Is there a commonly used rifle round less powerful than the AR15?

[Hardtarget]

Maybe the statement I'll use is something like"yes, it is a military round.But, if you look at the different rounds used by militaries around the world, it is the smallest, weakest round used."

That may just make the discussion worse, I don't know. :banghead:

Mark

 

[MachIVshooter]

Maybe the statement I'll use is something like"yes, it is a military round.But, if you look at the different rounds used by militaries around the world, it is the smallest, weakest round used."

No. Don't try to downplay the lethality. We all know the 5.56mm is perfectly capable of killing even the largest of men.

We're not trying to convince them that it's relatively harmless; Obviously, if that were true, NATO forces wouldn't use it. What we are trying to do is dispell MSM hyperbole that the .223 is some uber-lethal round that turns it's biological targets into meaty jello if it so much as grazes their skin. For this, we use perspective, and that perspective comes from comparing it to other common rounds used for medium and big game hunting. When people are given a visual comparison of the 5.56 next to common hunting rounds like the .270 Win or .30-06, they quickly understand how exaggerated the lethality is in the news. If the round twice as powerful (or more) doesn't vaporize a man-sized deer, then how would the little 5.56? This is the question they will ask, whether they actually ask it or it is an internal monologue. You answering it is only confirmation of what they have already logically deduced.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I think a debate amongst us as to what constitutes "high power" and why relative to an NPR usage is kinda silly as it has yet to take into account their statements are generally based upon what they "feel" rather than facts and when facts - as it were - are used by them it is after fact-shopping for support rather than information.

Don't lose sight of their perspective being that much of the "power" of any given gun wil also entail volume of fire as in capacity or ease of re-load.

They seem to only focus on ballistics when it is possible to sensationalize the round as in the case of .50 cals being able to shoot down the space shuttle or other such nonsense or as with mythical levels of penetration.

 

[fatelk]

This is what a lot of people seem to think when they hear "AR15": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RbL4PwTDsQ

I think it's good to dispel that myth.

 

[coloradokevin]

A fair argument can definitely be made on the basis of the fact that:

1) The .223 Remington /5.56x45mm cartridge is very anemic when compared to many commonly used hunting rounds, and nearly ALL large game hunting rounds.

2) The .223 Remington / 5.56x45mm cartridge is only legal for small game hunting in this state because it isn't considered to be powerful enough to humanely kill deer sized animals.

3) The AR-15 functions just like MANY commonly used hunting rifles.

4) A .223 Remington bullet fired from an AR-15 does the same thing as the same bullet being fired from a less scary looking gun.

Yes, the .223 can kill. Yes, it has. But, the FACTS listed above should be enough to defuse the propaganda that the left loves to peddle: "Powerful military grade weapons that are too deadly to use for hunting, and only belong on the battlefield", etc.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

2) The .223 Remington / 5.56x45mm cartridge is only legal for small game hunting in this state because it isn't considered to be powerful enough to humanely kill deer sized animals.

No. Power isn't the issue why .223 isn't allowed for hunting in many states. If power was the issue, then handgun hunting would not be allowed in those states and in the states I have checked, handgun hunting IS allowed even if .223 is not. .223/5.56x45 is a LOT more powerful than many handgun calibers used for hunting in those states. Depending on the specific cartridge, you are looking at roughly 1100-1400 ft lbs for .223/5.56x45.

Typical Energy
9mm 300-400 ft. lbs.
.45 acp 400-500 ft lbs.
.45 Colt <500 ft lbs.
.357 mag 600-700 ft lbs.
.44 magnum 1100-1300 ft lbs.

So power isn't the issue. Caliber is.

 

[303tom]

Maybe this will help, but I don`t know...........These are all rifle rounds.

 

[sixgunner455]

exdetsgt said:

I'm not completely certain, but I believe .223 cannot be used for deer in Arizona. I have a Model 92 lever-action rifle, 20" barrel, chambered in 38/357. I've never heard that these calibers were intended to do anything other than kill people, and the Rossi, when loaded with 357 magnums, is legal for deer here. I'm wondering what its muzzle velocity and foot pounds of energy are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, you are completely off-base concerning the use of the .223/5.56mm as a big game round in AZ. The statute states that centerfire rifles used for hunting big game must use expanding bullets, with no mention of power or caliber.

And the .223 has more ft/lbs and greater range than a .357 carbine.

Considering the size of the deer usually seen around Bisbee, I can't imagine why the .223 wouldn't be more than adequate to kill one. Coues whitetail = large dog in size.

The Colt AR15 was introduced to the shooting public as a light, tough hunting rifle, way back when. Lots of people I know hunt with them. The argument that they are not useful for nor intended for hunting is a cavil.

 

[Skribs]

MachIV, I don't think we should downplay the lethality from a realistic level, but we should dispel the myth that the AR-15 round will tear the body in half.

 

[Jackal]

The funny part is, the 5.56 was developed because it WAS less lethal than all the larger rounds that preceded it. Dead arent too taxing on the enemy, thousands of wounded are. That being said, if someone uses a 10/22 in the next shooting (I do say next because we all know there are still more wacko's in the world) the media will have a fit over how dangerous the 22LR is. How cheap bulk ammo is so available and of "how it bounces around" in the body.....:banghead::banghead: (22LR does not bounce around, that is a myth and fabrication, one that is still commonly believed by thousands today)

Also, I find it funny that as a people, we think its "ok" to use .223 to shoot 200lb people around the world. Take that same round hunting and its now immoral and illegal to shoot a 80lb deer with it.

 

[sixgunner455]

The funny part is, the 5.56 was developed because it WAS less lethal than all the larger rounds that preceded it.

Ugh. Why do people keep saying that? It's not true. Field testing in Vietnam came back lauding the terminal ballistic effects (killing potential) of the round. They did not come back saying, "Oh, it gives them a big owie and they run home crying for their mommies."

Ridiculous to think that a military would deliberately arm their people with something not capable of actually killing the enemy. "one shot, one kill" was the mantra at Basic, not "one shot, one big owie."

 

[JR47]

The military has never had "High Power" matches, they have Service Rifle matches, using the existing issue rifle.

Many states, even those with handgun hunting, require .24 caliber as a minimum for game animals. The various DNR groups have allowed handgun hunting only under certain restrictions. They have learned that handgun hunters tend to be more accomplished than rifle hunters, and also tend to pay more attention to range when shooting.

Odd that the idea of wounding keeps rearing it's head. When the 5.56 was introduced, we were fighting a military/guerrilla force that didn't pick up it's wounded in the manner predicted. Neither the Iraqis, nor the Aghans do, either.

 

[RustHunter87]

This reminds me of the time I left a 223 round on the kitchen table, my father, a life long deer hunter picked it up and to my surprise asked me what kinda round it was?

When I told him it was a 223, same as the military uses he was shocked. He couldn't believe how small it was, I guess it didnt look deadly enough!?

 

[brnmw]

Does any modern military use a rifle round that is weaker than the 5.56?

I would say an FN 5.7X28mm I think has a small rifle primer and is used for the PDW. I am however not an expert with this round, I only fired one once out of a pistol... but I do believe it is classified as a "Rifle" cartridge.

 

[CraigC]

"High Powered" when used by journalists or politicians to describe a firearm or ammunition is completely arbitrary and therefore undefined.

Bingo!

Aside from "High Power" rifle competition, it really has no meaning for shooters. Mainly it's a term used by the ignorant to manipulate the emotions of the even more ignorant.

The ideal military round injures and doesn't kill. It wounds 1 man, takes 2 to carry him back and a medic to treat him. That's a total of 4 people. That is the ideal assault weapon round.

I don't think that applied to the Vietnamese and I'm sure it does not apply to jihadists.

 

[brnmw]

"High Power" it really has no meaning for shooters

Good point I would agree with that.

I don't really care if it's called "High Powered" or not it does not really mean anything.
Seems like everything is labeled "High Powered" these days, aka > a pedestrian was struck today by a "High Powered" car (and yes, I have heard that accident involving a pedestrian struck by a modified Trans Am or Camaro from what I remember) or a person was assaulted by a "High Powered" bow and arrow... blah...blah...blah.

Next thing you know they are going to want to take away my muscle car... oh, wait...did they not do that already in the 70's and 80's! Next thing you know you will have 4 cyl. "Ecoboosts" in your Mustang instead of a 5.0 or 4.6 Ltr. V-8.

That may have gone a little off topic but I agree I am not much of a fan of the term "High Powered" because it is exactly what the liberals want to use to describe something. For the Avg. normal gun owning American, it really means nothing.

Sorry, I am done ranting and rambling now.

 

[csa77]

5.45x39 and 30 carbine are about equal in power and both are weaker then 5.56/223

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Aside from "High Power" rifle competition, it really has no meaning for shooters. Mainly it's a term used by the ignorant to manipulate the emotions of the even more ignorant.

Yet there it is, used by the NRA. The rammications for knowledge are shocking when considered in your context. However, the NRA is the premier pro-gun group in the US and they classify .223/5.56 as High Power for competition and so you can't blame the media for following such a lead. After all, if the premier pro-gun group in the US uses it for the caliber, then why should the media NOT use it?

 

[carlrodd]

The ideal military round injures and doesn't kill. It wounds 1 man, takes 2 to carry him back and a medic to treat him. That's a total of 4 people. That is the ideal assault weapon round.

Say that to an anti talking about Rhino killing bullets and a light in his head flips on. If you want to be thick headed and not believe me fine, but I've used this argument on multiple people and it works.

People believe the AR15 is a nuclear weapon and it's not. It's that rubbish from NPR that I'm trying to eliminate. I've been effective in the past and I hope to be more effective in the future. So either contribute to the thread or stop the defeatist attitude and go away.

please stop spreading this unfounded, undocumented, untrue silliness.

 

[Robert101]

Is there a commonly used rifle round less powerful than the AR15?

I'd have to say no. My answer is based on volume. The US is vastly more engaged in combat than any other country in the world. If someone has statistics - great. I would not be suprised if the US military expends/shoots in combat at least 5 times the volume of rifle bullets (5.56X45) than all other calibers combined [from all other nations]. Yes, this is pure undocumented speculation and just a wild guess. We shoot a lot of this ammo.

 

[Swampman]

Is there a commonly used rifle round less powerful than the AR15?

I'd have to say no. My answer is based on volume. The US is vastly more engaged in combat than any other country in the world....

The question wasn't, Is there a MORE commonly used rifle round less powerful than the AR15?

If there is a rifle round less powerful than 5.56x45 (which is what I am assuming the OP meant) and that round is in common use, then ipso facto, there IS a rifle round less powerful than the AR-15 in common use.

The actual number of rounds fired is irrelevant.

If you'll read the thread, you'll see that quite a few have already been named, to include the current Russian 5.45x39 military round, the .22 Long Rifle and the .30 US Carbine.

Just as an aside, it wouldn't shock me a bit to learn that the volume of .22 Long Rifle fired was considerably higher than that of .223/5.56.

 

[CraigC]

To answer the OP, there are A LOT of rifle rounds "less powerful" ("power" is vague and highly subjective) than the .223. It's cousin the .222Remington for one then there's the:
.17Remington
.17Fireball
.17Hornet
.204Ruger
.221Fireball
.22Hornet
.218Bee
.25-20
.32-20
.38-40
.44-40

And probably more I'm forgetting.

Typical Energy
9mm 300-400 ft. lbs.
.45 acp 400-500 ft lbs.
.45 Colt <500 ft lbs.
.357 mag 600-700 ft lbs.
.44 magnum 1100-1300 ft lbs.

So power isn't the issue. Caliber is.

Or maybe energy isn't the proper gauge???

After all, if the premier pro-gun group in the US uses it for the caliber, then why should the media NOT use it?

Because other than that example, nobody uses the term. It is too vague and in the shooting world, really has no meaning.

 

[benEzra]

Yet there it is, used by the NRA. The rammications for knowledge are shocking when considered in your context. However, the NRA is the premier pro-gun group in the US and they classify .223/5.56 as High Power for competition and so you can't blame the media for following such a lead. After all, if the premier pro-gun group in the US uses it for the caliber, then why should the media NOT use it?

Using it as a description of how the power of one rifle relates to another is quite different than using it as a term to refer to a series of rifle matches originally created for .30-06 and such, and which .223 competes in only because energy at range doesn't matter when punching paper.

One can refer to a NASCAR tube-frame race car as a "stock" car also, but that is similarly a historical name of the series as opposed to a description of the vehicles that compete in it. NASCAR cars used to be stock, and NRA Highpower rifles used to be high-powered...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, when the media starts referring to family sedans as stock cars, I will consider your argument more thoroughly, but otherwise, if the NRA is calling the rifle High Power then getting upset with the media for doing the same thing seems pretty silly. It doesn't matter what the competition originally was. What matters is that the NRA does in fact include the caliber and the rifle in the category.

We don't like it that the NRA calls an intermediate cartridge as "High Power" but then the beef is with the NRA and not the media until which time the NRA changes the classification.

 

[Swampman]

To answer the OP, there are A LOT of rifle rounds "less powerful" ("power" is vague and highly subjective) than the .223. It's cousin the .222Remington for one then there's the: .17Remington .17Fireball .17Hornet .204Ruger .221Fireball .22Hornet .218Bee .25-20 .32-20 .38-40 .44-40

And probably more I'm forgetting.

I don't think the .204 Ruger belongs on the list, its muzzle energy is pretty much = or > than .223. If you use Taylor Knock Out numbers, then the 44-40 is more "powerful" than .223/5.56.

Is the 38-40 really in "common use"? I only know a couple of people that have them and they use them mostly as extra weight in their gun safes...