is a ar-15/16 a powerfull rifle?

[eastbank]

first of all, any firearm used against me I would call a assult weopen. after using a m-16 in vietnam on men not any bigger than those high school kids, I longed for my earier issued rifle a m-14. to read how bad the .223 is and how it hurt the pussy reporters senses, I fear we are doomed as a country. but to hear the reporters tell it one hit with a .223 and every body just drops dead is just not true. I have shot 12-15 lbs groundhogs with a .223 and watched them run into their holes.

 

[someguy2800]

Its not unpowerful.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

compared to what?

Cause its nothing compared to a 12 inch gun.

It is crazy powerful compared to an airsoft gun.

 

[BWB]

I suspect this question goes to the current media descriptions of the AR as an unusually powerful large caliber rifle (I have personally heard these multiple times); it is neither. The 5.56 aka .223 Remington is what is generally considered a varmint and target cartridge, and it's anti-personnel effectiveness is a subject of not a little controversy in the military.

 

[someguy2800]

I don't think these arguments are productive to make. Yes we as gun people know that a 223 is relatively small and low powered as centerfire rifle cartridges go, however it is a rifle cartridge and is highly lethal. Any effort to make it sound like it is somehow only marginally lethal is an untruth. You can't meet misinformation with misinformation. Same as trying to argue that an AR15 is not an assault rifle, it was designed as an anti personnel rifle with an anti personnel cartridge and that is still its primary purpose. Now of course we have found AR15's are also useful for several other things such as target shooting, hunting, ect... but they are still an anti personnel rifle. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to own them, in fact its the reason we have the right to have them. If you want to argue that you need your AR15 to defend yourself from threats foreign and domestic then it needs to be deadly right?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[BWB]

It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact. There is no claim the AR is not lethal, any firearm can be. Nothing political on my part. The current public discussion would profit from more fact and less fantasy, more light and less heat.

 

[marksman13]

You suffered from poor ammo choices in the early years Vietnam. The AR-15/M4/M16 is fine for deer/human/pig sized animals out to 300 yards, but it is definitely on the low end of the power scale in terms of centerfire rifles.

 

[illinoisburt]

It's all matters of degree. Far and away the majority of gun related crimes are committed with handguns. Rifles are not altogether that common in crime, and when they do show up its something sensational. We know there is a world of difference in power between common pistol/revolver rounds and any centerfire rifle. Whether a 223/556 is wimpy compared to a 458 is meaningless in this context. Arguing otherwise is purely a distraction from the actual story - not that a gun is a dangerous tool, but that a crazy person went on a rampage. It's a fools errand to waste time trying to explain how "not dangerous" or "less dangerous" a particular firearm may be. All the reporter or politician has to do to win their side is point at a victim and say "look what it did" and you have lost all credibility.

Yes. Rifles are powerful. So are shotguns, handguns, and all other manner of firearms. How does singling out any one in particular as extra special scary help prevent tragedies? It doesn't. I think we are better served acknowledging guns can be dangerous and focusing on who is committing a crime and possible warning signs which were obviously missed which could have prevented it.

 

[Rembrandt]

Term AR15 does not limit it to .223/5.56.....there are so many caliber variations, using the AR15 designation to describe the power of the round is a false premise. AR15's in 450 Bushmaster, 50 Beowulf, 458 Socom, are some examples.

 

[sota]

they make .50BMG uppers that mount on to AR-15 style lowers.

 

[marksman13]

I'd say this 6.8 SPC and 458 SOCOM are pretty "powerful" and the deer and pigs tend to agree, but they are pretty puny compared to the 270 WSM and 458 Lott respectively.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

If it wasn't lethal our military wouldn't be using it.

Yes the 223/556 is essentially a 22 on steroids but it's certainly plenty lethal.

I wouldn't want to be shot with anything but given the choice between a 22LR and a 223 well...that's a pretty obvious decision.

 

[Sappyg2.0]

It's the capacity that makes the AR appear powerful to some. Not the caliber.
If it had a one round magazine welded to the receiver it would still be considered too powerful in the wrong hands.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

The .223/5.56 is certainly lethal and is it powerful...you bet it is. Are there more powerful rounds yes. But there isn't many more powerful rounds that have the capability to be fired from magazines that hold more than 4-5 rounds.

Also ammo choice means alot in relation to lethality. There isn't a person walking that's gonna take a 62/64 soft point from a .223 to the chest and not go down quickly. Especially at the ranges that these mass shootings happen. Take the same caliber and change to a 55/62 FMJ is somewhat less lethal.

 

[WestKentucky]

I think the "right" stance on the traditional AR round is that it is marginal at best which is supported by fact as it's one of a few rounds that are common but are deemed inhumane for use while deer hunting. Just check state laws and get your numbers.

 

[Jackal]

In WA, the largest game a .223/5.56 can legally hunt is coyote. No, it is not a powerful cartridge. It does fragment and poke little holes very well though.

 

[Llama Bob]

There aren't many less powerful centerfires and no common ones.

It's barely adequate for it's military role, and mostly is optimized to minimize weight and cost. It was a lucky break that it's good against armor - that's what sank the 7.62x39.

As a varmint cartridge, it's more than adequate. As a deer cartridge, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Danoobie]

I think the media is sensationalizing the power of the AR15, since the recent shootings. While the .223/5.56 CAN be lethal,
remember that the goal in war is to WOUND the enemy, as a wounded enemy ties up 3 to 5 other solders, and is a burden
rather than an asset. I've shot squirrels with an AR, and they got up and ran away. OTOH, I've shot coyote at over 200 yards,
and they dropped DRT. The real question is : How do we deal with the media's irresponsible handling of school shootings?

In order to boost ratings, they exaggerate the physical, make the shooter famous, and whip the public into a frenzy, all to sell
their soap and hard-on pills. Food and medical companies, aided by the media, made these killers, who all suck up greedily
on all the attention they are lavished with, as nouveau media darlings. These are the folks with the blood on their hands, as they
blithely blame LAGOs and the NRA. Not to mention, all of this is being done because their beaten dead horse, the Russian Collusion story, was circling the drain...

 

[Klint Beastwood]

There aren't many less powerful centerfires and no common ones.

It's barely adequate for it's military role, and mostly is optimized to minimize weight and cost. It was a lucky break that it's good against armor - that's what sank the 7.62x39.

As a varmint cartridge, it's more than adequate. As a deer cartridge, it leaves a lot to be desired.

+1 werd

 

[Goosey]

but to hear the reporters tell it one hit with a .223 and every body just drops dead is just not true.

Saw this one the other day. Apparently the danger is these new high-velocity weapons civilians are getting hold of.




The AR-15 is Different: What I Learned Treating Parkland Victims
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

...

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.

...

On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes,” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and one that is illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.

Article link: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/

 

[Orcon]

I'm old enough to remember the "DC Sniper". The guys involved used a Bushmaster 223 Rem and the media ran with the "high powered sniper rifle" narrative, despite the rifle being neither high powered nor a sniper rifle.

As a cartridge, the 223 Rem is at the high end of intermediate cartridges or at the low end of bottle necked centerfire cardridges, depending on how you choose to evaluate it. That being said, I would pass on the opportunity of being shot with one.

 

[Jackal]

If I was forced to stand in front of either a .223 or a 30-06, I'd pick the .223 every time. One of the smallest, least potent anti personnel rifle rounds ever produced for military service. Past frangible range, its like getting jabbed by an ice pick.

 

[eastbank]

i agree with most of the posts, but my bitch is the media hyping the .223 as next to sliced bread. will it kill you, yes. any fire arm will, it comes down to not what you are shot with but where you are hit. if he had used a ruger 10-22 with large cap mag,s the results could have been the same, also true with a m1 carbine with large cap mag,s. my use of the m-16 proved to me it was not the best rifle for me, for the pray and spray crowd it was the cat,s meow. for me the m-14 was the best killer, if you had the time to get used to it and it will reach out with enough power to get the job done.

 

[69Precision]

There aren't many less powerful centerfires and no common ones.

It's barely adequate for it's military role, and mostly is optimized to minimize weight and cost. It was a lucky break that it's good against armor - that's what sank the 7.62x39.

As a varmint cartridge, it's more than adequate. As a deer cartridge, it leaves a lot to be desired.

It's going on 50 years of military service, and is barely adequate? Special ops forces that have options still use in in most close quarters roles. Of course for shooting across long distances in Afghanistan, there are better options. But for anything under 100 yds it is the best balance of low recoil, more ammo and lethality. Temporary cavitation is a thing.

 

[69Precision]

... for me the m-14 was the best killer, if you had the time to get used to it and it will reach out with enough power to get the job done.

If you were going house to house in Iraq though, and your targets were often close, the M-14 would be much less useful.