Remember discussions about the wounds from AR-15, here is some info!!

[independentusa]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/...g-victims-ar15.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Earlier on this message board there were discussions of the damage done by military weapons and their civilian counterparts, the AR-15. Many people wrote that because of the light bullet the damage would be less, but this article, where actual surgeons who have dealt with the wounds created by these weapons, shows how much damage can be done because of the speed and the yaw when these bullets hit the human body. It is exactly what I wrote the last time these weapons were discussed on this message board and what I was shown when I joined the military. Back then they wanted to show new recruits why these weapons were chosen and that they would protect the user. The fact that a soldier could carry more ammo on him was one major factor in the choice, but it would not have been chosen if the weapon did not cause major damage when it hit the enemy.

 

[Mr Person]

Saw that yesterday.

Also of note: 3 out of 4 of the surgeons who contributed served in various branches of the military. So one would expect them to know what they're talking about when they make remarks along the lines of.....





“You will typically see a small penetrating wound. Then you roll the patient over and you see a huge exit wound.” The high energy bullet creates a blast wave around the bullet. And the yaw can contribute to the larger exit wound. Striking bone can also cause bone fragments that radiate outward, cutting tissue in each fragment’s path. “Then the bullet starts tumbling, causing more and more destruction.” Even a bullet that misses bone can result in surprising damage; as the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital. Those who survive long enough are whisked to operating rooms, but often the injuries cannot be repaired. “If they are shot in the torso, there often is not a whole lot we can do,” he said.

With a handgun, the bullets mostly damage tissues and organs in their direct path. Eventually, the bullets may be slowed and stopped by the body. Emergency surgery often can save handgun victims. Dr. Kerby said it used to be that surgeons like him saw victims of assault rifle shootings only in the military. No more. Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims — that is, those who survive long enough to reach the hospital. “These weapons are meant to kill people,” he said.

(From OP's link).

 

[ttwtt78640]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/...g-victims-ar15.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Earlier on this message board there were discussions of the damage done by military weapons and their civilian counterparts, the AR-15. Many people wrote that because of the light bullet the damage would be less, but this article, where actual surgeons who have dealt with the wounds created by these weapons, shows how much damage can be done because of the speed and the yaw when these bullets hit the human body. It is exactly what I wrote the last time these weapons were discussed on this message board and what I was shown when I joined the military. Back then they wanted to show new recruits why these weapons were chosen and that they would protect the user. The fact that a soldier could carry more ammo on him was one major factor in the choice, but it would not have been chosen if the weapon did not cause major damage when it hit the enemy.

The nonsense that the type of rifle used to fire the bullet makes any difference is not supported by the facts - the fact is that the same bullet fired from any rifle chambered in that caliber will do the same thing. The article correctly notes that FMJ military ammo is less likely to cause as much tissue damage as common hunting rounds (JSP or JHP) of the same caliber.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Saw that yesterday.

Also of note: 3 out of 4 of the surgeons who contributed served in various branches of the military. So one would expect them to know what they're talking about when they make remarks along the lines of.....





“You will typically see a small penetrating wound. Then you roll the patient over and you see a huge exit wound.” The high energy bullet creates a blast wave around the bullet. And the yaw can contribute to the larger exit wound. Striking bone can also cause bone fragments that radiate outward, cutting tissue in each fragment’s path. “Then the bullet starts tumbling, causing more and more destruction.” Even a bullet that misses bone can result in surprising damage; as the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital. Those who survive long enough are whisked to operating rooms, but often the injuries cannot be repaired. “If they are shot in the torso, there often is not a whole lot we can do,” he said.

With a handgun, the bullets mostly damage tissues and organs in their direct path. Eventually, the bullets may be slowed and stopped by the body. Emergency surgery often can save handgun victims. Dr. Kerby said it used to be that surgeons like him saw victims of assault rifle shootings only in the military. No more. Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims — that is, those who survive long enough to reach the hospital. “These weapons are meant to kill people,” he said.

(From OP's link).

Yep, rifle and pistol rounds make different wounds due to *gasp* basic ballistics (see link below). What is not said is that any rifle, not just "assault rifles", can and do fire the same ammo.

https://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html

 

[bearpoker]

Yep, rifle and pistol rounds make different wounds - due to *gasp* basic ballistics. What is not said is that any rifle, not just "assault rifles", can and do fire the same ammo.

The problem is that the destruction is multiplied by the semi-automatic rate of fire. The AR-15 is far more efficient at hitting large numbers of people, especially in a crowded and chaotic situation such as the Florida school shooting.

 

[Goshin]

Fine. A soft-nose 30-06 hunting rifle round will still do considerably more damage. Plain fact.

Another fact: any centerfire rifle round is going to do more damage than a handgun round; also penetrate most kevlar vests.

The AR is nothing special in this regard, in fact there are debates among hunters as to whether the .223 is too light for hunting deer, over concerns whether it will make a clean quick kill or not.

This sort of argument, painting the AR and .223 as some kind of uber-killing-machine, is still far more hype and hysteria than substance.

 

[apdst]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/...g-victims-ar15.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Earlier on this message board there were discussions of the damage done by military weapons and their civilian counterparts, the AR-15. Many people wrote that because of the light bullet the damage would be less, but this article, where actual surgeons who have dealt with the wounds created by these weapons, shows how much damage can be done because of the speed and the yaw when these bullets hit the human body. It is exactly what I wrote the last time these weapons were discussed on this message board and what I was shown when I joined the military. Back then they wanted to show new recruits why these weapons were chosen and that they would protect the user. The fact that a soldier could carry more ammo on him was one major factor in the choice, but it would not have been chosen if the weapon did not cause major damage when it hit the enemy.

No one said that the .223 round isn't lethal. We've said no more lethal and usually less lethal than larger rounds.

Medical professionals who hail the lethality of a .223 are either inexperienced with gunshot wounds, or they're lying.

The .223 is less lethal than say the .308, or .30-06. That's the whole point of the military chosing it. It's the shoot to wound school of thought; the logic being, wounded soldiers expend more manpower and resources than dead soldiers along with lowering morale.

General what's-his-butt that coined the term "full semi-automatic" said in that same piece that he saw a soldier get shot in the shoulder and the bullet came out his ass-cheek. He's lying his ass off (no pun intended). It's ****ing stupid to believe that a .223 bullet is going to penetrate that much tissue and liquid, never hit any bones and make two 90° turns.

Can a .223 kill a person? Sure it can. Is it more letal than larger rounds? Hell no.

 

[apdst]

The problem is that the destruction is multiplied by the semi-automatic rate of fire. The AR-15 is far more efficient at hitting large numbers of people, especially in a crowded and chaotic situation such as the Florida school shooting.

This rifle is even more efficient when engaging mass targets.

 

[apdst]

Saw that yesterday.

Also of note: 3 out of 4 of the surgeons who contributed served in various branches of the military. So one would expect them to know what they're talking about when they make remarks along the lines of.....





“You will typically see a small penetrating wound. Then you roll the patient over and you see a huge exit wound.” The high energy bullet creates a blast wave around the bullet. And the yaw can contribute to the larger exit wound. Striking bone can also cause bone fragments that radiate outward, cutting tissue in each fragment’s path. “Then the bullet starts tumbling, causing more and more destruction.” Even a bullet that misses bone can result in surprising damage; as the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital. Those who survive long enough are whisked to operating rooms, but often the injuries cannot be repaired. “If they are shot in the torso, there often is not a whole lot we can do,” he said.

With a handgun, the bullets mostly damage tissues and organs in their direct path. Eventually, the bullets may be slowed and stopped by the body. Emergency surgery often can save handgun victims. Dr. Kerby said it used to be that surgeons like him saw victims of assault rifle shootings only in the military. No more. Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims — that is, those who survive long enough to reach the hospital. “These weapons are meant to kill people,” he said.

(From OP's link).

None of those surgeons have treated wounds inflicted with a .308, or a .30-06. They've probably treated more 7.62x39 wounds than anything else that's a ***** round.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The problem is that the destruction is multiplied by the semi-automatic rate of fire. The AR-15 is far more efficient at hitting large numbers of people, especially in a crowded and chaotic situation such as the Florida school shooting.

That (bolded above) is true, but any semi-auto rifle (or pistol) has that elevated rate of fire potential. That advantage can be further raised by using a smaller caliber round: they cause less recoil (allowing faster aim for follow up shots) and more rounds can be easily carried because of lower ammo weight/bulk.

The latter is why some wish to implement magazine capacity limits but, in the latest Floriduh mass shooting, only 10-round magazines were used but many of them were be carried. In that respect, the magazine capacity limit idea is much like the (foolish?) Big Gulp law - limiting how much soda can be sold in one cup does not matter if one can simply buy many smaller cups.

 

[ttwtt78640]

None of those surgeons have treated wounds inflicted with a .308, or a .30-06. They've probably treated more 7.62x39 wounds than anything else that's a ***** round.

Yep, you don't need to treat (or track) the dead. That is why some states do not allow use of .223 (or smaller) for hunting whitetail deer.

 

[apdst]

Yep, you don't need to treat (or track) the dead. That is why some states do not allow use of .223 (or smaller) for hunting whitetail deer.

That's why my SHTF rifle is a .308.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fine. A soft-nose 30-06 hunting rifle round will still do considerably more damage. Plain fact.

Another fact: any centerfire rifle round is going to do more damage than a handgun round; also penetrate most kevlar vests.

The AR is nothing special in this regard, in fact there are debates among hunters as to whether the .223 is too light for hunting deer, over concerns whether it will make a clean quick kill or not.

This sort of argument, painting the AR and .223 as some kind of uber-killing-machine, is still far more hype and hysteria than substance.

The ability to easily bring a duffle bag full of guns and ammo into a "gun free zone", packed full of unarmed targets of opportunity, makes the type of gun used much less of an issue.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's why my SHTF rifle is a .308.

At close range .223 or .243 is apt to be plenty and less recoil allows for faster follow-up shots (if required). Many assasins are said to prefer the .22 because it does not knock the target down making follow up shots (if required) less difficult.

 

[apdst]

At close range .223 or .243 is apt to be plenty and less recoil allows for faster follow-up shots (if required). Many assasins are said to prefer the .22 because it does not knock the target down making follow up shots (if required) less difficult.

Under perfect conditions those rounds are fine.

During the zombie apocolypse, perfect conditions may not (probably won't?) exist. I might have to shoot through solid objects, or engage targets at 2-300 yards.

 

[Goshin]

The ability to easily bring a duffle bag full of guns and ammo into a "gun free zone", packed full of unarmed targets of opportunity, makes the type of gun used much less of an issue.

Right! The type of gun is damn near irrelevant when we're talking about a target-rich environment of disarmed people.


As I keep reminding folks... VA tech shooter, two handguns with 10 round mags, 33 dead.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right! The type of gun is damn near irrelevant when we're talking about a target-rich environment of disarmed people.


As I keep reminding folks... VA tech shooter, two handguns with 10 round mags, 33 dead.

Yep, IIRC one was a .22 and the other a 9mm. Not what many would consider to be "weapons of war" or "assault weapons". If one is given the typical 5 to 8 minutes of uninterrupted "range time" then quite a few rounds can be fired without using any "high capacity" magazines.

 

[Goshin]

None of those surgeons have treated wounds inflicted with a .308, or a .30-06. They've probably treated more 7.62x39 wounds than anything else that's a ***** round.

Buddy of mine that got shot with 7.62 in the sandbox might disagree with you a bit. Brought his military career to an end, and iirc it took over a year for him to recover fully.

 

[Chillfolks]

The problem is that the destruction is multiplied by the semi-automatic rate of fire. The AR-15 is far more efficient at hitting large numbers of people, especially in a crowded and chaotic situation such as the Florida school shooting.

What makes an AR with a ten round magazine, such as the one in FL school shooting, more destructive than a semi automatic ten round hunting rifle in .223?

 

[independentusa]

What makes an AR with a ten round magazine, such as the one in FL school shooting, more destructive than a semi automatic ten round hunting rifle in .223?

Several Things. For one it is lighter and easier to hide. Secondly changing clips is much faster with an AR-15. That is from a military man who has shot both.

 

[Chillfolks]

Several Things. For one it is lighter and easier to hide.

not sure how you get easier to hide overall length would be overall length. But that covers why it would be easier to conceal not anything about it being more destructive. Then the weight issue, this is a mark against it. The lighter it is the more time it takes to recover from the recoil.

Secondly changing clips is much faster with an AR-15. That is from a military man who has shot both.

Whomever told you that is full of it. They probably got you believing you can flip a switch on an AR to put it in "full semi automatic" mode. Changing a magazine is basically the same on any type of gun that's feed that way. A novice isn't going to pick up an AR and suddenly change out mags like a Hollywood movie. They legend is not true.

 

[apdst]

Buddy of mine that got shot with 7.62 in the sandbox might disagree with you a bit. Brought his military career to an end, and iirc it took over a year for him to recover fully.

That brings us back around to, "of course a .223 can be lethal". If your boy had been tagged with a 7.62×51, it might have been permanent.

 

[Goshin]

That brings us back around to, "of course a .223 can be lethal". If your boy had been tagged with a 7.62×51, it might have been permanent.

Yup. Incidentally that is his favorite com-block caliber, and as a sniper he knows a wee bit on the subject of ballistics. He's got more 7.62x51 rifles than he can count.

But he relates his experience being shot as a reason not take the shorter 7.62 for granted either... it disabled him quite effectively.

 

[apdst]

Yup. Incidentally that is his favorite com-block caliber, and as a sniper he knows a wee bit on the subject of ballistics. He's got more 7.62x51 rifles than he can count.

But he relates his experience being shot as a reason not take the shorter 7.62 for granted either... it disabled him quite effectively.

I wouldn't take any round for granted. However, in the third world where the 7.62x51 went up against the 7.62x39, the 51 scored more kills per capita.

 

[Goshin]

I wouldn't take any round for granted. However, in the third world where the 7.62x51 went up against the 7.62x39, the 51 scored more kills per capita.

Obviously, for much the same reasons as the .308 and 30-06 are far deadlier than the .223 cal. Still don't wanna be shot with any of the above.


.223 and 7.62x39 are both compromise rounds, combining reasonable effectiveness with more-ammo/less-weight at the expense of a less powerful round...