a 5.56 bullet can kill but it is more likely to just injure somebody than the .30-06 which will usually outright kill somebody. The enemy expends more resources and manpower caring for their injured than it does caring for their dead, so that's why they wanted to just injure and not kill if they could.

The M1 Garand was a semi automatic, you get one shot per pull of the trigger. To this day they sell semi automatic rifles in .30-06 at gun shops that function the same way as the M1 Garand used in WWII.

That being said, why do people want to ban the 5.56 round instead of the much more powerful .30-06 round which is much more likely to kill?

Also why would people want to specifically ban semi automatic rifles of 5.56 on the AR platform when they make other semi automatic rifles of that same caliber which are not on the AR platform but function the same?

If they do ban the .223 AR15, The 30-06 would be a logical alternative for the psycho mass killers. 308 even better.

Note; The poster is correct that .223 and 5.56 are dimensionally the same, and the .223 can be safely fired in a 5.56 rifle. But NEVER fire a 5.56 in a .223 rifle.
 
If they do ban the .223 AR15, The 30-06 would be a logical alternative for the psycho mass killers. 308 even better.

Note; The poster is correct that .223 and 5.56 are dimensionally the same, and the .223 can be safely fired in a 5.56 rifle. But NEVER fire a 5.56 in a .223 rifle.

The 5.56 has greater pressure than the .223 so it can only be fired in a rifle that can withstand the pressure of a 5.56, so a .223 round can be fired in a 5.56 rifle but a 5.56 round can't be fired in a .223 rifle.

Anyway, if they ban the .223 it will still be the weapon of choice for mass killers they will just get the weapons illegally.
 
Back
Top Bottom