That pissant M-16/AR-15 rifle round...

[Gilligan]

Cdr. Salamander weighs in...with Bob Scales for background.

This gets right to the core of the myth that gun-ignorant (or agenda-pushing) anti-2A types like to spout so often; they constantly refer to the weakest combat infantry rifle caliber ever fielded as "high powered".

It's not that at all....it's a pissant.


http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-simple-right-thing-is-often-most.html

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I remember a firearms course I took where the instructor was a homicide detective. He said the most deadly round he saw was a .22.

 

[Gilligan]

I remember a firearms course I took where the instructor was a homicide detective. He said the most deadly round he saw was a .22.

I have to wonder what criteria he based that opinion on? Hit larger animals and people pretty much anywhere except for a couple small and key areas with a .22 and it won't even impair them.

It's the penetration and stopping power that matters most.

 

[black dog]

I remember a firearms course I took where the instructor was a homicide detective. He said the most deadly round he saw was a .22.

Generally they aren't incapacitated right then, they die a few days later when shot by a rimfire.
Like Gilligan says, hydrostatic shock creates a wound channel. That's what kills.
Not much shock with a 22 LR.

A .224 bullet weighing 55, 62 or 77 grains does a pretty good job when it finds a home.
Exspecially a nato 55 or 62 grainer downrange thats lost yaw and it's tumbling 300 to 500 yards downrange depending on the barrel length it was fired from.

 

[glhs837]

I'll gues it was some percentage hyperbole for effect, combnied with the prevelance of .22s on the streets.

 

[Gilligan]

This was interesting...

Snipers with Special Operations Command will see a barrel swap on their 7.62 mm rifles as early as next year to a commercially available 6.5 mm caliber.

I'm assuming it's the 6.5 Creedmoor, a very popular round with shooters these days. I'm rather fond of my smaller 6.5 Grendel, the Creedmoor's little brother.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/military-looking-6-5-creedmoor/

 

[Kyle]

I was issued an A1 in boot camp. First impression was “A 22?!? WTF?!?”

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I have to wonder what criteria he based that opinion on? Hit larger animals and people pretty much anywhere except for a couple small and key areas with a .22 and it won't even impair them.

It's the penetration and stopping power that matters most.

Generally they aren't incapacitated right then, they die a few days later when shot by a rimfire.
Like Gilligan says, hydrostatic shock creates a wound channel. That's what kills.
Not much shock with a 22 LR.

A .224 bullet weighing 55, 62 or 77 grains does a pretty good job when it finds a home.
Exspecially a nato 55 or 62 grainer downrange thats lost yaw and it's tumbling 300 to 500 yards downrange depending on the barrel length it was fired from.

I assume he was basing it off of him seeing dead bodies shot up with .22s. He was an older guy, so that likely could have been related to the prevelance of Saturday Night Specials at the time.

He said the issue was how the bullet bounced around in the body tearing #### up.

 

[Gilligan]

I assume he was basing it off of him seeing dead bodies shot up with .22s. He was an older guy, so that likely could have been related to the prevelance of Saturday Night Specials at the time.

He said the issue was how the bullet bounced around in the body tearing #### up.

On the one hand...dirt cheap .22 and .380 handguns are certainly widely prevalent in the hoods.

On the other...I've never seen evidence in any animal I've ever shot with a .22 of any "bouncing around in the body". Sounds like he was exaggerating for effect... ;-)

 

[Gilligan]

I was issued an A1 in boot camp. First impression was “A 22?!? WTF?!?”

My step father spent a fair amount of time in Vietnam in the late 60s and was a Korean War vet. He had a very low opinion of the M-16 after seeing it in action and comparing it to the M1 he carried in Korea. Or even compared to the M-14. He said it sucked in jungle warfare because all a round had to do was nick a leaf or twig and it would tumble out of control, whereas the ole .30-06 would plow right through small trees and keep on going.

My bro-in-law set up a firing range for some family shooting at Thanksgiving last year. He stacked a bunch of logs that he'd cut for firewood and pinned targets to them. The were cut about 18-20" long and stacked so we were shooting at them end-on. After some of the others shot, I drug out one of my Russky rifles that shoots 7.62x54r (only slightly less power than .30-06). After I'd taken a few shots my bro-in- realized that the trees in the woods immediately behind the target backtop were being hit...those .30 rounds were going through the logs end to end and still tearing up the trees in back of them. The 5.56 M-16/Ar-15 rounds barely penetrated the wood a few inches by comparison.

Can't wait to try out my new .50 BMG however....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

On the one hand...dirt cheap .22 and .380 handguns are certainly widely prevalent in the hoods.

On the other...I've never seen evidence in any animal I've ever shot with a .22 of any "bouncing around in the body". Sounds like he was exaggerating for effect... ;-)

Kill many animals the size of humans with a .22?

 

[black dog]

My step father spent a fair amount of time in Vietnam in the late 60s and was a Korean War vet. He had a very low opinion of the M-16 after seeing it in action and comparing it to the M1 he carried in Korea. Or even compared to the M-14. He said it sucked in jungle warfare because all a round had to do was nick a leaf or twig and it would tumble out of control, whereas the ole .30-06 would plow right through small trees and keep on going.

My bro-in-law set up a firing range for some family shooting at Thanksgiving last year. He stacked a bunch of logs that he'd cut for firewood and pinned targets to them. The were cut about 18-20" long and stacked so we were shooting at them end-on. After some of the others shot, I drug out one of my Russky rifles that shoots 7.62x54r (only slightly less power than .30-06). After I'd taken a few shots my bro-in- realized that the trees in the woods immediately behind the target backtop were being hit...those .30 rounds were going through the logs end to end and still tearing up the trees in back of them. The 5.56 M-16/Ar-15 rounds barely penetrated the wood a few inches by comparison.

Can't wait to try out my new .50 BMG however....

Let's not forget, the object is to wound, not kill. It takes more soldiers / Marines to take care of wounded than dead men.
The M14 is a great rifle, but I can't imagine carrying one through the jungles of VN and Cambodia.

What 50 BMG did you buy?

 

[black dog]

Kill many animals the size of humans with a .22?

I worked with a few men that were quite accomplished with a suppressed Colt Woodsman or a Colt Service Ace pistol.

 

[Gilligan]

Kill many animals the size of humans with a .22?

Only hogs..to 400 pounds or so. Many, many of them. Stupid question to begin with.. did you have a point?...or is it your assertion that the ballistic response properties of groundhogs, for example, are distinctly different than human bodies? Love to see your dissertation on that.

 

[Gilligan]

What 50 BMG did you buy?

29" Safety Harbor.

 

[black dog]

29" Safety Harbor.

Post a report please.. I have a half dozen or so different 50 rounds..
Ever shoot spotter tracers?

 

[Gilligan]

Ever shoot spotter tracers?

Nope. Entering new territory for me.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Only hogs..to 400 pounds or so. Many, many of them. Stupid question to begin with.. did you have a point?...or is it your assertion that the ballistic response properties of groundhogs, for example, are distinctly different than human bodies? Love to see your dissertation on that.

How is it a stupid question? You talked about shooting animals with a .22 and I assumed you wouldn't be out there using a 22LR to hog hunt 400lb hogs. What state was that in?

The whole "bouncing around" thing, as it was so clearly stated, was not my assertion to begin with so I'm certainly not going to spend time proving something so easily provable or that humans and groundhogs have different body structures.

 

[Gilligan]

The whole "bouncing around" thing, as it was so clearly stated, was not my assertion to begin with so I'm certainly not going to spend time proving something so easily provable or that humans and groundhogs have different body structures.

Then why did you challenge what I posted about it? ;-)

I'll still wait breathlessly for your considered and expert explanation as to why and how .22 rounds miraculously "bounce around" inside humans but not other mammals.

 

[Kyle]

Let's not forget, the object is to wound, not kill. It takes more soldiers / Marines to take care of wounded than dead men.

That works when you're fighting civilized enemies.

The #### bags we been fighting through the last four wars don't seem to give a rats ass when their comrades fall. Another one just moves up to take his place.