is a ar-15/16 a powerfull rifle?

[eastbank]

what you say is true and the m-16-m-4 would be better in that use, but for me the 7.62x51 was what I liked and it would terminate any threat I saw near and far thru brush and light buildings . the m-14 will both jobs, while the m-16 struggles at longer ranges and for light buildings. even today in the sand boxes the m-14 has been called on to do its work over the m-16. a m-14 is a very good combat rifle to a honest 600 yards, the m-16 not so much.

 

[FL-NC]

As compared to more traditional hunting calibers and rounds, like a 30-06 soft point, I'm going to say no.

 

[CZ9shooter]

Is an AR "high powered?" Is the world a big place??

Depends on what you compare it to. EVERYTHING is relative.

 

[MachIVshooter]

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.

This.

And for those who are not receptive to the purpose and spirit of 2A defending against a foreign army or domestic tyranny and continue to question it's utility as a sporting gun or defensive weapon, it is very useful to point out that the 5.56mm round is less likely to exit a residential structure than a handgun bullet or shotgun slug. Ergo, using an AR-15 for home defense is safer for your neighbors than a pistol or shotgun.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Does it really matter?

 

[marksman13]

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...

The whole "goal in war is to wound" theory has been debunked a million times. Can we please stop trotting this out every time there is a discussion on the power of the 5.56?

 

[someguy2800]

I can't comment on its effectiveness when using a fmj military round, but i do know what it does when you hit something with a 55 grain V-max. It turns everything to mush. There is no "poking a little hole" when you hit something with the right bullet at 3000 fps.

 

[69Precision]

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.

I generally don't take the side of the media. That said, one hit center mass with no flak vest or anything at short range will most certainly put a person down in a hurry. If it wouldn't, units like SEAL teams wouldn't use 5.56 for missions like Bin Laden.
My brother in law get's tons of cull permits for his farm. He has no time to use them so he is thrilled for me to use as many as possible. I've shot at least 50 deer with a 223. I keep ranges to 100 yards or less. Shoot them in the lungs, they drop right there. The furthest one has run so far is about 25 yards. Temporary cavitation works wonders. Ironically the deer that ran the farthest I shot with a 375 H&H. Swift A-frame, 80 yard shot. Passed through, no expansion.

 

[bassjam]

The 5.56 is kind of a smallish to intermediate round that is best suited to assault rifles and how they are used in the military today.

What the media doesn't seem to know though, is that something more powerful does exist: the battle rifle. When you really want to make sure something doesn't get back up after it's hit, you use a battle rifle.

 

[Newtosavage]

I think by "powerful" they might also be referring to the number of rounds a person can send downrange in a short amount of time. If a bolt-action '06 can send four rounds downrange in 10 seconds but by comparison an AR can send 30, then the AR is by one definition, the more powerful weapon as a whole.

 

[Newtosavage]

I generally don't take the side of the media. That said, one hit center mass with no flak vest or anything at short range will most certainly put a person down in a hurry. If it wouldn't, units like SEAL teams wouldn't use 5.56 for missions like Bin Laden.
My brother in law get's tons of cull permits for his farm. He has no time to use them so he is thrilled for me to use as many as possible. I've shot at least 50 deer with a 223. I keep ranges to 100 yards or less. Shoot them in the lungs, they drop right there. The furthest one has run so far is about 25 yards. Temporary cavitation works wonders. Ironically the deer that ran the farthest I shot with a 375 H&H. Swift A-frame, 80 yard shot. Passed through, no expansion.

Curious what bullet you're using. I have a buddy who I watched shoot three deer this year with a bolt-action .223, and none of them dropped on the spot. In fact, we lost one and never found a drop of blood. The other two did not get complete penetration and no blood trail either.

 

[hdwhit]

eastbank asked:
s a [sic] ar-15/16 a powerfull [sic] rifle?

Yes.

We've done this question repeatedly here on THR and its almost invariably someone posting their opinion some center-fire cartridge is less "powerful" (whatever that means in this context) than another center-fire cartridge of the author's choosing. Such posts usually go on to denigrate the physical or moral characteristics of those who don't use his chosen cartridge.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion about how "powerful" a particular cartridge is, when it comes down to defining a term such as "Power" that will be used universally, the luxury of defining the term falls to the body that defines it and sanction events which successfully promote the definition.

In the United States, that body is the National Rifle Association who sponsor the United States portion of the International High Power Rifle (also known as Across The Course, or XTC) competition(s). See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle One of the classes within High Power Rifle competition is Service Rifle which includes the AR-15.

So, since the NRA recognizes the AR-15 as a High Power Rifle, it's safe to say it's a Powerful Rifle.

 

[69Precision]

Curious what bullet you're using. I have a buddy who I watched shoot three deer this year with a bolt-action .223, and none of them dropped on the spot. In fact, we lost one and never found a drop of blood. The other two did not get complete penetration and no blood trail either.

I've used a couple, even black hills 52gr match. 90% of the time I use these...
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/2...-223-remington-45-grain-jacketed-hollow-point

The key thing in my experience with 223 is distance. It does the job in spades at 100 yards and under. above 150 there are better choices.

 

[marksman13]

what you say is true and the m-16-m-4 would be better in that use, but for me the 7.62x51 was what I liked and it would terminate any threat I saw near and far thru brush and light buildings . the m-14 will both jobs, while the m-16 struggles at longer ranges and for light buildings. even today in the sand boxes the m-14 has been called on to do its work over the m-16. a m-14 is a very good combat rifle to a honest 600 yards, the m-16 not so much.

I carried an M-21 in Iraq and while it had it's role, that role is VERY limited in an urban environment. The M4/M16 is a more versatile rifle.

 

[PabloJ]

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.

It was designed to kill and incapacitate people, therefore, it does not need to be powerful. Some guns are tools and works of art at the same time and some are just killing tools. Ivo Fabbri engraved by Creative Art or Manrico Torcolli would be work of art and shooting implement while AR-15/M-16 are just for injuring or killing people.

 

[Robert]

It was designed to kill and incapacitate people, therefore, it does not need to be powerful. Some guns are tools and works of art at the same time and some are just killing tools. Ivo Fabbri engraved by Creative Art or Manrico Torcolli would be work of art and shooting implement while AR-15/M-16 are just for injuring or killing people.

My AR has never killed anyone, I guess it is broken... What an absolutely asinine, ignorant thing to say. We get it though, you are willing to sell a whole lot of gun owners down the river as long as they don't come for you. And what will you do once ARs get banned and they do come for you? Either we are ALL in this fight or we are lost.

 

[eastbank]

I missed tet, so I didn,t get much urban fighting. but on a fire base with an( ENEMY) getting ready to throw a satchel charge, the m-14 dumped them right now. I don,t know what they had in the charges ,but when they went off they disappeared into a red mist. sorry about that word, but when some one is trying to kill you, worst words cross you mind.

 

[Llama Bob]

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.

Given that we're on our 4th re-design of the basic ball projectile, all related to terminal performance, and arguably M262 still has better terminal performance than any of them, I'm going to stick with "marginal".

 

[Slamfire]

In the United States, that body is the National Rifle Association who sponsor the United States portion of the International High Power Rifle (also known as Across The Course, or XTC) competition(s). See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle One of the classes within High Power Rifle competition is Service Rifle which includes the AR-15.

So, since the NRA recognizes the AR-15 as a High Power Rifle, it's safe to say it's a Powerful Rifle

I was around, on the firing line, when the AR15 took over. The AMU started winning the National Championships with their highly modified M16's. The last year the Marine Team used the M14 as an XTC rifle was 1996. In 1997, I asked some Marine Team members how the 223 was doing, they said about the same standing, better in the rapids, a little worse at long range". Cleaning the rapids is something the best competitors have to do, points lost in the rapids are points given away. The recoil of the 223 is so slight that groups actually get tighter and the X count goes up. The ballistic advantage at 600 yards was to the 175 SMK, but it was not a huge advantage over the 80 gr SMK's in use for the 223. Now if the M1a was chambered in a 6.5 Creedmoor, and considered a service rifle, a 6.5 will use about half the windage of a 223. If you analyzed the top ten, every one cleaned the rapids with high X counts, long range, a point or two difference. The winners won due to their standing scores. Standing really sorted out the great from the good. It has been said and it is true, that you win at standing and lose at long range. I have had excellent standing, rapids, and tossed it all away with eights at long range. And I am not the only one!

I will say, not everyone was happy about the poodle gun replacing the 308 M1a, myself included. But it was the service rifle of the US Armed Forces and it had finally been developed to a high level of accuracy.

However, once the Armed Forces went to the 223, they were getting their tails whacked at 1000 yards by civilians with M1's and M1a's. A score in the 180's is a pretty good score with a 223 and a 20" barrel. Many 223 loads are sub sonic at 600 yards, but at 1000 yards, that little bullet floats in the wind. The miltary teams had experimented with 6.5 twist barrels, tungsten bullets, but pressure is not your friend, and as in Hot Rods: there is no replacement for displacement . So, the Military Teams got their retired Military buds on the NRA rules committee to declare the AR-10 a "service rifle". They did not want to go back to the M14 because the AR10 and AR15 are so similar, service members don't have to be trained on the manual of arms, operation, etc.

So the 308 still lives within the service rifle category.

 

[Newtosavage]

My AR has never killed anyone, I guess it is broken... What an absolutely asinine, ignorant thing to say. We get it though, you are willing to sell a whole lot of gun owners down the river as long as they don't come for you. And what will you do once ARs get banned and they do come for you? Either we are ALL in this fight or we are lost.

At the risk of being banned, that's a rather inflammatory response that is only your opinion (and nothing more) not to mention a personal attack on a member here. I would expect more from someone who moderates "the high road."

 

[Klint Beastwood]

At the risk of being banned, that's a rather inflammatory response that is only your opinion (and nothing more) not to mention a personal attack on a member here. I would expect more from someone who moderates "the high road."

No they rather just delete my comments and a whole conversation because they can when you call a mod out, especially by name like in another thread as a “personal attack.” MODs here don’t like truth or criticism...so really it’s just like anywhere else.
They are always free to send me a message, I’m nice on here and restrained on here but, I can at anytime show a personal attack. (With words)

 

[Walkalong]

At the risk of being banned, that's a rather inflammatory response that is only your opinion (and nothing more) not to mention a personal attack on a member here. I would expect more from someone who moderates "the high road."

Not inflammatory at all IMHO, you just don't like it. The context of your post was ignorant IMHO.

Yes, my opinion, his opinion, your opinion, all opinions.

No they rather just delete my comments and a whole conversation because they can when you call a mod out, especially by name like in another thread as a “personal attack.” MODs here don’t like truth or criticism...so really it’s just like anywhere else.
They are always free to send me a message, I’m nice on here and restrained on here but, I can at anytime show a personal attack. (With words)

As long as you are polite, and attack the argument or opinion you're good to go. Nothing new there.

Anyway, to say the AR-15 is only for killing is ridiculous because it is not truthful. It's also a line straight out of the antis playbook.

Whether or not the AR-15 is "powerful" or not is irrelevant to the gun control debate. It's a gun, it can kill, but it isn't the problem, and banning them wouldn't have stopped this shooting or any future possible shootings.

 

[Newtosavage]

Not inflammatory at all IMHO, you just don't like it. The context of your post was ignorant IMHO.

Yes, my opinion, his opinion, your opinion, all opinions.

As long as you are polite, and attack the argument or opinion you're good to go. Nothing new there.

Anyway, to say the AR-15 is only for killing is ridiculous because it is not truthful. It's also a line straight out of the antis playbook.

Whether or not the AR-15 is "powerful" or not is irrelevant to the gun control debate. It's a gun, it can kill, but it isn't the problem, and banning them wouldn't have stopped this shooting or any future possible shootings.

I stand by what I said. When a moderator of a forum known as "the high road" chooses to go low and get personal, they need to be called out.

 

[RainDodger]

Not really relevant maybe, but what bugs me is, our military uses the caliber and we know its purpose. The state I live in will not allow it to be used for hunting. I assume the state is likely saying there's more of a chance of an inhumane end to whatever the hunter is hunting. Seems kind of bizarre to me. (I have to say though, I wouldn't hunt with it, given the plethora of better calibers to hunt with. I guess it's a compromise between effectiveness, portability and ability to carry a lot of ammo. Caveat: I'm not a hunter, so I might not know what I'm talking about!)

All that being said, it's powerful enough that I wouldn't stand in front of it. Now that I've contributed, I can say that this really is kind of a pointless thread!

 

[someguy2800]

I wouldn't deer hunt with a 223 unless it was my last resort, as in I couldn't use any of my other center fire rifles. If it's all I had I would load it up with federal fusions and pick my shots carefully.