Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumU.S. Army looking for a new rifle...
I ran across this tidbit today on the RealClearDefense website:
http://warisboring.com/the-u-s-army-wants-a-more-powerful-rifle/
and here is the RFI they submitted to industry:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f19586d13f3072ad831ac8863fe6bcf8&_cview=0
Evidently the Army is finally admitting that a 5.56 caliber rifle is under-powered for today's combat environment. That should come as a shock to all the gun haters who continually decry the easy availability of - and I quote - "high-powered assault-style rifles" in the commercial market.
I guess next they'll come after "high-powered assault-style" Mosin-Nagant, Enfield, Mauser, and Springfield '03 rifles...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Me.
(35,454 posts)Maybe those horrible, awful people who favor gun control will one day get their wish.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)"Gun control" must always appear with quotation marks, given the fact that there's no way to control items/substances that are in high demand. (Supply creates it's own demand.)
You're welcome.
Me.
(35,454 posts)As long as citizens feel the need to be armed to the teeth
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Are you denying the obvious fact that things in high demand create their own supply? What exactly are you "noping" to?
Canoe52
(2,963 posts)How can one be in favor of thousands of needless deaths?
Maybe it's a thing and I just don't get it?
Me.
(35,454 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,821 posts)Sounds like the specs were developed by a specific vendor and the new rifle has already been selected in closed negotiations.
Smells like the fix is in.
Alea
(706 posts)I know the SCAR 17 is pricey though. Seems like everything they need is already available in the AR 10 style rifle. Typical Army, spend a bunch of money to figure out nothing.
lostnfound
(16,708 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)All the military needs too do is go too a local gun shop and by off the shelf ar-15's... since they are "weapons of war"......
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Looks like before long I won't own a "weapon of war". Bummer -- I'll have to upgrade to a 7.62. Not easy being a gun-humping ammosexual these days.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
Good to 1000yds, and makes cover into concealment.
Fixed it for you
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Besides, one of mine is a Nat. Match in 308, and another is a Beretta.
Alea
(706 posts)I like them both but the Grand is definitely classier.
My father has one from CMP. I've fired it but don't ask me to load it. I got to fire the M14 and M14 EBR while deployed. At targets, not in anger. Fell in love. Wish they were not so heavy.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)What problem do you have loading it? Afraid of "M1 Thumb"?
Alea
(706 posts)I shot the rifle many times over the years but I finally decided I wanted to load it myself. My father had always made us watch the loading process and we knew what it was about and what it could do. He gave me an in depth refresher right before I tried, and it still bit me hard. He makes it look easy. I'm sure I'll try again though. I don't give up and the rifle may be mine one day.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)You are talking to a person who has had it twice.
Same day.
Same thumb.
Some of us learn harder than others.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)...a friend was shooting next to me on the line (to my left) and a spent shell from the garand of the guy to his left went down the back of his shirt while he was firing sitting. Then he went to get up and get the hot shell out of his shirt and put his right hand down on the ground on top of another hot spent piece of brass.
I felt bad for the guy. 
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)I'm familiar with the affliction but thankfully inexperienced 
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,821 posts)The drill sergeant was very sympathetic, told me not to bleed on HIS rifle stock or sling.
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You just can't resist rubbing it in, can you?
Seriously, happy for you -- and I imagine that you guessed that I was being flippant.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Then I would tell you about all five M1 Rifles that inhabit my safe.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Knew that there had to be more where those two came from!
lostnfound
(16,708 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It is designed to shoot all varieations of thia ammo. Black tip M2 is a armor piecing round, and will penetrate 1" of mild steel at 100 yards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_%28military%29
lostnfound
(16,708 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Wonder if the 6.8SPC will finally be realized for the great cartridge it is?
I have two lowers I've been putting off building ARs because I don't want another 556 and don't find the 300blk to be much use if you're not going to use a suppressor on.
I've always liked the 6.8 on paper...of course the 6.5 and creedmoor or grendel are also great options.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Keeping everything in the NATO family.
I personally think a .25-'08 (.257 bullet in a necked-down .308 Win. case) would be great, but nobody asked me. Load up a nice 120-grain bullet at about 2800 ft/s, get about 2,000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy out of it with a nice flat trajectory and moderate recoil.
About the same trajectory as the 62-grain 5.56, but 50% more power at the muzzle and twice the power at 300 yards.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I hate the AR10 platform, just too large for what it is.
Paladin
(28,947 posts)Of course, that was way back in the Old Days, when anything beyond a single shot was looked upon as a fuck-up on the part of a shooter, and severely wounding an animal at 800 yds. wasn't considered "sportsmanship." No mystery why my guns are gathering dust in a closet. As for what the military ends up with in the way of a new rifle, I don't give a shit. There will be things wrong with it, it will be wildly overpriced, and it'll take 2 or 3 generations for another model to come along by way of "improving" things. As usual.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I remember when ARs were "plastic range toys for wannabes". Now, go in any gun store in the US or New Zealand, ARs galore. Have you tried to find a lever action lately?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and take a chop saw to them- or at least permanently demilitarize them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)tortoise1956
(671 posts)Wrong manufacturer - everything I have found points to S&W being the proud maker of the "Combat Masterpiece". And how in the hell did he become "certified" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) on an AR-15 in the Air Force, unless he served specifically between 1962 and 1964? Sounds like horse apples to me.
As for the rest - it's amazing that a rifle that is considered to be under-powered for deer hunting could "destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal". I don't know what to say to that, except to wonder if the poster is related to the reporter that was scared by the powerful recoil of an AR-15.
One last thing - he describes shooting at a 55 gallon drum full of water, and the horrendous effect it had when it exited the back. Surprisingly enough, I was able to find a video online showing someone blowing the crap out of a 55 gallon steel barrel full of water with an Ar-15:
As you can see, not even one round exited the barrel, let alone "made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist".
I call BULLSHIT on this post. Too much wrong and misidentified crap to engender any faith in the veracity of the material contained therein...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and the perp was called on it by myself and several other persons.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"That should come as a shock to all the gun haters who continually decry the easy availability of - and I quote - "high-powered assault-style rifles" in the commercial market. "
1.) They are "high-powered" enough to kill so many kids at Newtown.
2.) The term "high-powered" isn't limited to their caliber, which is admittedly low. It also refers to their magazine size and ease of re-loading. The more rounds you can throw, the more "powerful" (hence our national laws restricting the sales of machine guns of any caliber whatsoever).
You should think before you speak...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)High power, when used by people who know what they are talking about, is about caliber.
Actually, I doubt the drafters of the National Firearms Act had that in mind at all.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)Which would include me, as a former infantryman?
Anyway, your blanket statement is incorrect: caliber is certainly not the only dimension when it comes to power. For instance, another factor is the amount of powder in the shell, which affects muzzle velocity. Velocity in turn affects the kinetic energy of the round. Also, it affects the accuracy, although that is not a big deal in most civilian shootings (not many Oswalds running around anymore).
Furthermore, one can physically carry more lower-caliber rounds, all else held equal (one of the reasons the military uses 5.56 in the first place). The ability to carry more round and have more rounds per a given magazine size is a factor in the "power" of a weapon to kill a lot of people quickly.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)which is sometimes used interchangeably as cartridge. We are both right in that regard.
Former infantryman doesn't mean an expert on ballistics or firearms, in general, any more than a policeman is. It does mean that you have formal training of using and caring for issue weapons. BTW, before I went to the USAF, I was a 13B, does that make me an expert on artillery? I also grew up with guns in the sticks, come from a family cops who hunt.
The second paragraph is historically correct, but that isn't why politicians and activists use "high powered". They use it to scare people, like "assault weapon" and "military grade", which have real definition. For example, the AR used at Sandy Hook was not an "assault weapon" under CT law or the now-expired federal law. However, under the New York SAFE Act, target pistols used in the Olympics and ISSF competitions like the Walther GSP, are "assault weapons".
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"13B, does that make me an expert on artillery?" I would think you knew a bit about what damage you could do, unless you weren't very good at your job, I guess.
In the infantry, we learned about our weapons and what they could and could not do. "High-Powered" is a fine descriptor of an M16 (and an AR-15, for that matter), regardless of how small the rounds physically are.
The discussion of "assault weapons" is beside the point. The proof of my point is in the attacks that have happened using an AR-15. Perhaps you could argue that the attacks would have been worse with a larger caliber, but that would be a pretty sad argument in support of ARs.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...as getting details wrong (as you did upthread) has been a mark of more than one poster of,
shall we say 'questionable' military qualifications- though rarely as obviously as the one I
linked to above.
Oddly enough, they *also* felt the AR-15 shouldn't be in civilian hands.
The disinterested reader is invited to make of that what they will...
I'd also remind you that a 13B would also have been required to
qualify once a year on the issue rifle of the time- which would have been the M16.
Not to mention other personal weapons suitable for self-defense of second line-troops
(arty, transport, Signal Corps, etc). Those would have been M1 (or M2) carbines, M1911 pistol,
M3 greasegun, and/or combat shotguns. Therefore, your military experience lends no more
or less imprimatur to your arguments than gej's does to his.
Also, your invocation of Newtown means nothing- It was at an elementary school, FFSM's sake-
Lanza could have gotten the same results with a double-barrelled shotgun
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"Therefore, your military experience lends no more or less imprimatur to your arguments than gej's does to his. " I had to take combat lifesaver courses, but I would acknowledge that an actual medic has more experience and training than I do, and is thus a better authority. Same with an arty guy vs. someone who spends his whole day with his rifle...
"Also, your invocation of Newtown means nothing- It was at an elementary school, FFSM's sake- Lanza could have gotten the same results with a double-barrelled shotgun " Nonsense. The question was whether the rifle is "high-powered", and Newtown proved it is.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)"high powered" is not a good description of the 5.56x45/.223 round is not high powered. It, like the 7.62x39 and the .30-30, are intermediate rounds. Would a single shot or bolt action .223 be high powered? If so, why can't I use it for deer hunting in states like Wyoming? The answer is it isn't high powered by WFG's definition. Also, don't know how many died from the gunshot vs simply bled to death. That is how most of the Pulse Nightclub victims died. If the cops hadn't stood around with their fingers up their collective asses for three hours, most of the victims probably would have survived.
Using your definition, should .22 rimfires in an AR type rifle, which are popular in the UK for three gun competitions, be "high powered"? If so, why not a Ruger 10/22?
No, "assault weapons" are not beside the point. I was illustrating the fact that "high powered" in this context is a political term used for misleading propaganda that has nothing to do with the real issue by people, like Bloomberg, who get giddy when gun massacres happen to push their pet issue.
If I would argue what would be worse, I would argue that a worse weapon would not be a firearm at all.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"If I would argue what would be worse, I would argue that a worse weapon would not be a firearm at all." This argument would make little sense. One could just as easily argue that a nuclear bomb would be even worse, and the argument would tell us nothing about our current discussion.
"Using your definition, should .22 rimfires in an AR type rifle, which are popular in the UK for three gun competitions, be "high powered"?" Probably, though I guess we would need to see how they work in a mass-killing scenario. The issue is less about caliber and more about ease-of-destruction.
"I was illustrating the fact that "high powered" in this context is a political term used for misleading propaganda that has nothing to do with the real issue..." The real issue is the amount of death a weapon is capable of dishing out if used correctly. Once again, the fact of several high-profile mass killings using AR-15s is all I really need to support my argument that the AR can legit be considered "high-powered". It's obviously not just the caliber...
Edit: I just thought of something, I think you and I are talking about two different things here. I think you are talking about how the AR-15 is not "high powered" relative to other guns while I am talking about how the AR-15 is high-powered relative to other weapons in general (or at least, weapons available to a given psychopathic killer).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)a much higher death toll without a firearm being used. My definition is means used. While shootings are more common in US mass murders, that doesn't mean we have a monopoly on a rampage killing. Arson is popular in Australia. Edged weapons are more common in China. Some of the knife attacks in Chinese elementary schools have had higher body counts than Sandy Hook. Does that make the knife high powered?
Or this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
I don't know what other weapons was available to Lanza outside of the rifle used to kill his mother and the one used to attack the school.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)I could drive a car through a crowd of people and kill many, but banning cars would still not make sense due to their impact on the economy.
Knives are essential in the kitchen, and banning them also does not make sense.
Guns are not essential to anything except certain hobbies, so banning them at least doesn't threaten meal preparation.
I agree that some knife attacks may have been worse than Newtown. However, that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about the AR-15 and its relative power. My point is that gun-controllers are right to label it "high-powered", for more reasons than its caliber...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but banning guns would not make a peaceful world. If that were the case, Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela would be among the safest countries in the world.
Gun controllers label the AR as "high powered" for ONLY these reasons
Their entire movement depends on intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation. "high powered", like "military grade" and "assault weapon" is used to manipulate people who know nothing about firearms.
They are among the followers of the above.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"Their entire movement depends on intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation. "
Really, the ENTIRE movement? There is not even one iota of concern for the thousands of people who are shot and/or killed? Are you including my fellow DUers in that statement?
I agree that the discussion of knives is not really relevant to whether the AR-15 can be considered "high-powered".
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...as see the revival of claims that gun manufacturers are entirely exempt from negligence torts
(Short answer: They're not)
I don't *your* sincerity at all, but the demonstrated mendacity and outright fabrications by
some of those who have expressed the same views have engendered a lot of skepticism from those
who disagree.
Strictly from a practical viewpoint, what you propose is akin to banning scotch to fight drunk driving-
moves like that will only mobilize a largish group of people that are known to vote at high rates and
cause them to actively oppose Democrats (as in : "FU, I'm not a spree-killer-in-waiting and will not
stand idly by while your party depicts me as one"
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)I agree about the tort thing, by the way.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)*You* believe the 5.56 is a high-powered round. You are perfectly free to feel that way, and to
express that view.
However, the Army apparently disagrees, as do at least two ex-USA in this thread alone.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)I thought you found something significant...
Feel free to keep up the good work!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to the discussion. Squee is also ex-infantry, and disagrees with you- and so does the Army, if
the article linked to in the OP is to be believed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)AFAIC, any cause that depends on redefining words into "Newspeak", logical fallacies, and outright lies, is not worthy of my support.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Michael Bloomberg says Democrats should “get behind” President Trump
We need Bloomberg like we need a 2 pound hemorrhoid. 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Please give an example of a modern "low powered" gun.
I may be missing something but are all semi-auto firearms "high-powered" by this pro-restriction definition?
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)The term is relative to all weapons, not just all rifles (or all guns).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)...leads the listener/reader to infer the existence of less powerful instances of the item described.
In an analogous explanation, if my employer assigns me issues to work on that are describe as having "emergency" priority than the term "emergency" (from my POV) is meaningless. Maybe it reflects a degree of panic on the part of my employer but it is useless in establishing a priority for me to use.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"leads the listener/reader to infer the existence of less powerful instances of the item described. "
Yes, I agree. My point was that the AR-15 and other .223 rifles are "high-powered" in relation to all available weapons for civilian shootings (e.g. knives, bats, cars, etc.). That is why I believe that it is accurate to rate the AR-15 as "high-powered". That is not to say that the AR-15 is the most powerful option.
If a gun-controller is talking to the public about violence and shootings, he is probably not using terms of art from the field of ballistics. It is more of a common-sense term: A killer with an AR (or any gun, really) has much more "power" over un-armed civilians than a killer with a bat.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)..."If a gun-controller is talking to the public about violence and shootings, he is probably not using terms of art from the field of ballistics." Actually he or she is using a term from the field of ballistics and likely doesn't know that. This usage and its perpetuation by the media, politicians and public figures serves only to confuse the issue and imbue information and remarks by knowledgeable experts with false connotations.
Words have a meaning and, as I learned in school, if you don't know, look it up and if you confused ask. As my first Sensei said, "To learn, got to the source."
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)Definition of high–powered
1
: having great drive, energy, or capacity : dynamic a high–powered executive
2
: having or conferring great influence a high–powered job
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/high%20power
I would say that the AR-15 certainly has great capacity (20-30). It also confers great influence on such notables as are found at the bottom of the ladder of society (i.e. killers).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)I would say the same about almost every other gun out there.
One of the most deadly mass shootings in the US was the Virginia Tech shooting.
It was a horrific event where many were killed and injured.
Semi-auto handguns were used with 10-15 rounds mags.
If it makes you happy to have "high-powered" mean nothing when you say it and to have no understanding of what an informed person means when you read or hear what they have to say, then please carry on with your trip down that rabbit hole.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"If it makes you happy to have "high-powered" mean nothing when you say it and to have no understanding of what an informed person means when you read or hear what they have to say, then please carry on with your trip down that rabbit hole. "
I already stated what I believe the term "high-powered" means in the context of talking to the public about firearms. I still have not seen your "official", "technical" definition of "high-powered". I did scan some other comment boards and one gun owner stated he had been told all his life that "high-powered" meant a certain number of mjoules of energy (I think it was 2,800, but I am not sure). Now, that is the kind of definition I am looking for (although a random guy on a comment board stating "what he had been told all his life" isn't really official, but its only an example).
I also found this just now (along with a few days ago) which discusses a BATF defintion of "high-powered rifle". However, the link in the discussion is dead 9https://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/70078-batf-definition-high-powered-rifle.html)
Finally, I have the NRA's handbook on high-powered rifle shooting that specifically includes the M16: https://rulebooks.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf
Alea
(706 posts)Almost every single source I've googled classifies it as a intermediate power cartridge, including wiki and global security (dot) org.
NRA rifle competition does not have a intermediate power classification. All centerfire rifle competition falls in the High Power Classification. That doesn't change what the 5.56/223 actually is.
I might add that you are the most "have to get the last word in kind of guy" that I have ever seen posting on a message board LOL.
No offense intended.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)
as they are semi auto 30-06 BATTLE RIFLES.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)I majored in physics and lettered all four years on my college rifle team. The term "power" has a specific meaning to folks in the shooting world and to folks trained in the physical sciences.
Here's my take: Several years ago I moved to a new place and saw an ad in the paper for a local pizza joint. I asked a neighbor about this place a was told that they made great pizza. That evening I called for delivery and ordered a sub and a pizza. I asked for a small and was told 'they only make a large'. I asked hold big was a "large pizza" and was told 8 slices. Calling the pizza large and telling me how many pieces it is cut into doesn't characterize the size of the pizza.
The term "high-powered rifle" has (to those informed) meant something. Clearly a .50 BMG (used in a Tac-50) at 15,000 J is high-power. Using the term high-power when characterizing an AR-15 loaded with .223 ammo and having 1,700 J is just confusing.
However, if you want to use "power" to convey a higher death per minute capability, go ahead. People that know guns will think you're uninformed and the rest won't care. I suggest that almost all guns will qualify as "high-powered" in that sense. Therefore, adding that term to a sentence adds nothing for many and serves to (at best) confuse some.
Among the many reasons for learning a complex language like Latin is that the comprehensive vocabulary and deliberate grammatical constructions enable one to precisely and concisely convey a thought.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Power, is a scientific term that has specific denotative meaning. In a typical reference such as "high powered rifle" the information conveyed is that the rifle has a relatively long effective range. Power is basically a measure of energy delivered per a unit of time measured. A long trip through a resistive medium (air) drains energy from the bullet during its flight. A "high powered rifle" would be one which fires a round where the bullet retains sufficient energy at the end of a comparatively longer flight to impart an incapacitating degree of ballistic trauma.
Your edit does highlight what you mean well enough but the media often uses terms without a logical basis and frequently only for sensational effect.
I day to day I might remark about a "powerful" cup of coffee. There would be little chance of anyone inferring a scientific meaning from that remark.
Pardon the intrusion. Nice to have you here.
yagotme
(3,948 posts)"High"-centerfire rifle cartridge.
"Low"-rimfire cartridge.
Perhaps this is where some of the confusion lies.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)I had to unlearn a metric ton of bullshit taught by my Drills about the 5.56 round... Designed to maim, tumbler round, bouncing through the body.. etc..
I know many mechanics that could not tell you a every detail about how their pneumatic impacts work, or the mathematical formulas involving torque and brake horsepower. Most of my brother grunts were not gun guys, our '16s and '60s were just tools.
Having been through Sand Hill or Harmony Church does not make you a gun expert. far from it actually.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)We all had to unlearn everything we learned in Infantry School. Every time we started learning something new there, the drill sergeant would lead off by saying "your unit will do things differently, but we have to teach you by the book"...
My point is that a soldier needs to understand what his weapon can and cannot do. My specific point is that I am aware that the M16 is capable of throwing a lot of (admittedly small) rounds downrange and can easily kill a human being. In this, the AR-15 is no different, especially since the only real difference is 3-round burst, which no one ever uses anyway.
The OP started by implying that the AR-15 is not "high-powered", which is not true in many ways. The mere fact that it shoots .223 instead of a larger round does not mean it is "low-powered".
Edit: And furthermore, the OP complained upthread about how the media uses the term "high-powered" because they have no knowledge of firearms or how they work. Well, if anyone has knowledge about this specific family of firearms, it is an infantryman. Thus my experience is very relevant to the discussion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)1) It's an argument from authority, and thus is no more or less valid than Squee's
2) Supreme Court case law going back to the 1930's held that possession of infantry weapons is
permissable under the Second Amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Being that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16/M4, it "has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
and "its use could contribute to the common defense."
3) Your views simply don't have the political juice to gain traction in the forseeable future
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)1.) Squee has not made any argument bearing on the power of the AR-15 or .223 except to say flat-out that 5.56 is not "high powered". He has provided no further info on why he believes this to be the case.
2.) This bears no relation to the question of whether the round or rifle can accurately be described as "high-powered".
3.) This bears no relation to the question of whether the round or rifle can accurately be described as "high-powered".
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Seeing as it follows the standard and accepted definition used by knowledgeable people.
Simply put, High Power, Intermediate and Pistol cartridges are accepted technical terms describing a multitude of calibers and cartridges. In no technical description is the 5.56, or it's civilian analog .223 classified as a High Power round.
You on the other hand are attempting the redefining an accepted term, and doing so, by your own admission, to influence ignorant people with misinformation. There is another technical term you should learn, propaganda.
Sorry, mister but you are out of your lane and a no-go at this station.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"In no technical description is the 5.56, or it's civilian analog .223 classified as a High Power round. "
Because according the NRA's rule book for "High Powered Rifles" (link below), the 5.56 qualifies (see page 8)
https://rulebooks.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf
To quote you: Sorry, mister but you are out of your lane and a no-go at this station.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and experience you've been touting all through this thread.
This disinterested observer will note that all the other ex-military on this thread that have opined on the
subject have disagreed with you.
Seems as if the knowledge you gained in the infantry is valuable only insofar as it reinforces your political stance.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)I just scanned the thread again, and while all the military folks are in agreement that the 5.56 is less powerful, they seem to all agree that 7.62 is what is needed. I hate to break this to you, but the 7.62 is also considered, technically speaking, an "intermediate" round.
Anyway, no one can possibly doubt the deadliness of .223 in the civilian setting. Regardless of whether there is some technical definition somewhere that states .223 is not "high-powered", it is certainly capable of killing unarmored civilians, which is the context in which we are operating for this discussion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In the real world, however, .223 is rarely used to kill:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20
Note that more murder victims were stabbed or beaten to death than killed with rifles
Why is your ire directed at that round in particular?
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)Well, for one that is what the OP was about (well, if you lump in 5.56 with .223 anyway).
My original comment was about the OP's following quote:
"That should come as a shock to all the gun haters who continually decry the easy availability of - and I quote - "high-powered assault-style rifles" in the commercial market. "
I agree that it is not used much for criminal shootings, though. If I had my way, handguns would be the first to go, more based on their being concealable than any argument about their relative power.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)One of your posts upthread seems to imply that very thing:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=203839
"The term "high-powered" isn't limited to their caliber, which is admittedly low. It also refers to their magazine size and ease of re-loading. The more rounds you can throw, the more "powerful" (hence our national laws restricting the sales of machine guns of any caliber whatsoever)."
If I have attributed sentiments to you that you do not, in fact, have- by all means let us
know and I will stand corrected.
As an aside, even my rather firearms-averse state of Massachusetts doesn't regard a Ruger Mini-14
(functionally equivalent to an AR15) as an 'assault weapon':
http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/guns-that-are-not-assault-weapons.html
"Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons
Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not assault weapons, and therefore are not “copies or duplicates” of enumerated assault weapons. For example, the following are not assault weapons under G.L. c. 140, § 121:
Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here links to PDF file. Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq. Consumer Protection Regulation;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon;"
The disinterested observer will note that a Mini-14 is just as capable of 'throwing' .223 rounds as
an AR15.
Are your objections are more a matter of personal taste?
It's been interesting, but duty calls at the moment. I look forward to continuing this discussion later...
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Which 7.62?
I have more than once pointed out there are numerous 7.62 rounds. Some Pistol, some intermediate and some Full Power.
Again your imprecise language, and lack of knowledge, is leading to confusion.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)I mean, s***, it took me two seconds to google this. Try it sometime!
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Their misuse of the technical term in no way absolves you from a lack of knowledge. It has been put here before you the term does not apply. Yet you choose to use it to agitate and cause fear among the ignorant.
So I guess no wonder you use the NRA as a source.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)See, for example:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915839
More 'expertise':
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915194#post7
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)and yet I don't see you linking any sources that define "high-powered" and exclude the .223 round.
Please send me some links if you find them.
As for the NRA, while I do not trust them, it is beyond a doubt that they of all people have the incentive to make the AR-15 seem low-powered. The fact that they themselves call the rifle "high-powered" is a statement against interest and very good evidence IMO.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and as pointed out elsewhere, the very organization in which you developed the experience you've
touted here disagrees.
2) True- but I was talking about *another* of you expressed views, a desire to ban AR15's for civilian use.
I stand by my citations of United States v. Miller.
3) I daresay it does if you are seeking to ban millions of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles
and are using "high-powered" as a 'trigger' (no pun intended) phrase as a means to do so.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)whether the round was high-powered relative to .50 cal (considering how he also stated 7.62 is not "high-powered" .
I fully agree that a .50 cal is a higher-powered round than a .223.
This is not really relevant to my point that an AR-15 or .223 can accurately be considered "high-powered" as well.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...on this thread.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)suggest that 7.62 is adequate where 5.56 is not. I mean, the Marine even said his M1 turns cover into concealment. If that is not "high-powered", I don't know what is!
But 7.62 is technically an "intermediate" round just like 5.56/.223. This is just another case where the technical definition of "high-powered" (if it exists at all, which has not really been shown with links) includes an "intermediate" round.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)7.62 is not a specific "round" it is caliber..a .30 caliber
The Garand is a 30-06.. or 7.62x63.. The M14 uses a 7.62x51
7.62x39 IS an intermediate round used by the SKS and AK-47 for example.
The .30 caliber group of calibers is huge in fact, and runs from Pistol to High Power.
Again another case where specificity is important. And specificity relies on a consensus of terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It was the M2Ball ammo and the M2AP ammo. NOT the m855 or the m109 ammo. Those are runts in comparison.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 28, 2017, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)
EDIT: I see now what you were talking about.
You are still not paying attention though. My point was not about an argument you made, it was about someone else's argument. Someone else stated that "intermediate" rounds are not "high-powered". My point in referring to your post was that you backed up my argument that "intermediate" rounds could be considered "high-powered".
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Depending on cartridge it may not be.
7.62 rounds go from pistol round to high power.
3 examples
7.62x25Tokarov Pistol
7.62x39 Intermediate
7.62x54r High Power.
More fun with facts... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_mm_caliber
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)a round "high-powered". That was my initial point.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)...is between 2000 and 2500 Joules of muzzle energy. For further scientific data I suggest reading what's been written on the topic by Gary K Roberts, LCDR, USNR.
For an article on the topic of this OP: http://www.taurus45acp.com/files/BittingTheBullet.pdf
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)The article promotes the 7.62mm round as more effective, and also promotes a 7mm round. These are both described as "intermediate" rounds. Other posters on this topic have repeatedly tried to draw a distinction between "high-powered" and "intermediate" rounds, and this article actually contradicts their distinction. I would conclude that the larger rounds are in fact "high-powered", and thus there is little distinction between "High-powered" rounds and "intermediate" rounds.
Anyway, the article relates to the military applications of the 5.56 round, which is still plenty lethal in the civilian setting where people can be more easily shot at close range and hit multiple times. That said, the .223 is at least more survivable than the larger rounds, sure.
Edit: I still don't see any links to these supposed official definitions of "high-powered".
Edit: Also, the complaint in the article about the 5.56 round going right through a target without incapacitating it is not relevant when you can buy .223 rounds that are hollow point. Or the shooter could just hit a target multiple times.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)1) The AR15?
2) The AR15 in .223?
3) The .223 round in general?
4) Semiautomatic, magazine loaded rifles in general?
5) All of the above?
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)1.) The OP stated that us whiny lib gun controllers are wetting our pants over a rifle that the US Military views as not-high-powered, and implied that gun controllers are wrong to assert that the civilian versions of that rifle are "high-powered".
2.) My point is that the rifle is capable of inflicting a lot of damage, and regardless of caliber, it can still be accurately portrayed as "high-powered".
My point is not limited to .223, 5.56, intermediate rounds, AR-15, etc. My point originally was about the language used by the gun-control movement.
Even at this late date, no one has pointed to any official definition of a "high-powered" rifle. Some have tried to argue that "intermediate" rounds are not "high-powered". However, the category of "intermediate" rounds includes 7.62 rounds, which seem to be considered adequate by the vets on this forum for military use (even the expert you cited, Gary K Roberts, argues for the military to use "intermediate" rounds (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf)).
I freely admit that larger caliber rifles tend to be MORE powerful than the AR-15, but that is not really the point at issue.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)For military battlefield scenarios the correct functioning of infantry small arms are both safety and mission critical. These "power" differentiation would principally speak to the range at which the terminal ballistics of the round remain effective. In civilian applications higher powered rounds and rifles would be required mostly for hunting and target uses but not for self-defense. (Most civilians who would have credible need for counter-sniper tactics and capabilities probably have Secret Service protection or a private PSD.)
The range of the effective stopping power is what qualifies *power*. Effective stopping power is a combination of accuracy and terminal ballistics. Long range, accurate and effective terminal ballistics would qualify a round/rifle combination as "high powered".
Rounds such as the 5.56 NATO and .223 are not long range therefore cannot be accurately termed "high powered".
In the right hands a "high powered" rifle can neutralize an sniper who can inflict substantial casualties on a friendly force.
Speaking qualitatively on gun violence and crime I will say that there have incidents where people are shot and killed using .22 cal pistols. "Killing power" is not what is denoted by the term "high power" by those conversant in long range ballistics.
As an infantryman, I'm sure would know that the mass of bullet, the quantity of powder in the round and the length of the barrel from which it is fired would all be components determining the energy of the round/rifle combination.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"Rounds such as the 5.56 NATO and .223 are not long range therefore cannot be accurately termed "high powered". "
But I would suggest that something close to 99% of civilian shootings happen well within the effective range of an AR-15 or other .223 rifle.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Coin your own term; maybe: "high civilian kill power"
Develop your own criteria for comparison of various weapons (fingernails would be low, nukes would be high) and evaluate them.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what is high powered
7.62x51, aka .308
.30-06
7.62x54
Intermediate, legal to hunt deer and pronghorn in Wyoming, but still more powerful than .223
7x39
.30-30
.300 Blackout
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Doubly so in technical discussion.
An SMG is not an assault rifle, which is not an MBR.
The fielded Stoner rifles use the NATO 5.56, an intermediate round, not high power. Is it lethal? hell yes, but as any grunt should know, terminology is not to be used interchangeably. The minutiae is important to us, ever been asked about "boot camp" and corrected he civilian? Ever seen a corpsman called a medic? I personally have gotten over the magazine not a clip thing..finally, but do see why people grate over misuse of words and definitions.
The word high power is used to paint a picture, and is a powerful term when used on uninformed civilians.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"The word high power is used to paint a picture, and is a powerful term when used on uninformed civilians."
The word has such power because of the association with crimes committed with such weapons. Thankfully they are relatively rare, especially compared to crimes committed with handguns.
tortoise1956
(671 posts)Until relatively recently, available commercial loads for the AR-15 did not produce enough muzzle energy to be used to hunt deer in many states. I can't speak for all states, but Nevada, for instance, calls for a minimum of 1000 ft/lbs of energy at 100 yards to be legally used on deer:
http://www.eregulations.com/nevada/hunting/weapons-regulations/
Even now, there are a limited number of commercial loads on the market that produce enough energy to be legal for use on deer in Nevada.
That is the reason I say that an AR-15 is NOT a high-powered weapon. You can argue that all you want, but the truth is the truth no matter how much you try to dissemble or change the definition to fit your argument...
Anything else?
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)hunting regulations?
I thought from your OP that it was based on what the US military found sufficient on the battlefield.
Anyway, gun-controllers generally talk about the "power" of a weapon in regards to its use in criminal shootings, not its use in hunting. It is still accurate to call the rifle "high-powered" in that context, regardless of whether or not you can legally shoot a deer with it.
tortoise1956
(671 posts)just because you WANT it to be a high-powered rifle, doesn't make it so. I will agree that it is more powerful than a .22 rifle, but it falls down when compared to any other center-fire rifle caliber. Hell, you can buy .44 magnum cartridges that have more power when fired through a 7-inch barrel:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html
Now, as for reason why it is under-powered:
1. The U.S. Army doesn't consider it to be an acceptable weapon for the modern battlefield - not enough power.
2. Multiple states, include Nevada , don't consider the AR-15 to be an acceptable weapon for hunting deer when firing the same round used by the U.S. army - not enough power.
Wishing that everybody agreed with your definition of high-powered, without producing even one example that would prove your point on how gun-controllers define power of a firearm, shouldn't be considered acceptable in a real discussion. Put up (with an example or two like most of us do) or shut up, as the Man said.
(example of that phrase: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/198682/what-is-the-origin-and-sense-of-the-phrase-put-up-or-shut-up )
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)"Wishing that everybody agreed with your definition of high-powered, without producing even one example that would prove your point on how gun-controllers define power of a firearm, shouldn't be considered acceptable in a real discussion. Put up (with an example or two like most of us do) or shut up, as the Man said. "
My response is that gun-controllers look at the consequences of the use of these rifles in public. Furthermore, I did provide an example, and it was from the organization who has the most to lose from defining the AR-15 as "high-powered": The NRA. Their manual for "High-Powered" rifle competitions explicitly mentions the M16. Now, the M16 isn't the AR-15, but it is close enough, especially since it's main distinguishing feature is 3-round burst fire, which no one uses anyway.
The NRA has made a statement against their own interest in deeming the M16 as "high-powered". Although I do not trust the NRA in the slightest, I feel this statement at least can be taken at face value.
Anyway, you are turning the argument on its head. My point is that there is no official definition of "high-powered rifle". Folks on this board have provided examples, sure, but none of them are definitive and some are even contradictory. My point thus has stood so far. Since there is no official definition of "high-powered rifle", it can easily be used to describe the AR-15 as many gun-controllers do.
tortoise1956
(671 posts)I asked for examples of gun controllers defining power of a firearm. The NRA does not consist of gun controllers - at least, not from what I've seen. Once again, you fail to produce.
I, on the other hand, will provide an example of why the AR-15 is NOT a high-powered weapon, based on a definition provided to the New Jersey Law Journal by Robert Trifiletti, Chief of the Army’s Light Armament Division:
http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Army_Gives_Definition_Of_Assault_Rifle.pdf
If you read it, you will find that modern assault rifles (including the M-16) are considered to be intermediate in power between sub-machine guns and rifles (described in other sources as battle rifles):
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25974/now-its-the-army-that-wants-a-new-rifle/
This describes the Marines looking into a new battle rifle - a weapon with more power than the M-16 that can be used to reach out and touch the enemy at ranges between 500-1000 yards, well beyond M-16 realistic range.
You can argue that AR-15's may not be low-powered - but they are definitely not high-powered. Unless, of course, you are arguing that the Army is not an authoritative source - which I fully expect to hear next. And I'll probably hear that well before you give any pesky examples of gun-controllers defining power...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)The idea's been bouncing around in my head for a bit about a rocket-monopropellant-based type of caseless shell. Could be able to eliminate the old Gyrojet's problems of initial velocity with a primary charge, then use the secondary rocket stage for flight speed. Minimal muzzle flash and sound, minimal recoil and almost no stability issues. With the advancements in miniaturization and general rocketry I can't help but think there's options available now that weren't there back in the 60s, but maybe my eye for such things is lacking.
Still, I find it hard to think that the military wouldn't find a use for a combat rifle similar to but perhaps less complex than the TrackingPoint.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)I draw your attention to...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858#post69
"High powered (assault) rifle" ... an oxymoron by definition.
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)The OP mentioned assault-style rifles, not assault rifles.
It would be accurate to classify the AR-15 as an "assault-style" rifle since it was obviously styled after an actual assault rifle.
Furthermore, Merriam Webster would go further and include semi-auto rifles under the term "assault rifle". However, that is probably because of modern usage (i.e. because gun-controllers use it that way).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)...(written from a pro-RKBA position) had the aim of explaining that the use of "assault" (-style) rifle, weapon in conjunction with the term "high-powered" by various media sources, politicians and public figures when arguing for bans on certain AR or AK *looking* rifles is basically meaningless.
IMHO, if you have to do a Potter Stewart to write a law banning something, you're better off skipping the effort.
Alea
(706 posts)Which is why I wonder why this thread turned in to such a long argument on what is and isn't a high powered cartridge, when all the OP was talking about in his 3rd and 4th paragraph was the antigunners use of the term to suit their narrative.
Good thread nonetheless
ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)not high-powered while others are.
However, no one has been able to point to a source for a definition of the term "high-powered".
Thus, the gun experts themselves are the ones pulling a Potter Stewart. They seem to know a high-powered cartridge when they see it.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Hangingon
(3,078 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts) Hangingon
(3,078 posts)All I know is other guys at the deer camp tell me my 7.62-51R is not a high powered round.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)7.62-51R: I haven't had the pleasure. It is fairly close to .30-06.
Last time I reloaded .30-06 (which is barely "high-power" we used 150 spitzers for about half and 220 soft points for the rest. Used about 52 or 53 gr of powder. I fired a few Garands but sadly I don't own one... and it's been a long time.
As I said elsewhere, if pretty much everything qualifies as "high-power", what's the purpose in using the term at all?
All together this whole thread has been civil and polite which does make me happy.
Hangingon
(3,078 posts)Long ago I bought A Remington 788 bolt action in .30-30. I hand lodged some spritzer points and hoped for big improvement. Didn't really happen.
The thread was civil.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts) I never noticed a real difference.oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Floated the barrel and bed the action, worked the trigger to 5lb. Rifle liked 150gr BTSpitzers at around 2600 fps. Sot 1-1 1/4" groups at 100.
Hangingon
(3,078 posts)It's. Great rifle.