It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AR-15's are NOT designed to kill

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ArJunaBug
Yes.
It's much harder to conceal an AR15.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE

Light infantry arms aren't the killer, right (rolls eyes). Massed fire is designed to keep the enemies heads down so guys can sneak up on them and blow the crap out of them with something 'bigger'.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You're absolutely right. All laws essentially infringe on our rights to do whatever we want. If I want to get naked, drunk, and snort bathsalts going 120 mph through a residential area while shooting my AA-12 and M-60 out the window, by god, I should be able to! Just because some people can't handle drugs, military-grade firearms and Italian sports cars at the same time without causing harm to others doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to.
edit on 28-6-2016 by ultimafule because: spelling

edit on 28-6-2016 by ultimafule because: spelling



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE

As far as I know the .223 is used because it's a combination of power and rate of fire not because of its wounding capacity. That may be an extra benefit .

The shell is a mixture of power and size which means magazine size and how many shots available before changing.

That may not be good for the current dialogue with gun control folks

I can't believe nobody has said this already.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots


Get a good long look.

They and their ammunition will, in civilian life, be an artifact of history soon.


Soon relative to how long earth has been around perhaps... The best they are willing to try is another attempt at the last ban which only has 50% of approval in the polles. Even if they managed that all current ones would still be out there. Also the ammo used is the same ammo used in non-semi autos.
Either you are clueless or just trolling.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
5.56 was not selected becouse it wounds instead of kill, it was selected because it had less recoil than 7.62 and therefore higher rates of fire could be achieved


Originally when they designed the M16 they thought full auto was the only way to go as well and for that you need the bigger magazine. But having a bigger magazine also means more weight so they opted for a lighter round. They soon realized that full auto was a huge waste with 10,000 rounds averaged per combat kill. They then decided they didn't need full auto and could go to a bigger round but by then they had already designed and ordered and purchased all of this 5.56.

I might be a little off on some aspects but I know this was a big part in that decision. Anyone can ask some US service members how effective 5.56 is compared to the enemies 7.62. Enemies get shot by "us" all the time and just keep going. A limb shot is not debilitating in a lot of situations where as a limb or torso shot with 7.62 is devastating.
edit on 6/28/2016 by sputniksteve because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
You kow these rounds wound alot because on the battlefield in todays time you rarely get to see the enemy. You know where their general location is but you dont see them like this is call of duty. So these rounds wound alot due to them hitting something and comming out in sharpnel. But if they hit they do MASSIVE damage to what they hit. So they more than likely wound more than they kill just cause you cant see the thing you want to kill accurately.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kingj56

Not knowing who is posting this... I am not going to make any suggestions on visibility for killing people.

I'd hope others think before making such suggestions as well. Some want peace and some do not, and some only think peace arrives after they kill you, and fail to see themselves as any kind of issue in perpetuation of nonsense that has gone on for thousands and possibly millions of years in just all out human evolution and ignorance tagging along like a shadow.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Knives didn't start as "kitchen knives"... They were invented as hunting weapons, to kill. So, let's ban all knives, they are dangerous and we shouldn't trust anyone with knives.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Knives didn't start as "kitchen knives"... They were invented as hunting weapons, to kill. So, let's ban all knives, they are dangerous and we shouldn't trust anyone with knives.


That is a childish argument. The use of a knife in combat requires skill and courage; a gun does not. Japan banned guns in the early modern period because they were not as honorable as a sword.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Real peacefull enlightenment thought the Japanese had with those swords. They didn't co quer and rape with them or anything.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DJW001

Real peacefull enlightenment thought the Japanese had with those swords. They didn't co quer and rape with them or anything.


Of course they dealt death, but only at the risk of their own lives.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It doesn't mean much when the result and intention is the same. The Japanese were brutal. If you want to talk shop the Mongolians had a hire rate of fire with their laminate recurve Bowes than anything until the Henry repeater


Also firearms aren't all that easy to use. They may be easier than learning JiuJitsu but it still requires considerable training to be effective in combat.

As you see in China nut with a sword can hack up a class of students or a packed room full of people pretty well



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

If one wants to know the might of hand against gun they just need to look into the "Boxer Rebellion" of basically an uprising of martial arts against gun.

Of course when one is fearless one needs neither tool except for those of their everyday work... or basically enter the Shinobi that stood up to imperalism.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Also firearms aren't all that easy to use. They may be easier than learning JiuJitsu but it still requires considerable training to be effective in combat.


And no training at all if all you want to do is shoot up a nightclub, which is why they have become a pressing social issue.


As you see in China nut with a sword can hack up a class of students or a packed room full of people pretty well


But it is psychologically easier to rush someone with a knife or sword and overpower them than it is to rush someone with an "assault rifle."



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: luthier


Also firearms aren't all that easy to use. They may be easier than learning JiuJitsu but it still requires considerable training to be effective in combat.


And no training at all if all you want to do is shoot up a nightclub, which is why they have become a pressing social issue.


As you see in China nut with a sword can hack up a class of students or a packed room full of people pretty well


But it is psychologically easier to rush someone with a knife or sword and overpower them than it is to rush someone with an "assault rifle."


Dawg, did you honestly just say that it is psychologically easier to attack with a sword or blade than it is with a firearm? You might want to look that up.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Here's what I remember reading some years ago on the development of the 5.56 and the M16,

The reasons for going with the smaller round included less weight/more ammo being able to be carried. Greater capacity with smaller magazines, (less bulk), and yes, a less leathal round causing more wounds than deaths to either be "more humane" or to put additional foes out of action by needing to assist wounded.

What was found was the little bastards were quite devastating in actuall use though. The small lightweight bullet traveling at high velocities would tend to dump their energy on impact and begin to tumble erratically through tissues. Entry wounds in the leg were seen to tumble all the way to the chest cavity causing massive trauma. Death was common. And rather nasty.

A fix was to lower the powder charge to reduce velocity to limit this effect, but as an aside caused the guns to be prone to jams, as the gas pressures were reduced. The M16 quickly gained a bad rep among service personnel as being an unreliable piece of crap. The M14 and even M1s were preferred.

Eventually thing were sorted out, better ammo was produced, and the gun became one of the most successful platforms of all time.

So, in a way, yes they weren't designed to kill, but they kill quite well indeed. Much better than the popular Ak in 7.62x39. Which is why the Soviets addopted the 5.56 I would think.


The Russians have adopted the 5.45x39 round as the standard AK-74 chambering. The 5.56x45 is a efficient round against humans, but Lord knows...I would not want to use it against an elephant, Cape Buffalo or even a T-Rex for that matter.

It is efficient [5.56x45] in an AR-15 platform against humans...because you can have sustained rates of rapid fire without significant muzzle rise --- as long as you can hold the AR in the correct position.

"Two shots fired in 1.5 seconds --- rounds touching each other in the heart area --- That's effective --- Or 6 rounds fired in 1.5 seconds...in a combat effective zone [torso area] --- Both are effective...but one is obviously a lot more efficient."

quote: Travis Haley


edit on 6-7-2016 by Erno86 because: added a couple of words

edit on 6-7-2016 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Many years ago, a sergeant told me in a conversation about combat/fighting while in Vietnam. He said, you must decide if you will be a victim or a victor. It doesn't matter the type of weapon that you use or how you use it. You must use whatever weapon that is at hand and win the contest or die.

All weapons are assault weapons in a sense. I am a pro 2nd person and I will fight to keep my weapons but they are just an inanimate tool in my home safe. They have no will of their own and can't harm anyone without an input from a human. If a human wants to kill there is nothing to stop them. They will kill you with a rock, a tire iron or whatever is at hand.

Banning firearm will not stop the killing. Where there is a will, there's a way regardless if you have a gun or not. It is the evil in the heart!



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
We are dealing with something called MILITARY SCIENCE in the wounding issue here.
Everyone is using LOGIC and that won't do ,if you've ever seen the movie "Pentagon Wars" you get it.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve


Dawg, did you honestly just say that it is psychologically easier to attack with a sword or blade than it is with a firearm? You might want to look that up.


Reading comprehension issues, I see. It is easier to rush someone who is only armed with a knife, capisc?




top topics



 
16
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join