Great thread! I use the argument as well, but not in the absolute sense of "AR15's aren't high powered rifles." It is usually used by me in this context. Generally once a debate on Gun Control starts up, I end up defending gun ownership and the other person will say something to the effect of "Who said anything about banning guns, I am talking about these "High Powered" guns, or "Heavy Weapons" (as per Bill O'Reilly) Or "Assault Weapons" (usually thinking they are class III weapons). To which I reply how do they make that distinction, based on function? Since they are similar to any other semi-automatic in that regard? Is it due to the power of the round, (and this is the part pertinent to this thread) as the 223 round is relatively small compared to what would typically be used for hunting outside of varmint hunting (and then show them a picture of a 223 next to a 30-06.) I agree with many in this thread that for the average non-gun person, they have been so inundated with bad info that you need to start out by just showing them how the arguments they have been making are not grounded in reality. I agree with the post with the Mini-gun video as I believe that is what a lot of people are imagining when they are saying that people shouldn't have AR15s. I think it is important to point out that the gun control issue is not as simple as just banning "heavy weapons".
Is there a commonly used rifle round less powerful than the AR15?
- Thread starter wacki
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It is around here. There are quite a few new guns available in the chambering. I've been hunting with one for about three years. I can drive to Dixie Gun Works in two hours and buy probably a dozen different .38-40's from SAA's and Bisleys in every barrel length to 1873's and 1866's. You can't buy ammo for it at Walmart but brass and components are readily available, which is more than I can say for a lot of "common" chamberings. Like the new .250Savage I'm having a hard time feeding.
Nobody with half a lick of sense uses TKO to compare the .44-40 to the .223.
Does any modern military use a rifle round that is weaker than the 5.56?
Actually Swamp the above is part of the OP's question, hence the reason military use, quantity and application were mentioned in my post. So read all of the information and don't pick and choose just to be argumentative.
Actually Swamp the above is part of the OP's question, hence the reason military use, quantity and application were mentioned in my post. So read all of the information and don't pick and choose just to be argumentative.
bdgackle
Member
As far as I could tell, the 7.62x54R is much less powerful than a .223. The .223 will blow up a coke can nicely, but the first time I fired my nagant, it didn't even make a hole in the paper target. My theory is that this round wastes all of it's energy generating recoil, leaving nothing left to propel the bullet.
Swampman
Old Fart
The original post is quoted at the beginning of this one, can you please tell me where the OP asked about which military caliber was the MOST commonly used? Or most used in combat.
All I see related to military use is:
"Does any modern military use a rifle round that is weaker than the 5.56?"
The Russian Federation Army of almost one million people (probably enough to qualify the round as "commonly" used) uses the 5.45x39, the 5.45x39 is less powerful than the 5.56x45/.223, your claim that there is not a commonly used rifle round less powerful than the 5.56x45/.223 was not only wrong, it was irrelevant since you based it on "volume", of use.
It's not being "argumentative" to point out an incorrect statement that uses information irrelevant to the thread to come to a flawed conclusion.
I read the original post, as well as the whole thread, did you?
My belief is that the OP wished to know about commonly used rifle rounds (including military rounds) that are less powerful than 5.56x45/.223. I saw nothing inquiring about the most commonly used combat round, which is the question you answered.
Skylerbone
Member
With 80 posts (and I read them all) we're still squabbling about nothing related to the true issue. A little food for thought.
Which rifle was responsible for the highest death toll in the latest school massacre, the Sig or the Glock?
Which firearms are "weak enough" to escape the scrutiny of the media?
If the Second Amendment was ratified for its intended purpose (as it reads) then are we at present staring down the very sort of government it cites? Would that make the US the current "battlefield" where on rifles of the type discussed would indeed be appropriate?
If power is not the driving factor for proposed bans and, if similar to the previous ban it affects magazine capacity, then "scary looks" is not the primary function of such a ban, is it? Would it seem more logical that such a ban seeks to put Citizens at a serious disadvantage by effectively taking us back to the Stone Age?
If we waste time investigating the "sporting/hunting" properties of the more common AR calibers aren't we buying into the divisive argument that seeks to separate us from our Constitutional Rights willingly?
Which rifle was responsible for the highest death toll in the latest school massacre, the Sig or the Glock?
Which firearms are "weak enough" to escape the scrutiny of the media?
If the Second Amendment was ratified for its intended purpose (as it reads) then are we at present staring down the very sort of government it cites? Would that make the US the current "battlefield" where on rifles of the type discussed would indeed be appropriate?
If power is not the driving factor for proposed bans and, if similar to the previous ban it affects magazine capacity, then "scary looks" is not the primary function of such a ban, is it? Would it seem more logical that such a ban seeks to put Citizens at a serious disadvantage by effectively taking us back to the Stone Age?
If we waste time investigating the "sporting/hunting" properties of the more common AR calibers aren't we buying into the divisive argument that seeks to separate us from our Constitutional Rights willingly?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
That wasn't the query of the thread you said you read. If you think you need to discuss this issue, then you should start your own thread.
Skylerbone
Member
So the timing of the thread and the caliber in question and the discussions general course have nothing to do with my response? My apologies then, I truly thought folks were looking for the easiest way to placate the wolves. I can see mine as no help in that regard.
Swampman
Old Fart
I still think that the original post was about the power of other rifle rounds as they relate to the .223/5.56.
Did I miss something that others saw?
THAT'S the kind of thinking that leads people to attempt bans on weapons.
If you truly believe that ANY weapon is "responsible" for ANYTHING, you should probably seriously consider getting rid yours before they kill you in your sleep or do something else nefarious.
Holding a particular weapon "responsible" for killing children isn't helping things either...
Skylerbone
Member
That was the point, or did you miss the point that misdirection leads us astray of issues? Thank you for pointing it out.
I'm fully confident they will stay quietly tucked away in my safes barring human interaction. I'm not holding any firearm responsible for the actions of an individual. Never have, never will.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Call this a dedthred. The horse gave up and quit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
