I have seen, in recent days, a number of articles that have discussed the devastating wounds caused by an AR-15.
Now for some truth: AR-15s are considered to be low-powered as far as rifles go. It shoots a .22 bullet (5.56mm or .223 is its designation) and is a chambering that has been considered to be adequate only for shooting prairie dogs and coyotes. It has been derided as a "poodle shooter". In most states that I am aware of, .22 centerfire rifles are not legal for deer hunting because they are not powerful enough.
So, you might ask, why is it that the .223 is so devastating when used in shootings and is not powerful enough for hunting? The distinction here is a simple one: Velocity and distance. Most hunting shots are not taken at ten yards. Fifty, a hundred, two hundred yards are more likely. Bullet velocity drops as a function of distance.
I'm going to shift away from the rifles themselves and speak to calibers, as, to be a little facile, guns don't kill people, bullets do.
The close-in effect of 5.56mm (and, as far as I know, Soviet 5.45mm) bullets is because the bullets tumble and fragment. But again, this is a close-range effect. Beyond a certain distance (which is highly dependent on barrel length), that will not happen. The wounding effect outside of that range is what some doctors would call "an ice-pick injury". The results that I've read of during the Afghan and Iraq wars are in line with this. For close-in fighting, the M-4 carbine was king. Outside of a couple of hundred yards or so, it was almost useless. That's not much of an issue for American infantry, who had artillery and air power to call upon. But the special ops guys, who were often in remote areas, had more of need to be able to fight with their rifles at longer ranges, which led to the development of cartridges such as the 6.8mm Remington SPC and similar rounds. The Army very much wants to adopt a 6.8mm rifle round. (I predict that won't happen for the same reason that the M-1 Garand wasn't chambered in .276 Petersen.)
Along those lines, it took almost an act of Congress to get the Marine Corps to give up their M-16 rifles and adopt the M-4 carbine. The M-16 has a barrel that is almost six inches longer. Longer barrel, more muzzle velocity, longer range. The Marines, after all, pride themselves on being riflemen, not just spotters for the field artillery.
The lack of effectiveness at long range isn't just an American issue. At one point during the ongoing Moro conflict, Phillipine solders were being shot by Moro insurgets at ranges of 600 yards or better. The Moros were using M-1 rifles (.30-06 caliber) that had been captured or stolen. The soldiers had M-16 rifles that, at that distance, were not much better than BB guns. That may seem like a digression to you, but it is part of my point: The 5.56mm/.223 is a lower-powered rifle round.
The first nine minutes of this video will probably tell you more than you wanted to know about the wounding effects of rifle rounds.
The hard truth is that any centerfire rifle, especially those with hunting ammuntion, will produce devastating injuries at close range. A .30-30 round fired from a 125 year-old Winchester 1894 rifle will blow the shit out of a deer (or a person) at short range; the .30-30 is a good woods rifle, but for reasons more to do with the design of the rifles themselves, they are not great for longer-range shooting. The .270 Winchester, the .308 Winchester and the venerable .30-06 will take down most game to be found in the Lower 48 within reasonable shooting distances and are legal in states that allow bottlenecked rifle cartridges for hunting.
The thing with a .223 carbine is that, because it is fairly low-powered, there is not much recoil, which makes them easier to shoot. (If you doubt that, find a friend who has a .223 and a .30-06 or a .30-30 and shoot the two.) Because there isn't much recoil, follow-up shots are a lot faster to make and the rifle is easier to master. Because there isn't as much recoil, the civilian versions of the M-4 carbine are lighter. That makes them the rifle of choice for those murdering fucksticks who go out to slaughter the innocent.
For slaughtering lots of people, it's not the rifle. It's not the cartridge. It's the magazines, which allow for shooting lots of rounds without having to reload. But good luck with doing anything about them. There are probably a hundred million of them out there, if not more.
It’s Possible To Be Too Inclusive
1 hour ago
8 comments:
People like to talk yards but a good deer-hunter thinks in feet.
My first Savage (99G) was in .223 and I did shoot a deer with it at distance, probably 200ft, but what should have been a kill shot broke his front shoulder and he was very much alive when I caught up to him. My .300 (Savage 99G) will take down an elk at 300ft, but I wouldn't want to risk it. Take down a charging bear at less ~ funny in retrospect, not-so-much then.
Good summation, I have been annoyed at the lack of context ...
When I was deer-hunting, the shots were such that I began carrying a .44 Magnum revolver as it was far lighter and easier to carry than a .30-06 Mauser.
Agreed, nearly anything at short range will tend to be devastating,
Agreed, magazine capacity is a bigger issue overall.
Agreed, for now, good luck getting action…however, the rate of these incidents is climbing so fast that lawmakers (at least those that don’t homeschool) will start losing kids, and then we’ll see if the NRA money still talks.
Don't our snipers and such use 7.62 rounds?
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Doug, 7.62 NATO is used for intermediate ranges. .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua and .50 BMG is for long range work,
The lethality issue is amusing to me. When I was 18, I lived in a remote area. There is no excuse now, but we were young and poor and ate Deer. I had a scoped .22 long rifle and I used CCI Mini Mag .22 hollow points. A friend and I lost one in tall grass, but for well over a year, it was one shot, one kill, and home to eat. I was disgusted by guys that had to have a big centerfire to hunt. OK, I can see now, there are bigger Deer than the horned rabbits we hunted on the coast, and there are long shots to be made, and not everyone can hit a Deer's neck at 100 yards. In fact, I don't hunt at all anymore. I never saw it as a sport.
Anyway though. People are scared of a .223 as if it were some animate thing when a simple .22 and some accuracy are really all you need.
w3ski
I knew that there were guys shooting deer with .22 rimfires and doing so out of season. So did the Fish Cops. But those guys were poor, they were feeding their families and everyone looked the other way.
But those who were poaching because they were assholes often got caught.
I used a .30-06 because it was what I had and I obeyed the game laws.
Saying the .223 is "just" a .22, when it has significantly more velocity and energy than .22, is pretty wild. It has 5x more powder capacity and 3x more muzzle velocity in equivalent barrels and a slightly heavier bullet (55grain vs 40grain for average bullets), which translates to significantly more energy on target at short to medium distances.
I won't go into the history of the M14 vs AR-15/M16 because most of us know it already -- i.e., the M16 was developed because the M14 was uncontrollable in automatic fire, and the M14 ammunition was so heavy that it was hard to carry enough ammunition to use it for automatic fire. The lighter .223 just hits a sweet spot between weight, controllability, and deadliness if you're looking for a round for a battle rifle used at short to medium distances. Or want to shoot up a school and kill as many people as possible by hauling multiple large capacity magazines with you for an AR-15 pattern rifle.
Which is a problem.
Post a Comment