60 Minutes: The difference between bullets shot from an AR-15-style rifle and a handgun

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

YMB said:
Yes. 69 people. The mini14 kicks a little more thanks to its gas system, but not enough to make a difference especially when the situations you are trying avoid takes place within 25 yards against soft targets who cant shoot back. It wont make a difference. The virginia tech shooter used handguns and still killed more people than nearly all AR15 mass shooting cases. The guy in Crimea killed 21 and injured nearly 50 more with a shotgun (with no stock no less). It always comes down to how well you can manage the weapon.

True, and it's absolutely horrific that any of these occurred.

I am .. bothered .. disturbed .. agh, neither of those words really fit well enough. Let's suffice to say I'm disappointed by the media focus on relatively rare cases of rifle murders, when they're almost a rounding error when compared to murders using a handgun, both revolvers and semi autos, in calibers usually between .22 and .45, easily the majority being .38 and 9mm, followed by .357 and .45. 50AE, .32, and .25. being a good bit less common.

If you could wave a hypothetical wand and erase all rifles from the USA, it would hardly make a dent. Use the same magic trick on pistols, and you'd account for nearly all murders/suicides/accidental deaths by firearm.

But to some politicians and most media : big scary rifle! Ban!

I mean by all means, ban them. Sure. It won't do much in the big picture. The saddest reality for the type of person that is dedicated to murdering a group of people is that there are countless ways to manage such a grim and heinous task, and by choosing such a path, they've already proven to have absolutely zero respect for life.

A hypothetical perfect ban on pistols would do far more *IF* all of them ceased to exist. Simply outlawing them would leave literally millions in circulation, and in mass quantities within the most vulnerable communities experiencing record crime and murder rates. Your law-abiding single mom or barbershop owner will turn theirs in, sure. Your general street kid, who experiences extreme violence and institutional racism every day of his life? Do you think he wants to give it up, knowing that he might get rolled up on at any time?

It's like people don't know how life is outside the suburbs or uptowns or rural pastoral blandness. Come to Baltimore, lower 9th ward, Chiraq, West Memphis, hell fucking St Louis or Dallas after dark when you stop seeing Starbucks on every corner. You'll see why this is a really tough issue to crack, and these people deserve better representation.

Piggus · Nov 5, 2018

Jombie said:
And these things are nothing but toys to the people that own them. Self-defense my ass, they get off on it pissing the libs off that they own one.

I'm a lib and I own these types of guns for exactly the reason you describe, and people who own them for defense are just asking for trouble. Anyone that's fired an AR can tell you it's a fun gun for target shooting. And anyone who knows anything about guns can also tell you that an AR is just one of thousands of different rifle configurations that fire .223 rounds. Banning the AR-15 is impossible. You can only ban certain cosmetic features (flash hider, pistol grip, etc) that ultimately don't change the function of the rifle. Semi-auto AR-15-like .223 rifles will always exist so long as semi-auto center-fire rifles are legal. The only difference is they'll look a lot uglier of an assault weapons ban were to pass.

YMB said:
Yes. 69 people. The mini14 kicks a little more thanks to its gas system, but not enough to make a difference especially when the situations you are trying avoid takes place within 25 yards against soft targets who cant shoot back. It wont make a difference. The virginia tech shooter used handguns and still killed more people than nearly all AR15 mass shooting cases. The guy in Crimea killed 21 and injured nearly 50 more with a shotgun (with no stock no less). It always comes down to how well you can manage the weapon.

The Virginia Tech and one of the Columbine shooters also used guns that were legal under the previous assault weapons ban. In both cases they circumvented the 10-round magazine capacity limit by... and this is shocking... carrying more magazines.

Goldenroad · Nov 5, 2018

Gun murders are gun murders, and everyone that owns a gun needs to be branded as a potential murderer. Only the shittiest, saddest, most cowardly people in the world own guns. Trying to say "oh this kind of gun owner is alright" is the modern equivalent to "this kind of slave owner is alright". Nothing about owning guns or people is okay, and I lump all of them in the same shit bucket of shit.

Piggus · Nov 5, 2018

Goldenroad said:
Gun murders are gun murders, and everyone that owns a gun needs to be branded as a potential murderer. Only the shittiest, saddest, most cowardly people in the world own guns. Trying to say "oh this kind of gun owner is alright" is the modern equivalent to "this kind of slave owner is alright". Nothing about owning guns or people is okay, and I lump all of them in the same shit bucket of shit.

EDIT: Sorry to any shitty people who suddenly feel bad about being shitty, who actually are doing nothing to try to ban guns.

I guess I'm a shittty person and also a potential murderer because I like to shoot at paper targets or hunt grouse sometimes. But I still vote straight Dem and support common-sense gun law reforms, and I take gun safety and storage seriously. Oh well!

Swig · Nov 5, 2018

Piggus said:
I guess I'm a shittty person and also a potential murderer because I like to shoot at paper targets or hunt grouse sometimes. But I still vote straight Dem and support common-sense gun law reforms, and I take gun safety and storage seriously. Oh well!

Same. I don't even hunt.. I don't enjoy killing animals. I just like target shooting with my AR15. Guess I'm a potential murderer, though.. despite the fact that I won't even shoot a squirrel.

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
Indeed. Not to mention that your 7.62x39, 7.62x51, and 7.62x54 are rounds with considerably more power/danger to them (eg; over penetration in urban environment is an issue for even LEO usage, 5.56 and 9MM is more commonly used by SWAT/FBI, exceptions made for Snipers).

5.56/5.45 have had mediocre battlefield results. During the Battle of Mogadishu, it was notable that especially beyond 100m, enemies firing AK47s would continue to return fire even after being struck multiple times. 5.56 rounds were commonly unable to penetrate thin barriers and mud walls. The rangers carried M4 and M16. Meanwhile Delta operator carrying 7.62x51 M14 had zero problems.

The NATO 5.56/.223 was originated for economic/practical reasons going all the way down to how your average soldier drafted and trained quickly for combat had been shown to actually fire many many thousands of rounds for every enemy soldier struck by a single one of them. By changing to the much smaller round, it was hugely less expensive, and more rounds could be carried in a given space/weight.

The decision is sensible at some levels, but it remains questionably effective in wartime. An ambush of Marines by hostiles in Afghanistan a while back had the enemy firing down from elevated positions. The M16s firing up at that angle and distance were severely underpowered, as so much kinetic energy was lost that they may as well have been throwing BBs at them.

6.5, 6.8, a variety of alternative rounds have been considered as an update, along with innovations in ammunition.

But yeah, a trained guy with a .308 semi auto hunting rifle or even someone very proficient with a bolt action one can do more damage, and over a greater distance, through greater protection. If it's an expert with an M14 or G3 or SCAR heavy, welp.

TLDR : AR15s/.223 aren't really that scary. Not that I'd volunteer to be shot by one. No interest in owning one either. The vast vast vast majority of firearms murders remain by pistol, so it's a bit elementary anyway in context of regulation and reform. We need better protections from mentally ill purchases, longer waiting periods, and improved social awareness and happiness in general.

You can have a discussion about battle efficiency, but anyone who downplay the damage that a NATO 556 does to the human body, is quite bluntly doesn't know what they're talking about.
As someone who had the displeasure of seeing their effects in person, I would rather be shot by an AK 47's 7.62 than a NATO 556, easily (though ideally I would much rather not be shot by anything), and it's in a completely different league than the damage that something like a 9x19 can do to you.

Piggus · Nov 5, 2018

Swig said:
Same. I don't even hunt.. I don't enjoy killing animals. I just like target shooting with my AR15.

You sound absolutely unhinged!

Goldenroad · Nov 5, 2018

Swig said:
Same. I don't even hunt.. I don't enjoy killing animals. I just like target shooting with my AR15. Guess I'm a potential murderer, though.. despite the fact that I won't even shoot a squirrel.

Piggus said:
I guess I'm a shittty person and also a potential murderer because I like to shoot at paper targets or hunt grouse sometimes. But I still vote straight Dem and support common-sense gun law reforms, and I take gun safety and storage seriously. Oh well!

Yep. This is what it looks like. This is why nothing will change. Just like slave owners that "treated their slaves well" and would never rape one of the women they own. There are no good gun owners. History will not be kind to people who defended their "right" to own guns.

Mammoth Jones · Nov 5, 2018

Goldenroad said:
Gun murders are gun murders, and everyone that owns a gun needs to be branded as a potential murderer. Only the shittiest, saddest, most cowardly people in the world own guns. Trying to say "oh this kind of gun owner is alright" is the modern equivalent to "this kind of slave owner is alright". Nothing about owning guns or people is okay, and I lump all of them in the same shit bucket of shit.

I really really really wish people would stop trying to compare owning a gun to owning my great great grandparents. Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

Kyra · Nov 5, 2018

Guns are for murder.

Swig · Nov 5, 2018

Goldenroad said:
Yep. This is what it looks like. This is why nothing will change. Just like slave owners that "treated their slaves well" and would never rape one of the women they own. There are no good gun owners. History will not be kind to people who defended their "right" to own guns.

Or you know.. calling people "potential murderers", alienating reasonable gun owners who believe in strong gun control laws and pushing people to more to the right with this insane rhetoric. Maybe that's why things don't change.

Piggus · Nov 5, 2018

Goldenroad said:
Yep. This is what it looks like. This is why nothing will change. Just like slave owners that "treated their slaves well" and would never rape one of the women they own. There are no good gun owners. History will not be kind to people who defended their "right" to own guns.

Lol, okay bro. I own inadimate objects, not people. I don't harm people with said objects, and I probably vote for the same people you do. I'm not defending my right, but I'm taking advantage of that right while I have it. You're honestly no better than some of the people we're up against.

motherless · Nov 5, 2018

Terrifying face at 2 seconds on the video.

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

Chikor said:
You can have a discussion about battle efficiency, but anyone who downplay the damage that a NATO 556 does to the human body, is quite bluntly doesn't know what they're talking about.
As someone who had the displeasure of seeing their effects in person, I would rather be shot by an AK 47's 7.62 than a NATO 556, easily (though ideally I would much rather not be shot by anything), and it's in a completely different league than the damage that something like a 9x19 can do to you.

Not intending to derail things entirely, but I've discussed this at length with a variety of both active service and retired operators, and we may not be thinking of the same thing.

In ideal conditions against an opponent inside 100m, the 5.45 and 5.56 is mostly effective. When you add range, thick robes, mud walls, elevated opponents, etc, it starts to fall a bit short, particularly if you have suboptimal ammo. SLAP or tungsten, etc. Loads of options with varying strengths and weaknesses.

Have you read BHD? It's still a good case for debate 20+ years on. The cases of 5.56 being weak in the Afghan ops is also out there to check out.

I'd agree damn straight i don't want to be hit by any if it. Not even a BB lol. And if you give me the choice between an opponent with a Czech AK or a modern M16/M4, I'd choose him to have the AK because he'd be more likely to miss lol. But actually hitting, with the 223 I might have a chance that it ripped through clean, whereas getting a core cavity hit from an AK 7.62/39 is absolutely gonna be guaranteed bad news. All the more so with 308/7.62x51 etc.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/...ndamp__34___M4_and_ammo_performance/2-103011/

That link has a variety of perspectives. My personal opinion from the guys I talk with may not align completely with it, but given their experience I yield to their feedback, as I'm more of an outsider to this kind of thing.

NSA · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
True, and it's absolutely horrific that any of these occurred.

I am .. bothered .. disturbed .. agh, neither of those words really fit well enough. Let's suffice to say I'm disappointed by the media focus on relatively rare cases of rifle murders, when they're almost a rounding error when compared to murders using a handgun, both revolvers and semi autos, in calibers usually between .22 and .45, easily the majority being .38 and 9mm, followed by .357 and .45. 50AE, .32, and .25. being a good bit less common.

If you could wave a hypothetical wand and erase all rifles from the USA, it would hardly make a dent. Use the same magic trick on pistols, and you'd account for nearly all murders/suicides/accidental deaths by firearm.

But to some politicians and most media : big scary rifle! Ban!

I mean by all means, ban them. Sure. It won't do much in the big picture. The saddest reality for the type of person that is dedicated to murdering a group of people is that there are countless ways to manage such a grim and heinous task, and by choosing such a path, they've already proven to have absolutely zero respect for life.

A hypothetical perfect ban on pistols would do far more *IF* all of them ceased to exist. Simply outlawing them would leave literally millions in circulation, and in mass quantities within the most vulnerable communities experiencing record crime and murder rates. Your law-abiding single mom or barbershop owner will turn theirs in, sure. Your general street kid, who experiences extreme violence and institutional racism every day of his life? Do you think he wants to give it up, knowing that he might get rolled up on at any time?

It's like people don't know how life is outside the suburbs or uptowns or rural pastoral blandness. Come to Baltimore, lower 9th ward, Chiraq, West Memphis, hell fucking St Louis or Dallas after dark when you stop seeing Starbucks on every corner. You'll see why this is a really tough issue to crack, and these people deserve better representation.

So much of this.

This type of stuff feeds right into the "Evil black rifle" nonsense, and really shouldn't be the priority for gun legislation. I can see WHY they do it (it makes fun a scary video/story/etc) and it's 'easy' to get people behind banning the 'evil' AR-15.. but it ultimately just ends up as wasted time and effort. I don't mean to downplay the murders of those killed with the rifles, but I feel like focusing so strongly on these means you're unintentionally (or intentionally) downplaying all the handgun murders that happen year round, and not just in 'mass shootings'.

By sticking with the same 'evil black assault weapon' tactic, it makes it harder and harder to ever get any kind of real gun control (including pistols).

I have no clue on the actual stats, but would a rifle ban impact more actual hunters/legitimate gun users than a pistol ban? I know there are competitive pistol shooters, and people use .22 and other handguns to keep pests away.. but I feel like way more pistols are in use for the wrong reasons.

Mammoth Jones · Nov 5, 2018

Kyra said:
Guns are for murder.

Your statement is factually incorrect. There are circumstances in which it is legal and perfectly justifiable to kill in self defense. Sorry but a taser is doing jack shit if it's 2 on 1, high as a kite, etc.

Might as well tell me to use pepper spray. Nope. I've read my history book. I ain't no pacifist.

I'm all for better background checks, better gun storage, mandatory training, smart gun tech, etc. But this whacky notion that I don't have the right to defend my gift of life in my home? Nope.

captive · Nov 5, 2018

soqquatto said:
you mean that guns are so ubiquitous in the US that people do not know what kind of effect they have? there are more guns than cars in the US. I guess people know what cars do. to me this is just a sign that people are just refusing to know what they should.

yes there are a lot of guns, however, there are entire swaths of the population that have literally never fired a gun, let alone own one. What you find is that people that own a gun more often than not own more than one gun.

just because there's a lot of something doesnt mean everyone knows everything to know about guns.

8byte · Nov 5, 2018

Swig said:
Same. I don't even hunt.. I don't enjoy killing animals. I just like target shooting with my AR15. Guess I'm a potential murderer, though.. despite the fact that I won't even shoot a squirrel.

The problem arises when you place the value of fun over the dangers that arise from your fun.

If you don't understand that somewhere out there, someone is using the same "fun" as you to practice shooting men women or children, then there's not a lot of discussion that can come of this.

I spent a decade serving in the military, and unquestionably believe if anyone wants a weapon of this particular build and capability, they should be signing the papers to go along with it. It's a tool built to take life. Every time I sat on a range learning to better myself, I understood that it was an exercise in taking a life to preserve my own or those of others with extreme prejudice. Not "fun".

These are weapons, not toys.

PrimetimeKnight · Nov 5, 2018

TheLostBigBoss said:
You're mad that a news agency showed basic facts about guns?

Seems kinda strange to be mad about that.

Wow, you got me I'm really seething about this report. All I did was poke fun of "journalism" that is pointing out basic facts about guns and automatically labeled as some angry NRA member.

Syder · Nov 5, 2018

i-Lo said:

This is fucking scary.

NookSports · Nov 5, 2018

PrimetimeKnight said:
Wow, you got me I'm really seething about this report. All I did was poke fun of "journalism" that is pointing out basic facts about guns and automatically labeled as some angry NRA member.

Actually no, you implied presenting "facts" somehow has an agenda. Not everyone is a gun owner and knows these facts, so what's the problem with 60 minutes, one of the most mainstream newscasts, showing these facts?

PrimetimeKnight · Nov 5, 2018

nazgul_hunter said:
Actually no, you implied presenting "facts" somehow has an agenda. Not everyone is a gun owner and knows these facts, so what's the problem with 60 minutes, one of the most mainstream newscasts, showing these facts?

You don't have to be a gun owner to know a handgun is weaker than a rifle, that's where I question an agenda. Pointing out facts that are so basic begs the question of an ulterior motive and the relentless attack on the much hated AR-15. I guess I should have just chimed in with something like "Yeah, fuck the AR-15."

Deleted member 6730 · Nov 5, 2018

gUnS dOnT kIlL pEoPlE

NookSports · Nov 5, 2018

PrimetimeKnight said:
You don't have to be a gun owner to know a handgun is weaker than a rifle, that's where I question an agenda. Pointing out facts that are so basic begs the question of an ulterior motive and the relentless attack on the much hated AR-15. I guess I should have just chimed in with something like "Yeah, fuck the AR-15."

Is a rifle > handgun?
rifle >> handgun?
rifle >>>>>>>> handgun?

in terms of damage? You might know one is greater than the other, but not by how much. The difference is shocking if you don't know it. Sorry you can't see it from the POV of people who are not fans of guns.

Deleted member 6730 · Nov 5, 2018

Swig said:
Same. I don't even hunt.. I don't enjoy killing animals. I just like target shooting with my AR15. Guess I'm a potential murderer, though.. despite the fact that I won't even shoot a squirrel.

AR15s are used in every mass shooting though. There must not be a pattern though...

Deleted member 8561 · Nov 5, 2018

PrimetimeKnight said:
Wow, you got me I'm really seething about this report. All I did was poke fun of "journalism" that is pointing out basic facts about guns and automatically labeled as some angry NRA member.

You're the one literally insinuating there is some type of agenda by reporting on the ballistic results of two type of guns, one of which has gotten a lot of media attention for it's involvement in mass shootings.

Which again, is pretty strange considering all they are doing is showing the lethality of each gun.

Vilix · Nov 5, 2018

YMB said:
AR's have pretty much replaced the AK of the 80's and early 90's when you could get a cheap import AK for the price you can get an AR now. The AR is not inherently more deadly (not by a long shot), but its gotten more and more popular through the 94' AWB ending, movies and especially video games. The AR has also come toe to toe with the AK in terms of world use by military's and police units. The AR is just a much much more popular rifle in the US because of that and its versatility and customization which means more and more people own it and when it comes to that then there stands to be a higher chance of it showing up in some nefarious shit.

This is what makes me dislike this inherent hatred for the AR despite AK's being just as cheap (you can get a psa AK or an IO for $450-500 now too). Not to mention a whole host of other weapons (like the mini14 and i wont even get into battle rifles) which are conveniently ignored most of the time in favor of this specific intimidating black rifle that actually shows up in some of the LEAST overall gun deaths per year.

Gotta disagree with ARs replacing AKs. The AK community, which I am one of, is very big. However, I do see more AR platforms at the range than AKs. And, in total, I see way more long guns at the range than pistols.

Midramble · Nov 5, 2018

deathkiller said:
In my country semi-automatic rifles are forbidden for civilians. "They make hunting easier" is not reason enough for they being legal.

I am a gun owner in America. I like this answer.

Deleted member 8561 · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
True, and it's absolutely horrific that any of these occurred.

I am .. bothered .. disturbed .. agh, neither of those words really fit well enough. Let's suffice to say I'm disappointed by the media focus on relatively rare cases of rifle murders, when they're almost a rounding error when compared to murders using a handgun, both revolvers and semi autos, in calibers usually between .22 and .45, easily the majority being .38 and 9mm, followed by .357 and .45. 50AE, .32, and .25. being a good bit less common.

If you could wave a hypothetical wand and erase all rifles from the USA, it would hardly make a dent. Use the same magic trick on pistols, and you'd account for nearly all murders/suicides/accidental deaths by firearm.

But to some politicians and most media : big scary rifle! Ban!

I mean by all means, ban them. Sure. It won't do much in the big picture. The saddest reality for the type of person that is dedicated to murdering a group of people is that there are countless ways to manage such a grim and heinous task, and by choosing such a path, they've already proven to have absolutely zero respect for life.

A hypothetical perfect ban on pistols would do far more *IF* all of them ceased to exist. Simply outlawing them would leave literally millions in circulation, and in mass quantities within the most vulnerable communities experiencing record crime and murder rates. Your law-abiding single mom or barbershop owner will turn theirs in, sure. Your general street kid, who experiences extreme violence and institutional racism every day of his life? Do you think he wants to give it up, knowing that he might get rolled up on at any time?

It's like people don't know how life is outside the suburbs or uptowns or rural pastoral blandness. Come to Baltimore, lower 9th ward, Chiraq, West Memphis, hell fucking St Louis or Dallas after dark when you stop seeing Starbucks on every corner. You'll see why this is a really tough issue to crack, and these people deserve better representation.

This isn't that complicated.

Modern shooting massacres basically always have some type of semi-auto rifle, and gun violence has long since been normalized, and the mass shootings have been normalized since Sandy Hook.

Politicians talk about banning "big scary rifles" because the general populace reacts to the mass shootings that have "big scary rifles".

Handguns are lethal, all guns are lethal. However, it's disingenuous to ignore the ease of using a rifle vs. a handgun in terms of causing mass carnage on a short timescale at a greater distance and usually with higher capacity magazines, plus the overall increased lethal potential of an average rifle caliber.

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: "One looks like a grenade went off in there," says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. "The other looks like a bad knife cut."

Obviously an AR-15 can be outfitted to shoot a .22, and other rifles don't shoot .223, but to base an argument on "not all semi-automatic rifles" is to just bog down the point in pointless fluff for the sake of turning the conversation away from the topic it hand.

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
Not intending to derail things entirely, but I've discussed this at length with a variety of both active service and retired operators, and we may not be thinking of the same thing.

In ideal conditions against an opponent inside 100m, the 5.45 and 5.56 is mostly effective. When you add range, thick robes, mud walls, elevated opponents, etc, it starts to fall a bit short, particularly if you have suboptimal ammo. SLAP or tungsten, etc. Loads of options with varying strengths and weaknesses.

Have you read BHD? It's still a good case for debate 20+ years on. The cases of 5.56 being weak in the Afghan ops is also out there to check out.

I'd agree damn straight i don't want to be hit by any if it. Not even a BB lol. And if you give me the choice between an opponent with a Czech AK or a modern M16/M4, I'd choose him to have the AK because he'd be more likely to miss lol. But actually hitting, with the 223 I might have a chance that it ripped through clean, whereas getting a core cavity hit from an AK 7.62/39 is absolutely gonna be guaranteed bad news. All the more so with 308/7.62x51 etc.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/...ndamp__34___M4_and_ammo_performance/2-103011/

That link has a variety of perspectives. My personal opinion from the guys I talk with may not align completely with it, but given their experience I yield to their feedback, as I'm more of an outsider to this kind of thing.

What is your argument here?
Again, if you want to discuss about the effectiveness of NATO 556 ammo in Afghanistan that's one thing, I never been to Afghanistan and my familiarity with the mission is mostly from the media, so I ain't gonna claim some deep knowledge or insights. FWIW, I served in a unit that was privileged enough to have rather meaningful control over which weapons we use, and we pretty much a ll went with the m16 platform, even when we started to move away from it (that was after I left) we stayed with the NATO 556. Now obviously, different missions, different scenarios, it's not exactly apples to apples. Though I think it might be worth considering almost to the level of a discussion at ar 15 dot com.

But this is not a thread about what's the best ammo infantry should be using in Afghanistan, this is about the difference between an ar-15 type weapon and a handgun. And come on now, you honestly gonna claim that the lethality of an AR-15 is remotely comparable to let's say a glock 17?
Because if not, what are you arguing and why is it at all relevant to this thread?

p.s.
Not that I think it matters to this discussion, but you got the AK 7.62 and NATO 556 backwards. The 7.62 tend to pass waaaaaaaaaaaaaay cleaner than the 556, our doctors used to call it the devil's bullet for a reason. You can ask your soldier friends about 556 exit wounds.

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

Chikor said:
What is your argument here?
Again, if you want to discuss about the effectiveness of NATO 556 ammo in Afghanistan that's one thing, I never been to Afghanistan and my familiarity with the mission is mostly from the media, so I ain't gonna claim some deep knowledge or insights. FWIW, I served in a unit that was privileged enough to have rather meaningful control over which weapons we use, and we pretty much a ll went with the m16 platform, even when we started to move away from it (that was after I left) we stayed with the NATO 556. Now obviously, different missions, different scenarios, it's not exactly apples to apples. Though I think it might be worth considering almost to the level of a discussion at ar 15 dot com.

But this is not a thread about what's the best ammo infantry should be using in Afghanistan, this is about the difference between an ar-15 type weapon and a handgun. And come on now, you honestly gonna claim that the lethality of an AR-15 is remotely comparable to let's say a glock 17?
Because if not, what are you arguing and why is it at all relevant to this thread?

p.s.
Not that I think it matters to this discussion, but you got the AK 7.62 and NATO 556 backwards. The 7.62 tend to pass waaaaaaaaaaaaaay cleaner than the 556, our doctors used to call it the devil's bullet for a reason. You can ask your soldier friends about 556 exit wounds.

I think it has to do with SLAP and other ammo types that made certain 5.56 types do the clean pass, as noted by the Battle of Mogadishu. The lower grain softer ammo varieties are much more prone to what you're describing, which is pretty similar to the stories the Mujahadeen had regarding the Soviet AK74's 5.45 'poison bullet'.

In that same battle, Delta carrying mission-built M14 with modern optics was absolutely devastating in terms of effectiveness. Talking to Wasdin, Seal 6 Black, he also leans towards the heavier round for a more effective round in more potential scenarios (bad guy behind a wall, in a vehicle, etc). It's why SCAR-H and other heavier rifles are deployed with groups like that at the discretion of those involved. This isn't to say 5.56 is "bad". 99% of the difference will still be the operator, and outside of extremely proficient types, your average soldier is indeed probably better iff with a lighter round, more ammo, less barrel climb/recoil.

Absolutely nobody should take anything I've said as saying 5.56 is not deadlier than 9mm. It's just that statistically in the USA, you may see 15,000 firearm deaths from pistols vs 75 for rifles. The gap is unbelievably huge. It's why I would vote for much higher handun restrictions today than worrying about rifles as much. Follow the math.

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
I think it has to do with SLAP and other ammo types that made certain 5.56 types do the clean pass, as noted by the Battle of Mogadishu. The lower grain softer ammo varieties are much more prone to what you're describing, which is pretty similar to the stories the Mujahadeen had regarding the Soviet AK74's 5.45 'poison bullet'.

In that same battle, Delta carrying mission-built M14 with modern optics was absolutely devastating in terms of effectiveness. Talking to Wasdin, Seal 6 Black, he also leans towards the heavier round for a more effective round in more potential scenarios (bad guy behind a wall, in a vehicle, etc). It's why SCAR-H and other heavier rifles are deployed with groups like that at the discretion of those involved. This isn't to say 5.56 is "bad". 99% of the difference will still be the operator, and outside of extremely proficient types, your average soldier is indeed probably better iff with a lighter round, more ammo, less barrel climb/recoil.

Absolutely nobody should take anything I've said as saying 5.56 is not deadlier than 9mm. It's just that statistically in the USA, you may see 15,000 firearm deaths from pistols vs 75 for rifles. The gap is unbelievably huge. It's why I would vote for much higher handun restrictions today than worrying about rifles as much. Follow the math.

It is 100% true that most of the gun crimes, gun violence and gun deaths in the US are from handguns, not rifles, but this has nothing to do with lethality. I think it's not only fair to mention that fact when discussing guns and gun control, I think it's very important to do so. But again, this has nothing to do with how well the 556 performed int he battle of Mogadishu.

p.s.
Again, this is not super relevant to this thread, but the idea that bullets that exit the body are generally less harmful than those that don't is just not true. Really, there's nothing clean about a bullet, any bullet, going through the human body.

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

Chikor said:
It is 100% true that most of the gun crimes, gun violence and gun deaths in the US are from handguns, not rifles, but this has nothing to do with lethality. I think it's not only fair to mention that fact when discussing guns and gun control, I think it's very important to do so. But again, this has nothing to do with how well the 556 performed int he battle of Mogadishu.

p.s.
Again, this is not super relevant to this thread, but the idea that bullets that exit the body are generally less harmful than those that don't is just not true. Really, there's nothing clean about a bullet, any bullet, going through the human body.

I was just forwarded this link, I rung one of my buddies to get his current perspective and he sent this. Check it out, if the 5.56 wasn't a bit of a detriment they wouldn't be doing this.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ide-the-army-s-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-5-56/

gutter_trash · Nov 5, 2018

If we can't take away their guns, we should nerf their ammo

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
I was just forwarded this link, I rung one of my buddies to get his current perspective and he sent this. Check it out, if the 5.56 wasn't a bit of a detriment they wouldn't be doing this.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ide-the-army-s-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-5-56/

You said you don't want to derail and yet you keep going to the same well.
What does any of that have to do with this thread, which is about the difference in lethality between ar-15 style weapons and handguns?

And for the record, yes, there are more lethal ammunition than the NATO 556, also, while I'm not a gun maker, I'm pretty danm sure we can improve on a bullet that was designed in the early 60s. Again, not sure why this is relevant.

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

gutter_trash said:
If we can't take away their guns, we should nerf their ammo

It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want to limit the letahlity of weapons citizens can own (which is something we do already by the way), it makes more sense to do it by ammo than by gun.

Vilix · Nov 5, 2018

gutter_trash said:
If we can't take away their guns, we should nerf their ammo

But then how will my weapon cycle properly? There will be a pandemic of stove pipe jams!

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

Chikor said:
You said you don't want to derail and yet you keep going to the same well.
What does any of that have to do with this thread, which is about the difference in lethality between ar-15 style weapons and handguns?

And for the record, yes, there are more lethal ammunition than the NATO 556, also, while I'm not a gun maker, I'm pretty danm sure we can improve on a bullet that was designed in the early 60s. Again, not sure why this is relevant.

Friendly discussion :) Check the posts going back a ways. I won't mischaracterize your posts or demean your perspective. Fwiw, nowhere in this thread have I said that 9mm is deadlier than 5.56, outside of statistics in overall (depressing) statistics here in the states. The very impetus of the thread is comparing lethality and effectiveness of two common rounds, it's not a big leap to consider other things such as the previously mentioned .22/.22LR, etc.

I think the genesis of this is that .223 is actually one the weaker rifle rounds, not all that useful for hunting other than being cheap. In terms of banning things, lol maybe ban the ammo haha :)

But seriously, if we could nail down restrictions and reform leading with pistols, it would have a far wider and more valuable reach.

Ymmv, cheers

Chikor · Nov 5, 2018

Arkaign said:
Friendly discussion :) Check the posts going back a ways. I won't mischaracterize your posts or demean your perspective. Fwiw, nowhere in this thread have I said that 9mm is deadlier than 5.56, outside of statistics in overall (depressing) statistics here in the states. The very impetus of the thread is comparing lethality and effectiveness of two common rounds, it's not a big leap to consider other things such as the previously mentioned .22/.22LR, etc.

I think the genesis of this is that .223 is actually one the weaker rifle rounds, not all that useful for hunting other than being cheap. In terms of banning things, lol maybe ban the ammo haha :)

But seriously, if we could nail down restrictions and reform leading with pistols, it would have a far wider and more valuable reach.

Ymmv, cheers

No worries, no offence taken and I hope I didn't come across too hostile, I generally enjoyed this conversation (I would not have posted had I not).

Let me be perfectly honest here, I think I might have a tad of hair trigger on this point because I served in the military, not he US military but a military nonetheless, and one that rely on 556 NATO almost exclusively, and I have been living in the US for quite a while and I have quite a few friends who served here. And the only time I ever hear the "556 is a pee shooter" argument is when assault weapon gun control is brought up. And sure, that's all anecdotal, but I donno, I think at some point you're kinda arguing that the whole western world and it's military industrial complex didn't know what they were doing for half a century.

SchrodingerC · Nov 5, 2018

Torpedo Vegas said:
The clanging of Squirrels in the trees keeps me up at nights.

Lmaooo
The little dagger and shield gets me the most.

Arkaign · Nov 5, 2018

Chikor said:
No worries, no offence taken and I hope I didn't come across too hostile, I generally enjoyed this conversation (I would not have posted had I not).

Let me be perfectly honest here, I think I might have a tad of hair trigger on this point because I served in the military, not he US military but a military nonetheless, and one that rely on 556 NATO almost exclusively, and I have been living in the US for quite a while and I have quite a few friends who served here. And the only time I ever hear the "556 is a pee shooter" argument is when assault weapon gun control is brought up. And sure, that's all anecdotal, but I donno, I think at some point you're kinda arguing that the whole western world and it's military industrial complex didn't know what they were doing for half a century.

Haha, well said, I think passion for the subject has definite value.

I think you're somewhat onto something with the comment regarding the military industrial complex and reasoning for 5.56 NATO. I mean historically speaking, it was a round designed to fight what they thought WW3 might be like, using lessons learned from WW2 and Korea. Literally millions of rapidly trained conscripts and drafters, going against each other in huge divisional engagements with armored and air support. Measured in those terms, and acknowledging just how many rounds fired vs hits statistics showed in WW2 along with most engagements being intermediate to close range, it wasn't without a lot of merit to decide that a greater quantity of rounds per soldier was a decent trade-off, particularly when expecting your opponent to be a similar level of effectiveness, and wearing cloth uniform.

The introduction of the M16 in Vietnam was rife with reliability issues that gave a bit of an unfair black eye psychologically out of the gate. Fresh draftees were dying frequently due to jams and rifle malfunction. Much of this was alleviated with design tweaks and improvements, eventually right down to the chemical composition of firing material to reduce fouling.

The emergence of smaller conflicts, with fewer troops, usually entirely volunteers instead of draftees, and led by groups like Marine Recon, Delta, Seals, Spetznas, SAS, etc, meant that concerns over wasting ammo by raw/panicky troops was less of an issue, and the increased abilities for opponents wearing body armor became more of a factor. Additionally, heavier rounds for penetrating enemies behind cover and/or at greater range has merit.

These things have pros/cons up and down the line of course. 50BMG is unbelievably effective at almost anything, but it's enormous and unwieldy lol. 7.62 is still pretty heavy, and imperfect at some scenarios for sure. Ditto 5.56 and what we've discussed at length.

It's a fascinating subject, and I can only hope that it becomes less common for us to read about or see news of Innocents dying by rifles, pistols, or other weapons.

Best regards, thanks for your perspective! Aside from my Spetznas friend, I don't often get to discuss things with non-US service persons.

captive · Nov 5, 2018

NSA said:
So much of this.

This type of stuff feeds right into the "Evil black rifle" nonsense, and really shouldn't be the priority for gun legislation. I can see WHY they do it (it makes fun a scary video/story/etc) and it's 'easy' to get people behind banning the 'evil' AR-15.. but it ultimately just ends up as wasted time and effort. I don't mean to downplay the murders of those killed with the rifles, but I feel like focusing so strongly on these means you're unintentionally (or intentionally) downplaying all the handgun murders that happen year round, and not just in 'mass shootings'.

By sticking with the same 'evil black assault weapon' tactic, it makes it harder and harder to ever get any kind of real gun control (including pistols).

I have no clue on the actual stats, but would a rifle ban impact more actual hunters/legitimate gun users than a pistol ban? I know there are competitive pistol shooters, and people use .22 and other handguns to keep pests away.. but I feel like way more pistols are in use for the wrong reasons.

1.no because no one uses a fucking ar15 for fucking hunting. Every hunter I know uses a.... Hunting rifle.

2. Almost every recent mass murder shooting was done with a AR 15 or similar rifle. So you and the person you quoted saying it's pointless, is bullshit.

3. It's not a one and done thing. It's comprehensive plan. Ban assault rifles, or make them be required to be stored at a gun store/range, and limit magazine capacity to five rounds. While also enacting other laws, like closing the gun show loophole. A mandatory waiting period. Prevent people with mental health issues and people with a history of domestic violence from buying firearms.
The stats alone on women who are killed by a lover is simply staggering.

Zelas · Nov 5, 2018

SillyEskimo said:
Seems like a great advertisement for AR15s. People that believe they need guns for self defense or to rise up against the government want guns that inflict more damage and have a higher chance to kill.

There is no higher chance. These clowns will need rpgs at a minimum to stand a chance against the government.

sooperkool · Nov 5, 2018

captive said:
1.no because no one uses a fucking ar15 for fucking hunting. Every hunter I know uses a.... Hunting rifle.

2. Almost every recent mass murder shooting was done with a AR 15 or similar rifle. So you and the person you quoted saying it's pointless, is bullshit.

3. It's not a one and done thing. It's comprehensive plan. Ban assault rifles, or make them be required to be stored at a gun store/range, and limit magazine capacity to five rounds. While also enacting other laws, like closing the gun show loophole. A mandatory waiting period. Prevent people with mental health issues and people with a history of domestic violence from buying firearms.
The stats alone on women who are killed by a lover is simply staggering.

And when Ar-15s are banned they'll buy something else, better controls are a good thing but bans aren't goin to happen and trying to demonize this one weapon won't do a thing

captive · Nov 5, 2018

Stupid double post

captive · Nov 5, 2018

sooperkool said:
And when Ar-15s are banned they'll buy something else, better controls are a good thing but bans aren't goin to happen and trying to demonize this one weapon won't do a thing

First of all I said AR 15 or similar rifles. Secondly you don't just ban one type of weapon. We already had a ban on these types of weapons. Simply bring it back but make it more iron clad so manufacturers can't get around it with loopholes. It's also no coincidence that mass shootings and the death count in said mass shootings has gone off the charts since said ban was let to expire.

Way to ignore my other points, did you even read my post? I also mentioned limiting maganzine size and requiring storage at a gun club or whatever.

sooperkool · Nov 5, 2018

captive said:
First of all I said AR 15 or similar rifles. Secondly you don't just ban one type of weapon. We already had a ban on these types of weapons. Simply bring it back but make it more iron clad so manufacturers can't get around it with loopholes. It's also no coincidence that mass shootings and the death count in said mass shootings has gone off the charts since said ban was let to expire.

Way to ignore my other points, did you even read my post? I also mentioned limiting maganzine size and requiring storage at a gun club or whatever.

Apparently you didn't read mine since i refer to better controls. But you know, you do you.

TaterTots · Nov 5, 2018

Of course a rifle is more powerful than a handgun. Still doesn't change the fact that way way way more people are killed per year via handgun than rifles.

darkwing · Nov 5, 2018

i-Lo said:
But why stop here? Americans are all about super sizing and it's big money. Money rules everything (according to your President) and Americans want bigger and better guns for to protect their "God" given freedom and birthright. Surprising that the 7.62mm never caught on.

Your 'Murican freedom:

finally deers won't have a chance

SpiritUnion · Nov 5, 2018

PrimetimeKnight said:
Some great journalism from 60 minutes there. Pointing out the obvious of a rifle doing more damage than a handgun. No agenda here at all...

Are you suggesting that objective information shouldn't be reported on and people shouldn't educate themselves on facts you find politically inconvenient?

60 Minutes: The difference between bullets shot from an AR-15-style rifle and a handgun

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

The Eggplant Queen

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account

The Moyes are Back in Town

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

Force of Habit

user requested account closure

Alt-Account