Gun question.

In Texas wild hogs are a huge problem they are very destructive . An AR 15 makes a great hog gun. It's rapid rate of fire and reload allows you to shoot more pigs before they can scatter. We shoot them on our farm at night with a AR 15 an a night scope.

This video is not me and at least one gun used is a AR 15.



The wild hog problem infrequently materializes here in Boston, but I suppose that it doesn't hurt to be ready just in case.
Meanwhile, pork is the least expensive meat in the supermarket right now.
I wish that beef was that price, too.
 
A clip is not a magazine.

At dinner parties, sometimes there is that jerk who points out that technically, champagne is only white wine from the champagne region of France. They try to look educated, but instead just look a little silly.

In combat, they do not exist. There is no way Night was ever in a military.
 
One wonders why. The NATO 5.56 round isn't as lethal as the .223 Remington hollow point hunting round...although obviously lethal enough.

I could be wrong, but I think that the NATO 5.56 is an extremely slight improvement on the .223 Remington, and thus is just about equally lethal.
 
I could be wrong, but I think that the NATO 5.56 is an extremely slight improvement on the .223 Remington, and thus is just about equally lethal.

The military round by international law is fully jacketed. If it doesn't hit a vital organ, it makes a clean hole going in and out.
The hunting round has a hollow point causing the bullet to expand upon entry and tear everything up for a quick kill.

The reason for both is meant to be humane.

You don't necessarily need to kill an enemy combatant. You simply need to remove him from the battle.

In contrast, you want to humanely kill game as immediately upon impact as possible.
 
The military round by international law is fully jacketed. If it doesn't hit a vital organ, it makes a clean hole going in and out.
The hunting round has a hollow point causing the bullet to expand upon entry and tear everything up for a quick kill.

The reason for both is meant to be humane.

You don't necessarily need to kill an enemy combatant. You simply need to remove him from the battle.

In contrast, you want to humanely kill game as immediately upon impact as possible.

Interesting. I do know that these high velocity rounds will leave huge cavities, so can do a lot of damage beyond making a clean hole. But yes, I do know they are required to be full metal jackets.
 
Looking at the numbers, I would guess the average murderer does not wake up the morning of the murder knowing he will murder that day. He realizes he might murder that day, but that is just possible. He does not want to lug a big rifle around with him all day on just the vague possibility, so he picks a pistol.

.45's are made for killing horses. I doubt many people want to kill horses, so they will pick a 9mm. A 9mm would be lighter, easier to carry, and would generally allow more shots. If you want to kill a human, then more shots are better.

So to answer the original question, what makes the AR-15 so lethal? 9mm or even bullets with less force pistols are far more lethal, in that, they are far more likely to be carried and used by killers in the USA.
Nice argument about murderers lugging around rifles. Makes you wonder why the Democrats have such a hard on to ban semiautomatic rifles over handguns, eh? LOL

While your claim that the .45 ACP was developed to shoot horses is intriguing, the historical reason is the ineffectiveness of the .38 to stop drugged Moro warriors in the Philippines. Although Moro warriors shot with a .38 would often bleed out, it was only after they'd killed US troops. A bullet with knock-down power negated the effects of drugs or otherwise psychologically enthused warriors.


https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/history-45-acp-cartridge/
History of the .45 ACP Cartridge
As a result of numerous instances of the new .38 service pistols being ineffective the US Army was forced to hastily re-issue mothballed Single Action Amy .45 Colts. IMG : historicalfirearms.info
----
They reasoned that since their .38 Long Colt Model 1892 revolvers had shown similarly poor results, and the re-issuance of the .45 SAA (Single Action Arm) into combat had added to the eventual defeat of the Philippine Moros, our military review board sought to adopt another large bore handgun. The British too paralleled this thought process, and as early as the mid-1880s they had already started issuing some of the first .455 Webley revolvers as a result.

https://filipiknow.net/early-filipino-warriors-used-drugs-to-enhance-their-killing-capabilities/
By the 18th century, Augustinian historian Antonio Mozo discovered that early Visayan and Mindanaoan warriors didn’t exclusively use opium to get high. For instance, a root crop, known in Kapampangan as “sugapa,” could provide even the meekest warrior with the reckless courage needed in war.

As reported by Mozo, “he who eats it is made beside himself, and rendered so furious that while its effect lasts he cares not for dangers, nor even hesitates to rush into the midst of pikes and swords.”

He added that “by eating it at the time of the attack, they enter the battle like furious wild beasts, without turning back even when their force is cut to pieces; on the other hand, even when one of them is pierced from side to side with a lance, he will raise himself by that very lance in order to strike at him who had pierced him.”
 
I could be wrong, but I think that the NATO 5.56 is an extremely slight improvement on the .223 Remington, and thus is just about equally lethal.

It has more power which is why older .223 Remingtons may not be able to safely handle the higher powered 5.56mm even though it would fit into the chamber.

A main reason on lethality is the difference between the FMJ military bullet vs. a SP or HP tipped hunting bullet as others have already mentioned.
 
Your analogies are lacking, Unc.

Disagreed, neef. By your logic, automobiles should be limited in size, power and require higher licensing and mental health checks....but you and I both know the autocratic assholes seeking to impose gun control are more focused upon control, not saving the lives of America's 30,000 auto fatalities or 45,000 suicides.

H1-Alpha.jpg
 
Mostly the large capacity clip. It's actually a fairly small caliber.

My main objection to it is that it's a quasi-military weapon, not a legitimate sporting firearm.
A sporting arm will suffice for self-defense, but an AR-15 is an overtly offensive weapon.
I was issued an M-16, the actual military version. I still remember what it was for.
The LAST thing I ever wanted to do was to take the ugly piece of shit home with me.

I totally agree.

1968 Tan Son Nhut AB
rjm2F6j.jpg
 
I totally agree.

1968 Tan Son Nhut AB
rjm2F6j.jpg

Thank you for your service. My dad has that very gun in his safe. He really liked them and wanted one to deer hunt with after he retired back in the 90’s so I bought him one. He’s taken a few deer with it but he never took to deer hunting like I did.
 
OK here is a couple questions for you. Is a .223 a "large caliber" round. Is a AR 15 magazine feed or clip feed?


Keep in mind having a 30 round clip is pretty difficult but a 30 round magazine is pretty common.

The large caliber was a come on to see if anyone actually knew what the AR-15 caliber is. Second I have shown you that the fucking term clip was interchanged with magazine for years after WWII.
The AR-15 is a gas operated semi-automatic magazine fed weapon based on the military version M-16. Happy?
Have you ever carried or fired an M-16 in full auto? I have so you can stop whining now.
 
OK here is a couple questions for you. Is a .223 a "large caliber" round. Is a AR 15 magazine feed or clip feed?


Keep in mind having a 30 round clip is pretty difficult but a 30 round magazine is pretty common.
At the end of the day, it functions the same as any semi-automatic handgun.

You push the button each time a bullet is fired.

It is not a machine gun that sprays bullets as the leftist hoax implies.

There is NO difference in the mechanism between an AR-15 and a Glock semi-automatic handgun, the only difference is the former is a "big skeery looking gun."

Moronic.
 
I am going to outline my debate opinion for the 9mm. I am sure people will post how wrong I am, but they do not get what debating opinions are about.

It is optimized for killing humans, and gives you roughly twice as many shots as a .45 ACP. The NYPD found that nearly two thirds of time they shot at someone less than 2 yards away, they missed completely. I do not care how big a bullet is, if it misses who you are shooting at completely, it is no good. If you can quickly shoot a lot, something will probably hit.

Also it has a relatively un-curved shot. That is very good for shooters who are not perfect. You point it and shoot, simple. And remember keeping a perfect shot requires huge amounts of constant practice, which takes away from doing your actual job.

While your claim that the .45 ACP was developed to shoot horses is intriguing

Back then calvary was seen as a major force, so horse killing was considered important. Calvary was meant to breakthrough lines, so troops that would not normally carry a rifle would have to deal with them.

the historical reason is the ineffectiveness of the .38 to stop drugged Moro warriors in the Philippines. Although Moro warriors shot with a .38 would often bleed out, it was only after they'd killed US troops. A bullet with knock-down power negated the effects of drugs or otherwise psychologically enthused warriors.

That is a commonly given reason in the USA, but what about the other countries? And what about the .45 Colt? The .45 Colt was used right after the Civil War, when the Philippines were firmly Spanish, and no American was planning on taking them on.
 
It has more power which is why older .223 Remingtons may not be able to safely handle the higher powered 5.56mm even though it would fit into the chamber.

A main reason on lethality is the difference between the FMJ military bullet vs. a SP or HP tipped hunting bullet as others have already mentioned.

We sometimes underestimate what a serious weapon the M16 is. It is a killing machine.
 
Back
Top