Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In their typical ignorance, the media has been publishing reports about how "devastating" wounds are from .223/5.56mm rounds (the AR-15 round). About how "powerful" the AR-15 is. Let's actually discuss facts instead of the "fake news" BS of CNN/NBC/etc, let alone the propaganda of gun control groups. This is being written for the people here that know little about firearms...who are usually the biggest proponents of gun control. Let's dispel some ignorance and myths.
First, the .223 Remington/5.56mm round is one of the least powerful centerfire rounds commonly available (yes, gun guys, there ARE less powerful ones out there but a .218 Bee is not common and .17s are a bit of a novelty still). Rifle rounds would typically be grouped based upon the size of the game they were designed to take down. A .30 caliber round round (.30-06, .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, .30-30, etc) are "mid sized" rounds. They are commonly used as deer rounds, but with, the more powerful cartridges in this bore diameter (.300 Win Mag, .300 WSM, etc) are fine for bigger game like moose and elk. Bigger rounds such as the .458 Winchester Magnum are for the biggest game on the planet, or dangerous ones (elephant, cape buffalo being the most common). .244/6mm rounds up to the .280/7mm bore are common for use on deer size game.
A completely different series of cartridges are designed around the .220 bore size (.224 groove diameter). These include the .222/.223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum, the .22-250, .220 Swift and a bunch of others. (the .223 Remington is often interchanged with the 5.56mm AR round). These small calibers are typically designed for target practice (due to their low recoil) and "varmint guns" (ground hogs/prairie dogs, etc). With proper bullets, they CAN be used for deer-but are considered marginal. In many states, no .220 rifles is considered adequate or legal for deer due to the high possibility of failing to make a clean kill.
Now, let's discuss bullet construction. Conventional hunting bullets used for "big game" (deer/antelope on up) are devastating because they are designed to expand or "mushroom" upon hitting something, commonly doubling or more their diameter. This makes hunting rounds particularly lethal and is critical to maximizing the damage done and ensuring a clean kill on big game. And while designed to expand, they are also designed to stay intact (not break up) to ensure maximum penetration. A bullet that breaks up is considered a failure and unsuitable for big game. No hunter that knows what they are doing would use one.
The military rounds are prevented by the Geneva convention from being loaded with expanding bullets. They typically expand very little (and in fact have a steel core to ensure a degree of penetration at mid range distances (300-600 yards or so for the .223). This means that rather than expanding and "dumping" all it's energy in the body, a full metal jacket will make a hole at near bullet diameter. The fact that it doesn't expand reduces damage to the target. But since it doesn't expand, it may tumble on hitting a "soft" target. This greatly reduces penetration (and is also considered a failure in a big game bullet). A hunting bullet is a carefully constructed balance between expansion and penetration. It is designed to penetrate potentially several feet of animal while expanding greatly and maximizing damage. A military round does NOT do so.
That's why I have to laugh at the ignorance of so many media "experts" commenting on how "horrific" a .223 wound is. Yes, it is bad, especially compared to common pistol calibers, due to the velocities involved. A common .223 load has a muzzle velocity of ~3200 feet per second, a 9mm defensive load has a 115 grain bullet (heavier than a .223) with a mv of ~1300. Flip side-while the .223 typically shoots a non-expanding bullet, virtually every handgun defensive load has a bullet designed to expand (mushroom).
A common hunting round, the .30-06 (introduced in 1906) commonly uses a 150 grain bullet at 2900 FPS-but it is designed to mushroom and expand. While an '06 is a common round for animals the size of moose and elk (with heavier bullets), no one would even consider a .223 for them. It is marginal for deer, and is too low in power even to be legal for use on deer in many states. So, yes, a wound from an AR is bad, and may be worse than most handgun wounds. But compared to nearly any "hunting rifle" round, the harm done is far less. The difference is even more dramatic when compared to a 12ga shotgun fired at close range. A common 1 1/4 oz "load" from a 12ga shotgun is 550 grains (the unit of measure of rifle bullet weight). 550 grains from a shotgun-vs 55 from a common .223 round. And a shotgun shoots many smaller "balls", making a devastating wound at close range. All this explains why so many more are wounded but not killed at mass shooting events.
As far as .223 bullets "fragmenting"-this is because it is a small-game round. When shooting things like prairie dogs, you don't need penetration or expansion to maximize damage. You do, however, prefer that the bullet break up should it miss the target (or pass through it) in order to minimize the chance of a ricochet. A bullet that breaks up looses energy immediately and won't do continue on to do damage. So in the .223, you have two extremes. Common "civilian" rounds designed for small game are loaded with bullets designed to break up or fragment, which minimizes damage. The military rounds are "full metal jacket" and are designed NOT to expand (or break up) on hitting a target in order to comply with the Geneva convention. So either of these extremes are far less lethal than a "hunting rifle" round.
Why does the military use the .223/5.56 then? A number of reasons. First, most .30 caliber rounds are too powerful (too much recoil) to shoot effectively in automatic fire in a "rifle weight" firearm when fired from the shoulder (with the average shooter). The military tried that with the M-14 (and the Europeans did with the FAL). The recoil and resulting muzzle lift made it useless. In addition-soldiers can only carry so much weight. A loaded .308 (7.62mm round) weighs 3-4 times as much as a 5.56 round. As such a soldier can carry 3-4 times as many rounds of the small caliber. In addition, the near complete lack of recoil of the low-powered 5.56 round makes training of soldiers, who often had never even shot a rifle before basic training, much easier. That lack of recoil is also a major reason the 5.56 is also so popular among civilian shooters. There has been a LOT of discussion over the years of replacing the 5.56 round with something more powerful in the standard issue weapon-due to enemies being hit solidly and not being killed or stopped immediately, in turn being able to fire on our soldiers.
I hope this helps for those trying to learn something...rather than those looking to promote an agenda.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 02-24-2018 at 06:43 AM..
A bullet to the head is a bullet to the head no matter how you spin it.
Mostly true. Which is why it makes no sense to demonize an AR vs even a handgun.
None of this takes away from the fact that an AR can and will kill. But it is beyond ignorant to think that banning them will do anything to stop school shootings. IF they become less available, all you do is drive a shooter to a more powerful, more lethal weapon.
In their typical ignorance, the media has been publishing reports about how "devastating" wounds are from .223/5.56mm rounds (the AR-15 round). About how "powerful" the AR-15 is. Let's actually discuss facts instead of the "fake news" BS of CNN/NBC/etc, let alone the propaganda of gun control groups. This is being written for the people here that know little about firearms...who are usually the biggest proponents of gun control. Let's dispel some ignorance and myths.
First, the .223 Remington/5.56mm round is one of the least powerful centerfire rounds commonly available (yes, gun guys, there ARE less powerful ones out there but a .218 Bee is not common and .17s are a bit of a novelty still). Rifle rounds would typically be grouped based upon the size of the game they were designed to take down. A .30 caliber round round (.30-06, .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, .30-30, etc) are "mid sized" rounds. They are commonly used as deer rounds, but with, the more powerful cartridges in this bore diameter (.300 Win Mag, .300 WSM, etc) are fine for bigger game like moose and elk. Bigger rounds such as the .458 Winchester Magnum are for the biggest game on the planet, or dangerous ones (elephant, cape buffalo being the most common). .244/6mm rounds up to the .280/7mm bore are common for use on deer size game.
A completely different series of cartridges are designed around the .220 bore size (.224 groove diameter). These include the .222/.223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum, the .22-250, .220 Swift and a bunch of others. (the .223 Remington is often interchanged with the 5.56mm AR round). These small calibers are typically designed for target practice (due to their low recoil) and "varmint guns" (ground hogs/prairie dogs, etc). With proper bullets, they CAN be used for deer-but are considered marginal. In many states, no .220 rifles is considered adequate or legal for deer due to the high possibility of failing to make a clean kill.
Now, let's discuss bullet construction. Conventional hunting bullets used for "big game" (deer/antelope on up) are devastating because they are designed to expand or "mushroom" upon hitting something, commonly doubling or more their diameter. This makes hunting rounds particularly lethal and is critical to maximizing the damage done and ensuring a clean kill on big game. And while designed to expand, they are also designed to stay intact (not break up) to ensure maximum penetration. A bullet that breaks up is considered a failure and unsuitable for big game. The military rounds are prevented by the Geneva convention from being loaded with expanding bullets. They typically expand very little (and in fact have a steel core to ensure a degree of penetration at mid range distances (300-600 yards or so for the .223). This means that rather than expanding and "dumping" all it's energy in the body, a full metal jacket will make a hole at near bullet diameter. The fact that it doesn't expand reduces damage to the target. But since it doesn't expand, it may tumble on hitting a "soft" target. This greatly reduces penetration (and is also considered a failure in a big game bullet). A hunting bullet is a carefully constructed balance between expansion and penetration. It is designed to penetrate potentially several feet of animal while expanding greatly and maximizing damage. A military round does NOT do so.
That's why I have to laugh at the ignorance of so many media "experts" commenting on how "horrific" a .223 wound is. Yes, it is bad, especially compared to common pistol calibers, due to the velocities involved. A common .223 load has a muzzle velocity of ~3200 feet per second, a 9mm defensive load has a 115 grain bullet (heavier than a .223) with a mv of ~1300. Flip side-while the .223 typically shoots a non-expanding bullet, virtually every handgun defensive load has a bullet designed to expand (mushroom).
A common hunting round, the .30-06 (introduced in 1906) commonly uses a 150 grain bullet at 2900 FPS-but it is designed to mushroom and expand. While an '06 is a common round for animals the size of moose and elk (with heavier bullets), no one would even consider a .223 for them. It is marginal for deer, and is too low in power even to be legal for use on deer in many states. So, yes, a wound from an AR is bad, and may be worse than most handgun wounds. But compared to nearly any "hunting rifle" round, the harm done is far less. The difference is even more dramatic when compared to a 12ga shotgun fired at close range. A common 1 1/4 oz "load" from a 12ga shotgun is 550 grains (the unit of measure of rifle bullet weight). 550 grains from a shotgun-vs 55 from a common .223 round. And a shotgun shoots many smaller "balls", making a devastating wound at close range. All this explains why so many more are wounded but not killed at mass shooting events.
As far as .223 bullets "fragmenting"-this is because it is a small-game round. When shooting things like prairie dogs, you don't need penetration or expansion to maximize damage. You do, however, prefer that the bullet break up should it miss the target (or pass through it) in order to minimize the chance of a ricochet. A bullet that breaks up looses energy immediately and won't do continue on to do damage. So in the .223, you have two extremes. Common "civilian" rounds designed for small game are loaded with bullets designed to break up or fragment, which minimizes damage. The military rounds are "full metal jacket" and are designed NOT to expand (or break up) on hitting a target. So either of these extremes are far less lethal than a "hunting rifle" round.
Why does the military use the .223/5.56 then? A number of reasons. First, most .30 caliber rounds are too powerful (too much recoil) to shoot effectively in automatic fire in a "rifle weight" firearm when fired from the shoulder (with the average shooter). The military tried that with the M-14 (and the Europeans did with the FAL). The recoil and resulting muzzle lift made it useless. In addition-soldiers can only carry so much weight. A loaded .308 (7.62mm round) weighs 3-4 times as much as a 5.56 round. As such a soldier can carry 3-4 times as many rounds of the small caliber. In addition, the near complete lack of recoil of the low-powered 5.56 round makes training of soldiers, who often had never even shot a rifle before basic training, much easier. That lack of recoil is also a major reason the 5.56 is also so popular among civilian shooters. There has been a LOT of discussion over the years of replacing the 5.56 round with something more powerful in the standard issue weapon-due to enemies being hit solidly and not being killed or stopped immediately, in turn being able to fire on our soldiers.
I hope this helps for those trying to learn something...rather than those looking to promote an agenda.
I shot an AR-15 for the first time in 1965. According to the gun magazines of the time, this was the way the bullet was designed, so that it tumbled when it struck a target. If that is the case, the same would apply to any projectile that is smaller at the tip than at the base, unless it was driven by an unimaginable amount of energy. I know for as fact it is not true with larger calibers.
I shot an AR-15 for the first time in 1965. According to the gun magazines of the time, this was the way the bullet was designed, so that it tumbled when it struck a target. If that is the case, the same would apply to any projectile that is smaller at the tip than at the base, unless it was driven by an unimaginable amount of energy. I know for as fact it is not true with larger calibers.
Thing is...writers for gun magazines are all too often far from actual "experts"-though they usually are better than those writing for the MSM. The M16 round isn't "designed" to tumble upon hitting a target, that is an offshoot of using a non-expanding bullet. And they do not do so consistently. And again-a bullet that "tumbles" (or breaks up) is considered a failure in a hunting round since it does not penetrate the way a expanding bullet does that has "mushroomed" as designed.
There is a reason the military has spent a lot of time and money researching more powerful rounds for the M16 than the 5.56. A whole lot of enemies shot with it have not gone down and have been able to return fire.
Why do the gun people always feel they have to trot out their obscure (and justly so), inside gun minutiae whenever a gun massacre occurs? They just can't wait to try and impress everyone with these arcane factoids.
Isn't there a thread for ghoulish information or ghastly wounds somewhere?
Devastating is a common word. It's used and misused often. People know that a devastating wound is worse than a superficial one. That's good enough. No more light needs to be shed here.
I'm not being smart here and I do appreciate someone doing the research to make their arguments but that is a lot of info that few really care about.
I noted yesterday that a 223 is nowhere near as damaging as a 30-06 and you can buy 30 round magazine's for a 30-06.
To say that a 223 does more damage than "most" handguns is cherry picking at best. If handguns weren't as lethal we wouldn't have nearly as many threads on police officers killing unarmed individuals. They are killing them with handguns.
The argument here is people wanting to yell "Na na na, we won" even though they won nothing.
Why do the gun people always feel they have to trot out their obscure (and justly so), inside gun minutiae whenever a gun massacre occurs? They just can't wait to try and impress everyone with these arcane factoids.
It was brought out to counter the arguments from those arguing to ban certain guns and the reasons they use to justify that.
If one disagree's with an argument, they should be able to counter that with other facts, should they not?
Quote:
Isn't there a thread for ghoulish information or ghastly wounds somewhere?
Devastating is a common word. It's used and misused often. People know that a devastating wound is worse than a superficial one. That's good enough. No more light needs to be shed here.
In this context, sure it does. Why are there not arguments to ban a 30-06 that is even more devastating?
The 5.56mm round was adopted years ago for the main reason that it allows the troops to carry more ammo.
Its lethality was questioned in the late 60s when it was issued in large quantities.
But many thousands in SE Asia and the middle east have fallen to its effects.
It doesn't have the impact of the 7.62mm or 30-06 that it replaced, but it has definitely proven to be up to the task.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
