Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm

In the retelling.

In reality I have said it was optimized around the temporary cavity principle.

And after all these years they have determined that the round is too light and does not do what it is supposed.  Thats's why they are switching.

 

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:38 pm

And after all these years they have determined that the round is too light and does not do what it is supposed.  Thats's why they are switching.

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

It is not just the body armor.  

Who is deflecting now?  This is about the round and the Colonel's comments.  And your lack of experience, 5x.

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

PS.  Most rag heads did not have body armor, never mind effective body armor.  You have not experience.

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

Translation....

"I'm getting my *** kicked again and need to change a the subject, quick!"

 

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:49 pm

It is not just the body armor.  

Who is deflecting now?  This is about the round and the Colonel's comments.  And your lack of experience, 5x.

No...this is about some stupid "point" you can't articulate.

The round wasn't rendered less effective by developments in cotton science.

It is every bit as effective against unprotected human flesh as ever.
 

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:52 pm

Translation....

"I'm getting my *** kicked again and need to change a the subject, quick!"

How the **** is that changing what subject?

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

The stereotypical Libtard bases it's beliefs on all the flukes, outliers, exceptions to the rule, the 1/2 truths, 1/4 truths and all out lies as well.
The STEM challenged  Libtard has no sense of scale, no way  to fully understand the difference between what is extremely rare and what is a statistically robust trend in our nation of over 330MM people.      

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08 ... hat-werent
 

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:52 pm

PS.  Most rag heads did not have body armor, never mind effective body armor.  You have not experience.

So I assume a badass like you saved rounds and just bayoneted the bastages, eh?


**** valor filcher...

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:53 pm

No...this is about some stupid "point" you can't articulate.

The round wasn't rendered less effective by developments in cotton science.

It is every bit as effective against unprotected human flesh as ever.

That's not what the military determined.  Or they wouldn't be changing to a heavier round that inflicts more damage.

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm

So I assume a badass like you saved rounds and just bayoneted the bastages, eh?

**** valor filcher...

What did Huey say that leads you to believe he is a "Valor Filcher"...?
I think the rest of us know what your real problem with Huey is.      

 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm

So I assume a badass like you saved rounds and just bayoneted the bastages, eh?

**** valor filcher...

1.  I never said I was a badass. 

2.  And what valor did I steal?  I have never said what I have done in that regard on these forums except to answer that one question you followed me and asked for day.  And that was generic.

This is exactly why I never talk about.  Bitter little office pod guys diver with it.  Ya know, the guys who hid behind Options.  

You had your shot.  You wilted like a flower.

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm

That's not what the military determined.  Or they wouldn't be changing to a heavier round that inflicts more damage.

Yammering stool.

The new weapons use 6.8mm rounds as the Army looked for heftier ammo than the current 5.56mm used in the M4 and SAW to better defeat body armor, protective equipment that adversaries are expected to have in future conflicts and gear that is already becoming more commonplace for terror groups


https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... rifle.html

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm

That's not what the military determined.  Or they wouldn't be changing to a heavier round that inflicts more damage.

The stopping power of the 5.56 has been in question since literally day one. 

It simply wasn't designed to be a heavy hitter, and never has been... regardless of how the media has tried to sell it to the anti gunners.

Of course people like Rico lapped up the **** like an orphan eating pablum anyway, because it supported their narrative.




 

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 12:29 pm

Sounds like this guy sold his integrity....He is paid $200 bucks an hour as a court expert.

Colonel Tucker qualified MSRs as “assault weapons” based on California’s list of cosmetic characteristics that have nothing to do whatsoever with the rifle’s actual functions. He testifies that the selector switch that renders an M-4 capable of automatic fire is a “picayune” or “petty or worthless” difference. By that definition, Colonel Tucker would classify any semiautomatic firearm as a “weapon of war.”

 But he goes further.

 “A single round is capable of severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation. The round is designed to kill, not wound, and both the AR-15 and M4 contain barrel rifling to make the round tumble upon impact and cause more severe injury.”

 I’m not doubting the colonel’s combat acumen. I certainly can’t say that’s what I saw in combat. I never witnessed a single 5.56mm round fired at the enemy decapitate or sever a human body in half. If this were true of the 5.56mm cartridge, it would beg the question why the military is spending millions to move to the 6.8mm Next Generation Squad Weapon, using a heavier caliber that carries more kinetic energy downrange. It would also beg the question of why the military also uses 7.62x51mm, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua Magnum and .50 BMG caliber ammunition. If the 5.56mm cartridge were that devastating, there would clearly be no additional need for heavier bullets with more gunpowder behind them.

 I’ve killed coyotes and prairie dogs with both 5.56mm and .223 Remington. Nothing of what Colonel Tucker describes ever happened on these much smaller targets. In fact, in my home state, the .223/5.56mm cartridge isn’t considered powerful enough for an ethical harvest of whitetail deer.

https://www.nssf.org/articles/marine-co ... testimony/

I have also shot live targets.  The Colonel is full of ****.  

@R. Suave   is there where you get you info from?

Great post.  I might add that the difference, ballistically, between 5.56 and .223 is about 83 fps.  That's all.  I just watched a video of someone demonstrating these 2 nearly identical rounds fired at a ballistic gel dummy, 1/4" steel and 3/8" steel.  Both rounds penetrated 1/4" steel at close range - the holes were identical.  Neither round penetrated the 3/8" steel, but both made protrusions. The protrusion of the 5.56 was maybe a millimeter longer, at most.

Both rounds went right through the ballistic gel dummy - no tumbling at all.  All rifled barrels are designed to spin bullets so that they do not tumble.  The barrel design and spin of the bullet is directly related to the weight/grain of the bullet being used, to stabilize and avoid tumbling.  Bullets, ALL BULLETS deflect when they hit bone - and that's what causes what this dim-bulb, Colonel Tucker is actually describing.  The bottom line is there is the difference between 5.56 and .223 is 83 fps. So, when you are talking about a bullet that travels between 2,700  and 3,600 fps (depending on how its loaded) - a difference of 83 fps is negligible in terms of destructive power.

Semi-autos are not considered "weapons of war".   Even many full-autos are not considered "weapons of war".  Ever see someone go to war with an M10 (Mac 10) - other than on vintage reruns of Miami Vice?
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 12:33 pm

What's so funny is the 5.56 was specifically designed to tumble and wound verses killing instantly... as to tie up the enemies resources on the battlefield tending to wounded casualties instead of stepping over dead ones.

Plus, the troops could carry more ammunition on their person, due to the smaller size and weight of the 5.56 cartridge.

It was never designed for that.  It was deigned for its weigh (ease of carrying more ammo)t, light recoil,  flat trajectory and retention of power over longer distances. No one designs a bullet to "tumble" or "wound".
 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:54 pm

How the **** is that changing what subject?

Why are you asking me?

You're the one doing it.

 
 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

Obviously body armor became more effective.

Which is entirely irrelevant in the context of shooting school children.

I have news for you.  .22LR, .25, .32, .380, 9mm largo, 38 special, .357, 9mm, 10mm, 44 special, 44 magnum, 45acp, 45 long colt, .223, 5.56, 5.62x39, 7 millimeter, .308, 7.62x51, etc. can all kill school children.
 

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 5:08 pm

Huey » 19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm

That's not what the military determined.  Or they wouldn't be changing to a heavier round that inflicts more damage.

Yammering stool.

The new weapons use 6.8mm rounds as the Army looked for heftier ammo than the current 5.56mm used in the M4 and SAW to better defeat body armor, protective equipment that adversaries are expected to have in future conflicts and gear that is already becoming more commonplace for terror groups


https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... rifle.html

 

I have already said that and I probably provided you with that link.  

And remember said about rag heads and the wording you are posting now.

This comment is past tense:

PS.  Most rag heads did not have body armor, never mind effective body armor.  You have not experience.

Bidencrimefamily » 19 Feb 2024, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 12:45 pm

Never shot a ar 15.  

But i have shot 22 rifle and ive never severed a squirrels head off much less a full grown human

LOL - are you saying that .223/5.56 can sever the head off of a full grown human?  Where the F- do you people get this kind of ****?  A 12-gauge shotgun loaded  with 000 buck, high brass, at very close range - maybe.