"Assault rifles" are less powerful than most hunting rifles.

[Tim01]

I've heard lots of rumors about how powerful "assault rifles" are. They are more powerful than handguns, but less powerful than most average rifles. In fact, they are near the bottom of the list. Power is expressed in foot lbs. This is most of the common hunting calibers. The "assault rifle" calibers are labeled to the right as AR15 and AK47. They are listed by power, least to most, top to bottom.



Caliber_____________________Energy in ft lbs

.22 Hornet (45 Sp)_________ 723
.357 Mag. (180 HP)_________ 960
.30 Carbine (110 RN)_______ 967
.222 Rem. (50 Sp)__________ 1094
.223 Rem. (55 Sp)__________ 1282____ AR15
.204 Ruger (33 BTSP)_______ 1308
7.62x39 (125 Sp)___________ 1552____ AK47
.45-70 (405 FP) ____________ 1590
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 FP)_____ 1650
.22-250 Rem. (55 Sp)_______ 1654
.220 Swift (55 SpBT)_______ 1765
.223 WSSM (55 SpBT)________ 1810
.30-30 Win. (170 FP)_______ 1827
.30-30 Win. (150 FP)_______ 1902
.32 Spec. (170 FP)_________ 1910
.35 Rem. (200 RN)__________ 1921
.243 Win. (100 Sp)_________ 1945
.243 Win. (80 Sp)__________ 1993
6.8mm Rem. SPC (115 Sp) ___ 2002
.257 Roberts (120 Sp)______ 2060
6.5x55 SE (140 Sp)_________ 2100
8x57 JS (170 RN)___________ 2100
6mm Rem. (100 Sp)__________ 2133
.243 WSSM (100 Sp)_________ 2147
.45-70 (300 HP)____________ 2182
7x57 Mauser (140 Sp)_______ 2200
.300 Sav. (150 Sp)_________ 2303
.260 Rem. (140 Sp)_________ 2351
.25-06 Rem. (120 Sp)_______ 2382
.25 WSSM (120 Sp)__________ 2382
.303 British (180 Sp)________ 2420
7mm-08 Rem. (140 Sp)_______ 2542
.338-57 O'Connor (200 FP)__ 2558
.240 Wby. Mag. (100 Sp)____ 2576
.308 Win. (150 Sp)_________ 2648
.270 Win. (130 Sp)_________ 2702
.270 Win. (150 Sp)_________ 2705
.308 Win. (180 Sp)_________ 2743
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (120 Sp)___ 2744
6.5x68 S (140 Sp)__________ 2779
.280 Rem. (140 Sp)_________ 2797
.30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp)______ 2820
.264 Win. Mag. (140 Sp)____ 2854
.257 Wby. Mag. (120 Sp)____ 2910
.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp)______ 2913
.444 Marlin (240 FP)_______ 2942
.35 Whelen (200 Sp)________ 3177
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 SpBT)___ 3221
7mm Rem. SAUM (150 Sp)_____ 3221
.270 WSM (150 Sp)__________ 3304
7mm WSM (150 Sp)___________ 3410
.350 Rem. Mag. (200 Sp)______ 3419
.450 Marlin (350 FP)_______ 3427
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 Sp)____ 3501
.300 Win. Mag. (180 Sp)____ 3501
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 Sp)____ 3502
.300 WSM (180 Sp)__________ 3526
9.3x62 (286 SpBT)__________ 3544
7mm Wby. Mag. (150 SpBT)_____ 3627
7mm Ultra Mag. (160 Sp)____ 3637
.338 Win. Mag. (225 Sp)____ 3860
.300 Wby. Mag. (180 Sp)____ 4195
.300 Ultra Mag. (180 Sp)____ 4221
.375 H&H Mag. (300 Sp)_____ 4262
.338 Ultra Mag (250 Sp)____ 4540
.340 Wby. Mag. (250 Sp)____ 4801
.458 Win. Mag. (500 RN)____ 4850
.416 Rigby (400 RN)________ 4990
.375 Ultra Mag (300 Sp)____ 5073
.416 Rem. Mag. (400 Sp)_____ 5115
.378 Wby. Mag. (270 SP)____ 6062
.460 Wby. Mag. (500 RN)_____ 7504
Cartridge (Wb + type)_______ ME (ft lb)

[YOY]

1. No shit.

But the ROF makes up for that quite well.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Except for the bolt-action rifles, they have the same rate of fire.

A large number of those 'big hunting calibers' are semi-auto. They function the same.

[SharonAnn]

2. That's irrelevant. They're usually used closer to the "target" and can fire rapidly.

[Pullo]

9. So can any semi-auto "hunting" rifle

Here's a Remington 7400. Its semi-auto and, as you say, can "fire repeatedly." It too has a detachable magazine, and the 7400 is often chambered for the 30-06 round, which is a MUCH more lethal round than .223 or 7.62x39.



So, its EXTREMELY relevant when when talking about how "powerful" a weapon is.


Is the gun below somehow more evil than the one above, IYO? Why?

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Actually, it is not more lethal - only more powerful.

A heavier bullet, propelled by a heavier charge, will punch through the target. The lighter round, propelled by a lighter charge, will tumble on impact causing MUCH more damage as an antipersonnel round.

[yay]

21. IRL, it doesn't work that well

The theory is there and it does happen, but it's not all that reliable.

BTW It tumbles, yaws, and fragments if the conditions are right. The .308(or .30-06) are a lot more consistent stoppers and if loaded with common expanding hunting ammo far more lethal.

EDIT: This only applies to the 5.56x45mm/.223rem(As far as this discussion), the 7.62x39mm doesn't tumble.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Which is why the militaries around the world are using them, either

in the M16 style or the AK style - because they are SO ineffective.

[yay]

26. Effective? Yeah, as effective? no

Just because .mil uses it does not attribute to it's effectiveness. There a lot more considerations than just it's "lethality".

The 7.62x39mm is a more consistent stopper than the 5.56 NATO though.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Huh?

The military's ONLY mission is to kill the enemy. They use the best possible weapons to that purpose. And they use the relatively light rounds of assault rifles because they inflict the most possible casualties in the the greatest concentration in the shortest time.

Why would they use ineffective weapons? The logic defies me.

[yay]

32. Dude... this is the military

They use ineffective and outright broken things all the time. The saying "Made by the lowest bidder" didn't come around for nothing.

[rrneck]

33. How about the logic of gravity.

Automatic weapons are used for more than just punching holes in targets. They are used for supressing and grazing fire. That takes a lot of ammunition, and smaller bullets are lighter and easier for a soldier to carry more of them. The smaller rounds are less lethal, but more useful in squad based assault operations.

I believe snipers use the larger and siginficantly more lethal .308 round, since they aren't exptecte to expend as much ammunition.

[yay]

35. Not to mention

It's easier to train with the lighter round, and it's cheaper to boot.

[rrneck]

36. Yep. nt

[TheWraith]

78. Added note on snipers using larger calibers.

Another reason snipers like to use larger calibers is because the heavier the bullet, the less susceptible it is to wind drift and the like. 5.56 is a tiny little round, and short ranged, while 7.62 and .50 BMG will grab you a lot more distance and still be accurate. For that matter it's why the longest range snipers almost always use .50 BMG or something else on the high end like .338 Lapua.

[Recursion]

105. Automatic weapons aren't designed to kill people

They're designed to keep people's heads down so that people armed with battle rifles can flank them and kill them.

[rl6214]

46. Not true

If given their choice they would have stuck with the m14. They went with the m16 because they could carry much more ammo for half the weight. Since then there has been a constant debate as to whether the trade off is worth it.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. They are more interested in wounding than killing.

Kill a hostile soldier, you remove one enemy from the battlefield. Wound a hostile soldier, and you can remove up to 3 from the battlefield, as they retreive and care for the wounded soldier.

(This theory doesn't work so well against insurgents, hence the calls by our military for a more lethal round than .223, which has led to the 6.8mm and a resurgence of .308)

Edit: Others have already made the lighter ammo/suppressive fire argument.

[Tejas]

74. "The logic defies me." - LOL!

Look, you scream and holler all the time about what you think you know as fact but you never seem to insert any knowledge (much less kbnowledgeable logic) into your arguments.

Concerning the use of AK's by "armies" all over the world, did the thought of initial cost per unit to these armies/rebels ever cross your mind? Evidently not.

Well here's a clue as to their logic: much cheaper to arm with $1,000 AK's than $1,600 HK-91's or $1,300 FAL's. If that doesn't start the gears to turning in your head, maybe the fact that 7.62x39 is HALF the cost of 7.62x51 will clue you in to why the AK is such a popular platform.

Hey, even Chavez has a budget.

[Abq_Sarah]

97. You'd be surprised

For instance, the military is limited by treaty to the types of ammunition they can use. If their primary objective were only "killing the enemy" they would not restrict themselves to ball ammo since the people currently shooting at them have no such restrictions.

[SteveM]

103. You should read about Gen. Ripley in the Civil War...

The head of the union's ordnance bureaucracy chose mass-produced muzzle-loading rifles over the firepower of Spencer and Henry repeaters, both of which used "light" rounds when compared with the pipe-stuffers.

Things change of the years. Even the military.

[hack89]

37. There are other factors - weight of the gun and ammo being one.

a full tactical load of 5.56 weighs less than 7.62. A smaller bullet means a soldier can carry less weight or more ammo.

[Howzit]

38. Used primarily because the ammo is light and the guns have low recoil

Light ammo allows soldier to carry more.

[benEzra]

39. That's why military infantry rifles are all capable of firing multiple rounds at once...

unlike the non-automatic, CIVILIAN-ONLY rifles we are talking about here.

[yay]

41. I think if they wanted to

Colt would give them some semi-auto only rifles, so I don't think they're civilian-only :P

[benEzra]

53. The military could procure flintlock Kentucky rifles, too, but they don't.

My point was, non-automatic AR-15's or civilian AK's are not used by any military on this planet. They are used exclusively as civilian guns.

[S_B_Jackson]

57. Wrong.

Militaries around the world are using them because:
1) .223 & 7.62x39mm are more likely to critically wound rather than kill, &
2) they are smaller, and weigh less (thus enabling each soldier to carry more ammo) than using a WWII-era cartridge

The reason for a preference for wounding is due to the fact that it takes 4-7 support personnel to care for the wounded, instead of the 1 needed to bury the dead.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Untrue.

Geneva conventions restrict us to FMJ Ball type ammo. It does not expand. Hollow-points are far more effective at killing humans. They are banned per the GC's for use against other soldiers.

The weapons the military uses are capable of burst, or full auto. They do not use the weapons you call 'assault weapons'.

[krispos42]

75. They use them because they're the standard, in part

NATO only uses 3 rifle cartridges: 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50 caliber. Therefore if you're part of NATO you're shooting one of those three.


The other consideration is that infantry engagements almost mostly take place within 300 yards and often within 150 yards. The 100-to-800-yard battle sights on .30-caliber rifles is basically a holdover from older time. The .30-06 and .308 and similar rounds were designed to be lethal out to that range. In modern combat, this doesn't happen. Soldiers generally don't start shooting until the target is a heck of a lot closer.

For combat at such distances the 7.62mm is something of an overkill: heavy recoil and difficult to control in automatic fire from an infantry rifle.


The Soviet 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm have muzzle energy and recoil not much different from 5.56mm NATO, so that's why they're commonly used.

[TheWraith]

77. No, the military uses them to punch through body armor.

Small, very fast hardened bullets do better against body armor than slower moving but more powerful rounds. Also, because the military wants to minimize recoil so that their weapons can be fired on full auto and still be controllable. That's not a concern with any civilian weapon.

They are NOT specifically designed to do more tissue damage, and if you hit an unarmored target with a 30-06 you're going to do a hell of a lot more damage than with 5.56.

[yay]

80. The 5.56 nato is NOT designed to penetrate body armor.

It's actually a very poor round against modern ceramic plate armor.

[TheWraith]

86. Not modern armor, no. But it was more than good enough for '70s body armor.

Which was when it was originally designed. My point being though that if penetration weren't an issue in the original design, they would have chosen something with a higher caliber and less powder behind it.

[Recursion]

106. They were designed as less powerful weapons than battle rifles

Some of the same kind of thinking that is leading to the (re-)adoption of carbines today.

[rl6214]

45. Actually many during Vietnam

Wanted to stick with their m14s because it didn't have the stopping power of the m16 in spite of the additional carry capacity and full auto features of the m16 even with it's tumble and fragmentation.

[yay]

47. wut?

Me thinks you need to rivise that.. it doesn't make any sense(course I may be crazy)

[chrisa]

62. .223 rounds couln't

penetrate the thick brush that the AK-47 round could.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Check that post again.

I think you mixed up the emphasis on preference for the M16 over the M14, when you meant the opposite.

My understanding is, the M14 was preferred as well, which is what I think you meant to say.

[rl6214]

68. Worded that terribly

Many in vietnam Wanted to stick with their m14s because the m16 didn't have the stopping power of the m14 in spite of the additional carry capacity and full auto features of the m16 even with it's tumble and fragmentation.

[Hangingon]

55. M=14 could be set for full auto,

[Endangered Specie]

70. M14 was rarely used on full auto though, as it is NOT controllable

due to the recoil. Weapons designed to fire in a full auto mode use smaller cartridges (including pistol rounds for sub machine guns) primarily for the controllability factor, and also full auto uses much more ammo, therefore you must carry more.

[Hangingon]

73. Really? That will be big news to John M. Browning.

I've fired Stens, M-3s and German Mp-40s - all use pistol cartridges. They are not real controllable in a long burst. The .30-06 BAR was pretty stable. The US used rifle cartridge air and water cooled machine guns since WWI and they were pretty controllable.

[yay]

76. IIRC Back when the BAR was introduced

They started trap shooting with a BAR. Even browning himself was impressed.

[Endangered Specie]

88. I am talking about individual weapons, now crew serviced machineguns

Sure a medium/heavy machine gun is controllable on full auto, but its not the type of weapon you casually rise up to your shoulder. The BAR had not only a slow rate of fire setting, but it also weighs like what, twice that of an M14, and it came with a bipod for a reason.


I have not shot one, but it seems at least an mp-40 is very controllable considering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw

even the burp gun (PPSH) was controllable, at double the fire rate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQpJj1TF7M

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Cite your source please.

n/t

[Tim01]

10. Then maybe the media will stop trying to scare people with this blatant lie.

The media is just using as much excitement/hysteria/fear as they can to get people worked up for the profit of the media.
They are nobodys side except that of their share holders.

[Pullo]

13. The anti's main problem is their dishonesty

Gun owners get very suspicious of the motives of talking heads and pols when they keep perpetuating these lies.

[geckosfeet]

15. Yeah. Like the op is being honest. The numbers may be real, but mag size,

weight and maneuverability are factors as well.

The op is being deceptive. The press is simply ignorant.

on edit: If the argument that the op is implying meant squat, militaries the world over would issue large caliber personal weapons to troops.

[rl6214]

23. Larger caliber weapons means

More weight to carry less ammo. That is why the m-16 was adopted, so the soldier could carry more ammo. That's all.

[geckosfeet]

30. That's enough. There is the minor detail of full auto capability as well.

[rrneck]

34. A quick scan through

almost any thread on this forum will reveal that automatic weapons are very rare and highly regulated in this country.

[geckosfeet]

65. And we all know that illegal conversions are rare as well.

Point is that the military specs the weapons for troops. Some of the reasons the military wants it's troops to carry these weapons are in several posts on this thread. I would add the military probably wouldn't send it's troops out with a "low power" weapon not capable of stopping enemy troops in combat.

[rrneck]

69. How many soldiers does it take to kill an insurgent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/cbsnews_investigates/main1688223.shtml

Please. No weapons system is perfect. The military specs it's weapons for the fungible asset also known as "troops". Every piece of technology is a trade off between several factors, and while the 5.56x45 round is lethal, is it lethal enough in the combat environment experienced by out solders right now and in the future? There is a debate in the military community regarding the stopping power of the 5.56x45 and it may well turn out to be not enough bullet to do the job. Just because the army bought a shit load of M-16's chambered for it doesn't mean it's the right round to use.

[geckosfeet]

71. Then a lot of armies around the world need to talk to you. You could make a mint

as a consultant.

[rrneck]

72. LOL! Don't tease me.

A lot of armies around the world use the 7.62x39. A larger bullet.

The 5.56 in the M-16 is what - 40 years old? I'm just thinking that it may be time for a change.

But shit - I could be wrong. If I knew that much about it I could be a consultant.

[Statistical]

82. Army is already looking into replacing the 5.56mm

6.5mm or 6.8mm Grendel are top choices right now.

Newer version of 7.62mm is also being considered but any 7.62mm based round has the disadvantage of substnantially increased weight.

Combat load is 210 (7 x 30rd magazine) 5.56 = 11 lbs.
Most soldiers carry more like 10-12 magazines = 15-17 lbs

A 7.62mm magazine weights roughly twice as much so to keep same combat load you would be adding another 11-17 lbs in weight to soldiers who have seen their full combat weight rise rapidly in last couple years.

[TheWraith]

79. Actually, our current weapons weren't designed for this kind of war.

They were designed on the assumption of a full-scale conflict against an organized army, one which would have body armor, supply chains, and battle lines. All of which make light, armor-piercing, full-auto capable rounds essential. They definitely weren't designed for pot-shotting at unarmored or lightly armored irregulars in the middle of a city. There's been a lot of ongoing discussion about that as well as complaints by the guys in the field.

[Statistical]

81. The 5.56 is poor choice for penetrating armor.

It was chosen in the Vietnam era when body armor that could stop a rifle cartridge was only a dream.

Even the M955 (AP version of M855 5.56 round) is a poor choice against ceramic trauma plate.

Within 10 years the Army will choose a more capable round. 6.8mm maybe? or 6.5 mm grendel

6.5 or 6.8mm round will provide more impact energy, and larger wound channel to assist in "first shot stops" something the 5.56mm sorely lacks.

The larger heavier round is more suitied for Armor Piercing role because all things being the same more mass is more resistant to deformation when striking armor. Less deformation = more penetration.

Just like after Desert Storm Army put a lot of "lessons learned" into action in terms of new hardware, new upgrades, new tactics and new training there have been many "lessons learned" in Iraq. They will likely try to wait until we are done w/ Iraq & Afghanistan due to the added cost & complexity of replacing rifle in ongoing conflict.

[TheWraith]

84. Modern armor, yes.

But it was more than sufficient against the lighter and less effective armor available at the time it was chosen.

[Statistical]

87. There was NO armor at the time that could stand up to ANY rifle round.

5.56 is about a weak as it gets for a rifle cartridge.

Some states won't even let you hunt deer with a 5.56mm.

Armor penetration had NOTHING to do with selection of 5.56mm.

The idea that soldiers would be able to wear armor that could stop a rifle cartridge (and not weight 90lbs) wasn't even on the radar.

While body armor did exist it was pretty worthless not even being able to stop high powered HANDGUN rounds. Rifle cart. w/ muzzle energy anywhere from 2x to 10x power of a handgun round wasn't even considered.

It was pretty much accepted at current science levels all rifle cartridges can simply ignore armor.

That being said the 5.56mm is essentially worthless for piercing armor.

As body armor (especially lvl III+) capable of stopping rifle cartridges becomes more common it will ensure the 5.56mm ceases to exist.

An armored world is a liability not asset for a small cartridge like 5.56mm.
Even replacing lead w/ hardened penetrator there is only so much you can given when you relalize it is a small round back up by weak muzzle energy. There is no magic solution.

To defeat armor designed to stop rifle cartridge you need three things
1) very hard penetrator (hardened steel, other hard metals or even DU)
2) very high muzzle velocities.
3) relatively high mass. larger bullet will withstand deformation and shearing pressure caused when round strikes something hard better than a small round will.

[TheWraith]

89. I don't think we disagree as much as you might think.

My point was that the large, higher powered rifle cartridges were overkill for going through the light armor that has traditionally been worn by battlefield combatants, and a small fast bullet was better against early body armor anyway. They were already experimenting in the late 60s with improved vests that could stop higher caliber, lower speed rounds like the 7.62x25 Tokarev, and even a 7mm rifle bullet with a vest using ceramic inserts.

[Statistical]

90. Agreed & Disagreed

"My point was that the large, higher powered rifle cartridges were overkill for going through the light armor that has traditionally been worn by battlefield combatants"

Agreed but mainly it was because high powered rifle cart was overkill for human target period. Armor or no armor. There was no worn by battlefield combatants designed to stop any round in 1960s. Of course military commanders would loved to have kept a larger round as insurance but smaller round = more rounds carried. Given that limitation a smaller round was chosen but reason for it being chosen had nothing to do with armor.

"a small fast bullet was better against early body armor anyway. They were already experimenting in the late 60s with improved vests that could stop higher caliber, lower speed rounds like the 7.62x25 Tokarev, and even a 7mm rifle bullet with a vest using ceramic inserts."

Any vest that would stop larger caliber bullet would crush a 5.56mm.
There is very little structural integrity of a 5.56mm round.

The logic was more like this:
Cons:
5.56mm is HORRIBLE at piercing armor.

Pros:
Nobody is wearing armor.
Likely field portable body armor that can stop rifle round is too expensive and heavy to be useful.

The 5.56mm is neither superior to heavier cartridges in piercing armor nor was anyone in the 1960s foolish enough to think so. Physics hasn't changed that much in last 60 (or 6 million) years.

[rl6214]

44. Yup

You're right.

[SteveM]

102. Which is why most gun-homicides are accomplished with handguns (nt)

Further, if you want a "cop-killer" firearm (that which penetrates body armor), use a deer rifle. A Remington 742 in .30-'06 will easily penetrate armor, up close or not. It's a semi-auto hunting rifle which has been around since vacuum tubes.

[Statistical]

3. Boo. we don't want no facts.

Seriously though lets say tomorrow Obama signed an AWB making all semi-auto rifles banned.

Not saying he will or he should but some on DU would cheer.

Very next day you know what the new meme would be?
"We need to get rid of LARGE CALIBER rifles".

IF "assault weapons" which mainly use 5.56x45mm & 7.62x39mm which are generally speaking anemic cartridges and have been banned wouldn't it make "logical" sense to ban MORE POWERFUL cartridges?

[X_Digger]

7. No, the meme would be 'high powered sniper rifles'

And they wouldn't be able to define that one, either.

[Statistical]

12. Funny thing the "low powered sniper rifles" never seems to be as popular. n/t

[spin]

17. The anit-gun groups ould never say LARGE CALIBER rifles...

but would use the more inflammatory term SNIPER RIFLE.

[NJmaverick]

4. Power is energy per unit of time

so what you need to do is factor the power of a given round and then factor in how many rounds can be expended over a given amount of time.

[benEzra]

54. Except all civilian autoloaders fire at exactly the same rate.

Rate of fire is not dependent on whether a rifle's handgrip sticks out, or whether it has a threaded muzzle or bayonet lug.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Well, that's certainly comforting.

:sarcasm:

[Tim01]

6. The only point I am making is they are not very powerful.

And I am going to try to stay out of more specific arguments about this. If rate of fire and everything is figured in, I'll bet a 9mm handgun is near the top, but I don't know. 9mm is 16 rds or more per mag, about 5rds per second, mag change in a second or 2.

But we all agree that an assault rifle round is kind of weak, right?

[jody]

8. "assault rifles" are more powerful than most handguns but not all handguns.

[The Traveler]

11. Rate of fire

Firing rate conveys a tactical advantage over raw power in the average gunfight scenario. This is particularly true when the marksmanship skills of the combatants are low to moderate and range is between say 3 and 20 meters. Now, if you are striding across the parking lot at a range of 500 yards with your little AK and I am up on a roof top with my trusty telescope sighted Winchester, I can casually sip cognac while lining up the perfect shot on your eyebrows. But, you must concede, this is not the typical situation in which firearms might be employed.

I get why some people are so alarmed by so-called "assault rifles" ... I just do not share the alarm. The assault rifle should cause no anxiety. Some of the poeple who want to buy them should ... and banning these weapons leaves those people intact, and there are bad wicked things that can be done with common household chemicals ...

We can, of course, adopt ever more intrusive and oppressive strategies for dealing with these Glen Beck hysterical types ... but that would merely fuel the fires of paranoia while sacrificing that which must be preserved ... individual liberty. Or we can simply accept that living free requires acceptance of a certain level of risk. I can assure you that odds of being a victim of an assault rifle shooting are relatively small in the spectrum of life's risks. Actuarial tables tell us the automobile imposes a risk to your life that is orders of magnitude greater. Still, I cannot promise it will never happen to you, banned weapons or not.

All real solutions to real world problems are of necessity compromises, and the compromises we prefer are reflections of our life experience.

Trav

[Tim01]

14. I concede the media says powerful, and you talk about rate of fire.

[The Traveler]

16. The media speaks with imprecision

whereas you and I are using our words carefully. They are really talking about tactical advantage at the average combat range. What I (and I suspect you) understand is that in a real sense there are no dangerous weapons ... there are dangerous people. And one's power to constrain their actions by imposing bans on classes of weapons is quite limited.

Trav

[old mark]

49. The media generally does not know nor care about accurate facts

on guns. They are after shock value and emotional content. They exist to sell advertising and for no other reason.

mark

[virginia mountainman]

18. A common pump shotgun, can easily exceed a semi auto rifle firepower

For example, say, the shotgun was loaded with 3 inch "OO" buck. I believe those shells are loaded with 12 approximately 30 caliber pellets....

Every pull of the trigger, will send 12, 30 caliber projectiles down range...in 3 shots, the common 12 gauge has exceeded a whole 30 rnd magazine semi Automatic AK Clones firepower...

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. At the sacrifice of range and accuracy.

I could put more rounds on target at 200yds with an AR15 than you could with your shotgun.

Of course, close in the shotgun rules - which is why they worked so well in Belleu Wood.

[rl6214]

25. But really are any of these shootings being done

At 200 yards?

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Point conceded - not many.

There are exceptions, of course, like the McDonalds shooter some time ago, and the DC sniper, and the Ohio Freeway sniper -

That is beside the point, however, as I was responding to the previous poster about the efficacy of shotgun over assault rifle.

[benEzra]

40. The DC "sniper" shootings were all within shotgun or flintlock musket range...

35 to 90 yards, as I recall. And I believe the Ohio freeway "sniper" shootings were with a Beretta 9mm pistol, also at close range.

FWIW, here's the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non-"assault weapon":

[yay]

42. NIT PICKING NIT PICKING

We don't want your facts or "technical" differences here.

[virginia mountainman]

28. Agreed.....But shootings a long range are rare

[geckosfeet]

31. And after 100 yards they drop harmlessly to the ground.

[MercutioATC]

19. You REALLY need to get the nomenclature right.

"Assault rifle" = fully-automatic military rifle

"Assault weapon" = semi-automatic rifle

...and, to further muddy the waters, you single out the calibers of the AR-15 (an "assault weapon") and the AK-47 (an "assault rifle").


Your premise is correct...the 5.56x45 NATO round and the 7.62x39 round are lower-energy rounds than nearly all hunting rifles.

[Iktomiwicasa]

43. To my liking

I consider the 7.62X39 to be about the minimum I care to use on deer. Perfect shot angle ( broadside between the ribs) out to 150 yards or so yeah it'll get it done, but quartering towards through bone to the vitals or similar I want more gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. In most states, it's the most popular minimum legal round to use.

.223 is illegal for most large game in most states. .240 being the minimum legal bore diameter, in at least 4 states. Others may vary.

.30 caliber of any stripe is a good basement for hunting deer.

[Tim01]

48. You are probably right on the details.

I am just trying to work against this idea put out by the media that "assault" whatever is like a .50 machine gun tearing through people and armor, cars and houses and bank vault doors.

[yay]

50. out to 2,000 yards

With a "less accurate" range of 4 miles....

[MercutioATC]

51. I agree, but the main misconception is that "assault weapons" are fully automatic.

By putting "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" in the same category without pointing out that "assault rifles"are different (and heavily restricted by federal law) you're unintentionally supporting that misconception.

[Tim01]

56. Fair enough.I'll try to keep it straight in the future.

One misconception at a time.
I believe that expecting non-gun people to ever get the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon is asking for too much. It is too late, they will never get it now."Not a machine gun, not fully automatic" they can understand.

"Much weaker than most hunting guns" is pretty straight forward, and can be shown with facts that the untrained person can understand in just a few seconds. If they understand that they have been misled, so much the better.

I am only interested in the truths that can be understood by the large group of people who have been lied to and now think guns are kind of bad.

Arguing with anti-gun fanatics is a waste of time, except if they are convincing middle of the road folks.
Discussing details with other gun guys is preaching to the choir when I could be preaching to passers by who stopped into church for a second.

[cwcwmack]

98. not exactly...

the classic "assualt rifle" is a select fire (capable of auto or semi-auto fire) rifle sized cartridge weapon...

the German Stg44 was the "first" classic assault rifle and the AK-47 is the most common assault rifle.

Legal Assault Weapons are nearly semi automatic variants...

And YES, anyone who has fired 7.62NATO compared to grandpa's 30.06 know what the difference is...

[old mark]

52. A lot of older shooters don't like the M-16/AR-15 type rifles because they are

a .22 caliber (.223" or 5.56mm in diameter) and not powerful enough.
They are not legal to hunt deer size game or larger in many states.
( Smallest legal caliber in PA is the .243.)
The 7.62x39 cartridge that is the old Soviet military round used in the older AK and obsolete SKS rifles is about equal to the .30-30 cartridge in ballistics and "power".

The numbers associated with a cartridge ususally express the bullet diameter, a .45 ACP = Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge, .456" in diameter.

The "assault rifle" cartridge was developed by the Germans in mid WWII in an effort to reduce weight of the ammo so soldiers could carry more. They are ALL small, lighter, less powerful and less effective cartridges than what they replaced. The effect of firing a rifle in full auto mode are simply to expend a large quantity of ammunition rapidly, usually with poor effect - it is very difficult to shoot a weapon like that with any accuracy.Many military weapons first designed to be capable of full auto fire were re-designed for single-fire (semi-auto) use only because they were so difficult to control by most people, even trained military shooters. The M-14 was one of these as was the FAL and the M-16, which went to a 3-round burst capability reather than full auto.

I was in the Army for both the end of the M-14 ans the introduction of the M-16, and I have at least a little experience with both weapons.

FWIW.

mark

[slackmaster]

104. That's a fact - Target shooters who use M1As and Garands refer to the AR-15 as a "mouse gun"

I've heard it in person many times.

[applegrove]

58. The bullet pierces the skin and blasts through some organ or vessles either way. So what is your

point? That assault weapons should never be made illegal? Good luck with that.

[yay]

59. Why exactly

should they be illegal? They're used in less than 3% of murders and they're easily the most popular type of firearm in the U.S.

[Statistical]

83. They are scaring looking. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

85. Thank you for this post. It is absolutely amazing to see the total lack

of knowledge shared by so many about this subject. Or perhaps it is willful ignorance. How very sad that so many that have opinions on this subject know so little about it.

[Tim01]

91. I have come to the belief

that there is a whole shit load of american people who don't care about guns much one way or the other. But they have heard so much anti-gun propaganda that they believe it. Mostly because nobody has told them the truth. And if they knew the truth they would be solidly pro 2nd amendment. They just need somebody to explain where they have been lied to. I'm seeing this in real life, not just on internet boards.

[spin]

92. If you repeat a lie often enough people believe it. (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

94. That's what I'm thinking the 90% lie is all about.

[Hoopla Phil]

93. I'm hopeful that you are right.

[Ganja Ninja]

95. and the figures for shotguns firing slugs is ...

12 ga /330 gr - 1793 ft lbs @ 100 yrds
20 ga /250 gr - 1200 ft lbs @ 100 yrds

http://www.hornady.com/media/2009_catalog/47_ammo_shotgun_sst.pdf

[benEzra]

101. And note that those are energies at *100 yards*.

At the muzzle, full-power slug loads run about 3000 ft-lb in 12-gauge and 2300 ft-lb in 20-gauge. And that 12-gauge slug is .729 caliber (an AK bullet is .311 and an AR-15 bullet is .224).

http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotgun_slugs.htm

12 gauge Buckhammer slugs weigh 1 1/4 ounces in 2 3/4" cases or 1 3/8 ounces in 3" cases. 20 gauge Buckhammer slugs come only in 2 3/4" cases and weigh 1 ounce.

These Remington Buckhammer loads claim the most impressive ballistics of the bunch. The 12 gauge 2 3/4" load has a MV of 1550 fps and ME of 2935 ft. lbs. The 100 yard figures are 1145 fps and 1600 ft. lbs. Zeroed at 50 yards, the 1 1/4 ounce slug should hit 3.6" low at 100 yards, so it is still a short range load. Naturally, they kick like the very devil in a shotgun of average weight.

The 20 gauge Buckhammer load has a MV of 1500 fps and ME of 2236 ft. lbs. The 100 yard figures are 995 fps and 1074 ft. lbs. Zeroed at 50 yards, the 1 ounce slug should hit 4.6" low at 100 yards.

...

Remington offers 12 and 20 gauge Premier sabot loads with both JHP bonded lead core bullets and solid copper hollow point bullets. The former are called "Premier Core-Lokt Ultra," and latter are "Premier Copper Solid."

The 12 gauge Core-Lokt Ultra sabot bullet is a .50 caliber, 385 grain HP semi-spitzer. The catalog MV is 1900 fps and the 100 yard velocity is 1648 fps. The ME is given as 3086 ft. lbs. and the remaining energy at 100 yards is 2325 ft. lbs. The trajectory of that load looks like this: +1.8" at 50 yards, +2.4" at 100 yards, and +/- 0" at 150 yards.

The 20 gauge sabot bullet weighs 260 grains. It also has a MV of 1900 fps, and its velocity at 100 yards is given as 1615 fps. The ME is 2084 ft. lbs., and the remaining energy at 100 yards is 1506 ft. lbs. The trajectory of that load looks like this: +2.0" at 50 yards, +2.7" at 100 yards, and +/- 0" at 150 yards.

[cwcwmack]

96. absolutely...

I've personally shot 9 or 10 of those rounds and I completely agree.

[Tim01]

99. Back to the first page.

These are just facts. Everybody should know the facts before they make decisions.

[jody]

100. Now Tim01, don't disturb anyone with facts, let them fight back with myths, distortions, and

flawed studies funded by wealthy foundations specifically to support a gun-ban agenda.