Civil Liberties

Why New York's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Didn't Stop the Buffalo Massacre

The problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell accessories; it's legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.

|

The suspect in the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store on Saturday used a rifle that was widely described as an "assault weapon." With certain exceptions that don't apply here, that category of firearms is illegal in New York. Yet The New York Times reports that the shooter legally bought the rifle from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. How is that possible?

It turns out that the rifle, a Bushmaster XM-15 ES, was not an "assault weapon" at the time of the purchase, but it became an "assault weapon" after the shooter tinkered with it. The details of that transformation illustrate how arbitrary and ineffectual bans like New York's are.

Under the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (NY SAFE) Act, a 2013 law that was hurriedly passed in response to the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, "assault weapons" include semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have one or more of seven "military-style" features. If we can trust the photograph in the online manifesto attributed to the Buffalo shooter, the rifle he bought had a pistol grip, which is one of the prohibited features. So why was the sale legal?

The manifesto says "the person who had this [rifle] before me" made it compliant with New York law by installing "a Mean Arms magazine lock, which fixed a 10 round magazine" to the gun. The fixed magazine meant that the rifle no longer qualified as an "assault weapon." But the shooter easily reversed that modification so that the rifle could accept detachable magazines, meaning it was once again an "assault weapon" when he used it in the attack.

That difference has practical implications, since the ability to switch magazines makes it easier to quickly reload a gun. But other workarounds allow New Yorkers to legally buy and own AR-15-style rifles like the Bushmaster XM-15 that are functionally identical to prohibited models. You can replace an adjustable stock with a fixed stock, for example, and replace a pistol grip with a Thordsen grip or a spur grip, neither of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," which the NY SAFE Act prohibits.

As long as the rifle has none of the other features on New York's list (such as a threaded barrel, a thumbhole stock, or a bayonet mount), it is not an "assault weapon," even if it accepts detachable magazines. Such "featureless" rifles are perfectly legal in New York, even though they fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the banned models.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who sponsored the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban and has been agitating for a new, supposedly improved version since that ban expired in 2004, thinks parts that allow gun owners to comply with such laws are intolerable. She wants to prohibit "Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons." But the problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell such accessories; it is irrational legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.

Alan Thordsen, founder and CEO of Thordsen Customs, was bemused by Feinstein's attitude. "What our rifle stock does is remove both of those individually named items [a folding or adjustable stock and a pistol grip] and replace them with a single-piece, solid, traditional-style rifle stock like you can find on any other traditional-style rifle," Thordsen told me a few years ago. "If there's a feature that is banned, we change the feature. That's not evading. That's not skirting the law or violating the spirit of the law. We are conforming with the law and creating products that enable law-abiding people to keep their legal firearms in a legal configuration so that they are not criminals."

The NY SAFE Act allowed people who already owned guns covered by its new definition of "assault weapons" to keep them as long as they registered them with the state police within a year after the law took effect. The National Shooting Sports Federation estimated that New Yorkers owned about a million "assault weapons" when the ban was enacted. But only 44,000 have been registered with the state police. That figure suggests massive noncompliance, even allowing for the possibility that some gun owners may have sold their "assault weapons" to buyers in other states, as permitted by the NY SAFE Act.

Possessing an unregistered "assault weapon" in New York is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison. Given the negligible difference between illegal "assault weapons" and "featureless" models that comply with state law, it is hard to see what public safety payoff the state got by turning hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding gun owners into felons.

The NY SAFE Act also banned the sale and unregistered possession of "large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]." The limit originally was set at seven rounds, a rule that had to be modified when legislators discovered that the seven-round magazines they mandated did not exist. The amended law said people could own 10-round magazines as long as they never put more than seven rounds in them. Seriously. In 2013 a federal judge deemed that provision unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed in 2015.

On Meet the Press yesterday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the Buffalo shooter "was able to enhance the gun he bought legally in New York," which allowed him to use "an increased-capacity magazine," and that is "exactly what we think he did." Assuming the magazines held more than 10 rounds, that detail, along with the shooter's illegal modification of the rifle, illustrates a point that should be obvious: Mass murderers are not punctilious about obeying gun control laws. The main effect of such limits is to incommode (and possibly endanger) law-abiding gun owners, who can no longer legally buy the "large capacity" magazines that are standard for many firearms.

Even if the shooter was for some reason worried about violating New York's gun regulations, he could have killed just as many people using a legally compliant rifle with 10-round magazines. The distinctions that legislators deem important, it turns out, do not actually matter in the real world.

NEXT: Buffalo Shooting Will Prompt Measures 'To Combat Domestic Terrorism,' Says Pelosi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

349 responses to “Why New York's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Didn't Stop the Buffalo Massacre

  1. Moar lawz needed.

    1. Yes: we need laws against teaching kids in public schools that they are members of distinct racial groups and "communities" locked in centuries-long conflicts with each other. Because as long as that's what you teach kids, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the more mentally unstable among them (both black and white) pick up guns and commit acts of mass murder and terrorism.

      1. Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. (rrt25) My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
        .
        More information. >> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

    2. Absolutely! We need a law that makes it illegal for airhead politicians to make laws that violate the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment - because apparently, the Constitution is some imaginary simulation in their minds. Had there been multiple concealed carry permit holders at the scene of the crime, most likely Mr. Left-wing Nazi greenie nutbag mass murderer would now be fertilizing some new plant life, where he belonged.

      1. You get 3 fucking seconds NOT to be stupid. Fuck off

        1. Or what?

      2. Just outlaw the practice of Marxism. That fixes a lot of problems right there. It also effectively ends the democrat party.

      3. It is much more important to keep these bureaucrats from directly circumventing the 10th Amendment.

        The idea being that if the enumerated power is not described in the Constitution, then the Federal government has no power to do that thing. There are 10s of thousands of examples of such overreach.

    3. If it had a Mean Arms Maglock then the guy also could have used Mean Arms MA Loaders to quickly reload after each 10 rounds, and it's as fast as swapping out 10 round magazines. He also could have installed an AR Maglock and just swapped magazines as fast as normal. Maybe he could have bought a Ruger Mini-14 and just used that.

      1. If you really want to see body counts in close quarters increase, wait until criminals/crazies figure out that a 12ga with 00 buck will slaughter with far more reliability than rifles. Rifles by design are made for longer distances encounters while shotguns are better at shorter distances.

    4. Yes. Laws create magic force fields that protect us from everything. To the left they ar like Linus’s security blanket.

      1. yup.. and tariff laws can protect us against the industrial revolution outside of America and immigration laws can protect against us against people moving from points A to point B!

  2. I haven't checked for sure, but I think that going into a grocery store and killing people is already very very illegal.

    1. Only if you are white.

      1. Or in the midst of a racial justice mostly peaceful protest

  3. Defined by George Patton as "the greatest battle implement ever devised", the M1 Garand has only one feature of the "assault rifle" listing; a bayonet lug.

    1. Semi auto but limited to an 8 round clip [and it is actually a "clip"] that pings out of the magazine well when empty. But it sure laid a lot of Nazis to rest.

      1. My legion post uses M-1 for funeral details. I'm not sure if it is the blank adapter or what but we often get misfires. But I also note that when we used blank adapters on our M-16A2 rifles in the Army they were much less reliable.

        1. M-1 is, allegedly, very picky about ammo. I've been warned by multiple old-timers never to use reloads in an M-1 because not only do they stand to misfire, but they can ruin the firing pin.

        2. My unit had M16A1’s. They were very unreliable when equipped with blank adapters.

      2. Maybe the Russians need some? Probably not sine they still have millions of Mosin Nagants that killed millions more NAZIs than the M1 ever did.

    2. M-1 Garand:
      Action Gas-operated, closed rotating bolt
      Rate of fire 40–50 rounds/min
      Muzzle velocity 2,800 ft/s
      Effective firing range 500 yd

      Bushmaster XM-15 ES:
      Action Gas operated, direct impingement
      Rate of fire Semi-auto
      Muzzle velocity 3,260 feet per second (rifle), 3,100 feet per second (carbine)
      Effective firing range 600 yards

      Gun law writing democrats don't know a damn thing about firearms.

      1. Anti gun people never know a damn thing about guns, period.

    3. yea well Patton wasnt the one getting his ass shot up by the German STG 44

      1. The problem is the STG-44 came out to late and there were never enough of them (because they had to hide development from Hitler who opposed the STG-44 until the soldiers started praising it). The vast majority of wermacht soldiers were still armed with the K-98 and the M-1 was miles ahead of the K-98.

        1. The Wermacht's problem is that they were basically LARPing as the WWI German field army and were unable to get rid of some of the outdated equipment.

          1. Luckily for them at the start of the war Britain and France also were larping WW1.

  4. That difference has practical implications, since the ability to switch magazines makes it easier to quickly reload a gun.

    You're getting ahead of yourself with the narrative here. It doesn't make it easier to reload a gun more quickly. The 10-round box goes in the same slot the same way and weighs less. It does make it more efficient to put more rounds on target more quickly but, even then, we aren't talking about some sort of Leah Thomas advantage here.

    1. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shooter killed 17 using 10 round mags.

  5. Prediction: Because someone sold a modifiable "assault weapon" to an 18 year old, Democrats will use this shooting to repeal or limit the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, seeking to impose liability upon, not just gun manufacturers, but gun dealers. Gun dealers won't be able to get insurance and, as a result, gun shops will close up and law abiding citizens will be unable to buy guns legally, effectively using private industry and tort bar to accomplish that which the government cannot do without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Reason will then shrug its collective shoulders and say "eh, private industry, whatcanyoudo?"

    1. Reason will then shrug its collective shoulders and say "eh, private industry, whatcanyoudo?"

      And then *immediately* turn around when the same thing happens to abortion (ignoring the fact that the abortive doctor and patient actually kill someone, or nearly so, directly and pre-emptively, while gun dealers never kill anyone who doesn't actively and knowingly try to kill them first) and say "They could do this to your 2A rights!" completely oblivious to the fact that it had already been done.

      1. What're sex workers, chopped liver?

        1. What's chopped liver, a fetish?

          1. Only if you do it right.

            1. I've always did think it looked like afterbirth.

              1. Unsure whether this casts more serious doubts on your Mother's cooking skills or parenting skills.

                1. She was a good cook and though imperfect she did her best with parenting [and very well considering what she came from], but working in a hospital you see things you can't un-see.

                  1. *This*

                  2. Half kidding. Saw plenty of afterbirth growing up, none of it human. Enough to know that if you saw something that looked like a liver in the afterbirth, something had gone terribly wrong.

          2. I prefer to think of chopped liver as making do.

        2. Yes, and often served with a nice Chianti.

  6. I suppose the answer then is to just take all the laws off the books and give everyone a rifle.

    Seems to be working well so far.

    1. Guns are magic. They compel people to do things. The bigger the magazine the bigger the compulsion. And jealousy. That's why high capacity magazines must be illegal. For the same reason why women must cover themselves. To protect men from their basic instincts.

    2. Would definitely save some lives.

    3. If everyone had had a rifle in the TOPs market...

      1. If everyone in New York state who wanted a gun could simply walk into a gun store and shortly thereafter walk out with a gun and almost, or as easily, carry it concealed, the crim here would have likely gone elsewhere, or not anywhere at all, due to his manifesto stating he went where he did due to New York's restrictive gun control laws.

    4. I know you think you're being sarcastic but it actually does work very well. And always has. Well-armed communities are, on average, more polite, more law-abiding and more free. On the other hand, high crime communities that implement gun controls rather than address the root causes of crime tend to see even higher crime over time (all else held equal).

      1. As for root causes of crime, from the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence:

        "Despite the high rates of violence within such impacted communities, only a small portion of the population is involved in gun violence, and those involved are often both the perpetrator and victim.14,15,16 Analyses in a variety of cities have found that small networks of individuals — sometimes as few as a couple hundred — are involved in most of the city’s shootings. In Oakland, for instance, just 0.1% of the population was responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides,17 while in New Orleans, networks of 600 to 700 individuals are linked to most of the city’s murders.18 Even within Chicago’s highest violence neighborhoods, those who have a social network in which someone was murdered are 900% more likely to die of homicide than neighboring residents.19 The vast majority of homicides in each of these cities are by firearm."

        So, police already know who the perpetrators are and where they live. But here we are hearing more macro plans to ban and restrict access to guns for everyone, rather than focusing on the real repeat offenders. This is why gun control fails; it is dishonest to its core, and seeks to punish the 99% of people who are not the problem.

        1. Quo,
          You hit the mail on the head.
          Since the great majority of gun murders are black on black, doing something about the root causes would require some soul searching in the black community.
          Asking some serious questions about how ghetto culture and soft on crime policies foster criminals.

          1. This is somewhat inaccurate. Slightly less than half of all gun murders are of black people and around 80% of those are perpetrated by other blacks according to the FBI. Slightly more that half of all murders are whites and again around 80% of those are perpetrated by whites.

            1. But very disproportionate

          2. You can find this story in the Chicago Trib, October 2015:

            Then mayor Rahm Emmanuel and police superintendent Gary Snyder decided to tackle this issue in Chicago; they went to the legislature and proposed legislation that would increase the penalties for repeat gun violators [it seemed there were convicted felons repeatedly picked up and quickly released back onto the streets, until they killed someone or were killed themselves; this happened to one guy over 40 times until he was finally murdered himself]; however, "a coalition of Black Illinois lawmakers opposed this as it was 'a recipe to lock up more Blacks and Latinos."

            Much less "racist" and politically radioactive [at least for urban Democrats] to propose an AWB

          3. I suspect the older black folks know the problem: white liberals, white liberal politicians, white liberal educators. Malcolm X was many things, but his observations on the threat of the AWLs to the black community was prescient.

        2. One of the purposes of government is to resolve disputes without violence. That's why we have courts. But what happens when you can't take your dispute to court? You're slinging drugs and some dude moves onto your turf or steals your shit. You can't take them to court. You have to resolve it yourself. With a gun.

          1. Though America has been long known as a violent country. We have more stabbings that most other countries we consider similar as well. Might be part of our dynamism, I don't know.

        3. In the context of the story, this is true regardless of weapon. The vast majority of murders aren't random and occur for a reason and it's harder to have or develop a reason to kill someone you don't know. Reasonable laws against guns and knives are like reasonable controls against shark attacks or lightning strikes. The sharks and the lightning have no concern for the reasonableness of your laws any reasonable laws you do pass aren't appealing to their reasons. All passing them does is guarantee a larger, denser population of people who have already run afoul of or disregard your reasoning. Unless you ban the interactions, the law will continue to lay bare your application of reason to non-sapient/sentient behaviors. But then, gun control isn't and never was about controlling guns. It's about controlling people.

      2. Kennesaw, Ga.

        1. You're talking about the recent drug-related shooting near Kennesaw State University that left one person dead, correct?

          If so, it is true that the university is subject to Georgia's 'Campus Carry' law (passed in 2017) however it is equally true that the university does whatever it legally can to stigmatize and inconvenience permit holders. Their "geek-week" policy (which I believe pre-dates the Campus Carry law but is still posted online) outlaws such dangerous projectile weapons as water pistols, silly-string guns and ping-pong pistols. Despite the campus carry law, I think you're going to have a hard time counting the KSU campus as a "well-armed community".

          1. What I meant is the city of Kennessaw itself passed a mandatory gun ownership ordinance and violent crime utterly cratered in the city. It kills most gun control narratives.

            1. I had not heard about that. Do you have a link? Preferably with statistics? That sounds intriguing.

              Also now curious if the campus is subject to the city ordinance. Or is that just a coincidence of name?

              1. No, KSU is in Kennesaw.
                Used to work in an office right down the street.
                Nice enough area.

      3. Across the country, the best armed portions are some of the very safest from human assault. Lower, almost nonexistent, incidence of hot burglaries. Ditto for drive by shootings

      4. The shooter said in his manifesto he chose new york for their strict gun laws.

        1. Wish I could see that document now. I read it was 99 % lifted from the NZ shooter. I’m sure that NY gun laws plus a stable community in Buffalo, plus a lower income area that can’t afford NYs onerous costs to carry all make it easy to chose where to go. Honestly if they made license to carry $100, there would be more people in Tops supermarkets giving the shoppers a chance. Want to see racism in the law? Look at gun control.

          1. The nutter's document:
            https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/spree-killer-manifesto.pdf
            Not really what I would call a "manifesto", & almost certainly mostly pulled together from other sources rather than the product of this one eighteen year old.

            1. Similar to how high school term papers are written.

              1. High school? I've seen full-length history texts that were essentially just repeats of what their sources said.

        2. And that the kneejerk reaction to his choice of weapon, calls for a ban, would play into his plans. He's a nut, but definitely not what the press and the left-leaning sorts are painting him as.

      5. Lived experience:
        So in the dark ages, boys and girls, the US Constitution was accepted as the law of the land, and college students were protected by its provisions. Students in the mountains of southwest Virginia, at a little school know as VPI kept all kinds of guns in their dorm rooms, reloaded large caliber ammunition in those dorm rooms, and walked across campus with slung rifles and holstered pistols. On any given Saturday, the group called the Rifle and Pistol Club took off to an outdoor range with a couple hundred firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
        No one was ever shot. No one. Even during anti-war protests.
        Then there was "gun control", and a mass shooting. But I was gone by then.

    5. Seems to be working well in Switzerland.

    6. Man, you sure know how to own-goal.

      100% guarantee that would work. Id live in that city any day before setting foot in Chicago

    7. Why would it make any difference?

      We made pot and cocaine illegal and anyone can still get as much as anyone wants to buy. The idea that you are going to legislate away consumer demand is preposterous.

      The idea that you can legislate away crime is just as preposterous. The proof is everywhere.

    8. Since neither part of your first sentence is happening your second sentence is completely non-sensical.

  7. "The main effect of such limits is to incommode (and possibly endanger) law-abiding gun owners, who can no longer legally buy the "large capacity" magazines that are standard for many firearms."

    I've never ever encountered a gun law, be it federal or state, that had any other purpose; it's the "do something we're better than this" principle.

    "Supply side" efforts to impact gun violence, specifically passing all encompassing laws and regulations impact everyone, at least 99% of whom are not the problem. This is like trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result [Einstein's definition of insanity, by the way]; what does happen is 1] there is an increase in demand for firearms, particularly those that government seeks to ban, and 2] activism to oppose such efforts.
    Which is why efforts to usher in any type of gun control continue to fail miserably. As of last count by the NSSF there are estimated to be around 20 million AR 15 type rifles privately owned in the US [and that does not include AK variants, Ruger Mini's --which essentially perform the same, FN variants, etc.].

    I've come to suspect the leading anti gun politicians and the NGOs like Everytown are perfectly happy about the situation; they get to preach to their choirs and raise money for a never ending cause. Recall MADD that went out of business because they accomplished their goal of getting states and prosecutors to enforcing drunk driving laws; they do not want that to happen to them.

    1. I accidentally ordered some California compliant 5 round magazines for my Bushmaster, they jam almost every other round. My 30 round magazines rarely jam.

      1. Weak springs maybe?

        I have a D&H 10 round [that I used for shooting off a bench when sighting in an optic, testing various rounds/loads, etc.] that is very reliable. I think they make a 5 round too.

        1. The springs in a 5 round mag just are inheritently weaker than larger magazines. Little known fact, during Vietnam and even post Vietnam, infantry wouldn't load a full 20 rounds in a 20 round magazine, they load only 18 because the springs failed at a high rate with all 20. My Dad, (infantry 1975-1979) was amazed that we always loaded all 30 rounds in our mags.

          1. I never load to full capacity, so 28 in a 30; whenever I am at a competition and someone's mag slips out of the well onto the ground from the get go, I guarantee they have loaded it to full capacity. Same with FTFs; fill it up but take away two.

            1. We always loaded a full 30 when I served. Never had any problems with dropped magazines. Not sure what the difference is. If someone dropped a mag they got razzed about it pretty hard because that generally meant you accidentally hit the mag release.

              1. You always have to insure the magazine is completely seated by smacking the magazine's base plate after insertion in the magwell. You have to do the same with pistols to insure the gun will go bang after closing the bolt or slide.

                1. That's probably it, we were always taught to slap the mag against our helmets to seat the rounds and slap the magazine in. Just rote memory, so I don't even think about it (actually it's so much memory that I've beaned myself more than once slapping a magazine for my AR against my head before inserting it, because I am no longer wearing a KEVLAR to smack it against).

  8. Did you use the word “incommode” to win a bet?

  9. You mean people intent on committing murder aren't deterred by the threat of jail over illegal guns?

    Oh!

    My!

    God!

      1. Only undocumented……

  10. the argument is a deflection.

    1. When assault rifles are involve, it's called a ricochet.

  11. I'm more interested in why the shooter was able to purchase the weapon in the first place. He previously underwent psychological treatment after threatening to shoot up a high school graduation. Why was he not on the "red flag" list?

    1. Because big government, if nothing else, is very effective.

    2. Because he went thru the psych check when he was 17. Juvenile records are sealed. He started over at 18 with a clean slate.

      1. I understand what you are saying. That being said it is kind of stupid.

        1. I don't know about that. Damning a system because of rare events is usually not the best path forward.
          A real part of the difficulty here is that these are rare events. They're ones that draw a lot of attention and grab hold of our imagination, but in a country of 330 million people +, it's a rare event.
          The question always becomes then, why is it more common here than elsewhere? I increasingly think it is a part of American exceptionalism. We're still a dynamic culture, and we tend towards a wildness that has been sorted out of other cultures largely. This has both good and bad consequences.

          But, I really don't know.

          1. We're a nation of immigrant Genes. The Genes of people that would pack up a young family and cross an ocean. With just a hope of a better life, are fairly unique. It's probably only about 5% of the overall global population. Those same Genes also result in out-of-box thinking, grit and determination. But it also creates a dynamic culture clashes. I think the melting pot of ideas it creates is worth the negatives. However national conversations are now focused on unique problems of the USA, rather than what is great about being a nation of immigrants.

      2. He wasn't involuntarily committed for treatment. He spent a day being evaluated for propensity to hurt others or himself. The psych professional(s) determined he wasn't; therefore, at 18 he could legally purchase, "keep", A featureless AR. SCOTUS ruled that for a threat to another or yourself to be a crime the person issuing the threat must have intent. Check out the Brandenburg vs Ohio opinion. Empty threats aren't criminal.

        1. Can someone be involuntarily committed without a court order?

    3. what i read said he was "evaluated." he was never actually committed.

  12. Yeah, his manifesto reads like it was written by a Brady Campaign operative.

    1. It did, from what little I saw of it. "I am a gun nut. I love guns. I got this gun by skirting overly-permissive gun laws. I wanted to use my bad gun to kill people."

  13. Gun control hysterics is much like performative masking.

    1. performative masking.

      Also known as "masking".

      1. Patty Lupone won a Tony for performative masking.

    2. Hysterics is a good word for those things.

      As when David Hogg stated that he wouldn't stop wearing a mask because he didn't want anyone to suspect him of being a Republican. It's all about perceived virtue and the signaling thereof.

      1. I fully expect to see that punk arrested in future domestic violence incidents after he becomes an alcoholic and abusive with his boyfriends.

        1. Hard to be abusive when you are taking it from behind.

  14. Why New York's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Didn't Stop the Buffalo Massacre

    Because most buffalo were killed by single-shot rifles and lever-action Winchesters?

    1. That's New York for you, thinking they can pass a law that should affect things people do in other states, like shooting all those buffalo out on the plains of Kansas.

    2. Because most buffalo were killed by single-shot rifles and lever-action Winchesters?
      And indians, kemosabe.

      1. Damnit Reason, fix the italics tags!

  15. Weird, Wyoming and Montana don't seem to have much for gun violence compared to Ca and New York? Go figure?

    1. Someone will be along shortly to post the 10 states with the largest gun deaths per Capita. However, they will ignore that in most those states the vast majority of deaths are not murders but suicides. It never fails.

      1. And gang battles - - - - - - - -

        1. fought with legally purchased firearms, of course.

          But soldiermedic is right. They massively inflate "firearms related" deaths by adding in suicides, which is at the top of the list. It's disingenuous at best.

          1. Yeah,Wyoming and Alaska and Montana always seem to be at the top of those lists,despite having almost no homicides in a year. Anchorage, the largest urban area in Alaska has one of the highest gun ownership rates of a major urban area in the nation and has about 25 homicides a year. This despite a population of about 300,000, and close to 500,000 when you add in the greater Anchorage area, including Eagle River and the Mat-Su valley. But Alaska has a huge problem with suicide. So going by gun deaths per Capita, Alaska comes out high (the same with Wyoming. I looked it up one time, Wyoming had several years where there are no recorded homicides but high suicide).

          2. My money is on Tony doing that.

    2. Be more specific. They don’t have much in the way of human on human gun violence. They have significant human on critter gun violence. As we head into the fall, I can pretty well expect not to get much time at the local range because everyone in town is sighting in their hunting rifles their. Which, contrary to Friday’s blathering below, are much more deadly.

      Of course, hunting season is when the most vehicle on critter, and critter on vehicle violence is wrought. The ubiquitous pre-venisons are one thing. But elk, etc are something else there.

    3. Though, Montana does have a higher murder rate than New York, though both are below average in the US.

      Highest murder state? Louisiana. In general, I think the most correlative value for murder rate is poverty rate. So, LA and MS have a rough go.

      1. Though to be fair to all the other states, Louisiana really outperforms every single other state on murder by a lot.

        1. Native Louisisanian here, though I left some years ago I still have family there is stay in touch.

          Similar to other areas, most of the crime in that state is concentrated in high risk and primarily urban areas. Again, if gun control were focused on the repeat felons [of which there is a relatively small and identifiable number], most of us wouldn't have a big problem with it. Urban Democrats however, do seem to have a problem with that.

    4. Weird statistic (per the FBI):

      If the USA could remove the violent crimes committed by the 3% of the population that is young, Black males between the ages of 14-49, it would be one of the safest countries in the entire world. And that is with easily the highest gun ownership rates and numbers of guns.

      So perhaps we don't have a gun problem, but a young' Black male problem. Now if we could figure out, why young Black males commit so many violent crimes per capita, maybe we 'd be onto something.

      Maybe correlation with young, Black males being disproportionately raised in single or no parent homes in "families" whose major source of income is via government entitlement payments?

  16. Basic problem here - the AR-15 platform is highly modular. Highly. Ban some feature? Sell a firearm without it, and the purchaser can buy it online, and switch it back in, often in minutes.

    Of course, the banned features are mostly pretty bogus to start with. Pistol grip? Modern ergonomics - they go on sea lot of things, including power drills, etc. Standard capacity (20-30 round) magazines? Been standard equipment for better than a century now, and guns mostly don’t care what sized magazines they have installed. They are called “replaceable” for a reason. Bayonet lug? Bayonets are idiotic on AR-15s. Military mostly doesn’t use them anymore, except ceremonially, on older rifles (like M1 Garand and M14). They issue more useful handguns instead for close quarter fighting. Esp with carbine and pistol length ARs, bayonets actually decrease the functionality of the guns. No one, except maybe someone stupid enough to vote for the senile Feinstein, is going to engage in mass murder using a bayonet on an AR-15.

    It inevitably comes down to politicians trying to violate the 2nd Amdt and castrate the premier militia firearm by banning easily replaceable, scary looking, features.

    1. Guns look scarier with bayonets attached.

  17. Both gun nuts and gun control enthusiasts miss the point of what makes "assault rifles" deadly. They almost all fire high velocity rounds which produce massive injury with relatively small bullets. As a matter of physics, damage from a moving object increases directly with it's mass, but is squared when it's speed is increased. The other characteristics, like size of magazine, compactness, etc make these weapons function quite efficiently for the purposes for which they were developed - killing and maiming other humans - but high speed rounds is the most important as witnessed by the docs who have to see patients after being shot by one.

    ""....The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit...."

    http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html

    As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

    In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

    I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

    The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

    A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived....."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

    1. As a matter of physics, damage from a moving object increases directly with it's mass, but is squared when it's speed is increased.

      You're talking about "force." Force and "damage" to a living target are not the same thing. What makes a weapon deadly is hitting something vital. Often heavier rounds are more effective at quickly neutralizing a threat because they distribute the full force of their impact onto the target while smaller rounds will pass through without transferring momentum.

      What makes something like AR-15 very effective is the stability of the platform and the ease of use. It's very natural to shoot, the round is light so there's limited recoil, so your round goes where you intend for it to go. That makes it a FANTASTIC tool for self/home defense because you hit what you're aiming at, and don't hit what you're not aiming at. It's less true with different handguns, especially handguns with heavy trigger pulls, where it's difficult to put rounds on target and it increases the risk of damaging collateral targets.

      1. One of the largest complaints about the M-16 in the military has always been it's lack of knock down power. It is extremely lethal but doesn't have a lot of kinetic energy transfer. It actually tends to over penetrate without stopping the adversary. A 70 grain round just doesn't transfer much oomph, especially when it is only a .22 caliber round.

        We discussed this often in South Central Alaska, magnum vs big slower cartridges like the .45-70 or .50 Marlin. We rarely had to take shots over 100 yards on the Kenai Peninsula, so many of us hunted with the slower .45-70, because it delivered more shock and resulted in dropping your target, whereas the magnum cartridges where more accurate and technically more powerful, but often delivered less kinetic energy on target. Yeah my .45-70 lever only drove a 325 gr round at an anemic 1800 fps at the muzzle, but when it hit the target, they went down. It's telling that Alaska F&W officers carry a 12 guage with slugs for bear deterrence rather than a .338 win mag, the 12 gu slug just stops the bears in their track but only have an effective range under a 100 meters.

        1. Thanks. We have black bear around the subdivision a lot, while the brown bear stay high on the ridge north of us. The 12 gauge sits in a gun case by the front door, loaded with 00 Buck, from when it resided in a decent sized city. Looks like I should switch to slugs. Got them on the side paddle, so just swap them.

          We had a fire burn through about 5 miles north of town last summer. Black bear sightings were a daily occurance in town, and at least once a week in our subdivision. As far as I know, there were no bear (or human) fatalities, which is always good.

          1. You're supposed to capitalize the "B" now

      2. Thinking, if you read some of what I've posted you'll see that docs describe tissue and organs exploding that are adjacent to but not "hit" by high velocity rounds and that's a big part of what makes them different from typical handgun wounds from street crime. We agree that low recoil is one of the features making these weapons even more effective and therefore lethal.

        1. That's not uncommon with heavier cartridges. It's also something I've seen with smaller rounds, like 22 gr .22 LR rounds. It's common with cartridges. In fact, hunting cartridges are designed to do exactly this, whereas the 5.56 FMJ is designed to reduce the chance of this happening.

          1. But it doesn't compared to handguns soldier. Again - wake the fuck up - the comparison of what the docs see in the ER is between AR-15s and handguns. No one brings their deer into the ER. Yes, other rifles are capable of worse than "assault rifles" but they are not as compact and are not the weapon of choice for the worst mass shootings happening pretty regularly in the US. I know wandering around your undoubtedly extensive knowledge of your hobby lets you muddy the waters and get off the inconvenient subject of the column, but we aren't talking about deer hunting. Think you can handle that?

            I guess not.

            1. Not as compact. Bullshit, the XM-15 is the same length as most hunting rifles, and actually weighs more.

              And I call bullshit on the 5.56 FMJ causing more wound damage than a larger pistol cartridge with expanding bullets. That's pure bullshit. It's not possible. First, the pistol cartridge has more energy, secondly the 5.56 mm FMJ punches through without delivering fatal energy transfer. The fucking Army did a bunch of fucking studies on this, which is why they are retiring the fucking 5.56 mm round. Like I've fucking told you. A rifle is better at range, but a pistol is far better at close range. It delivers more knockdown power and, as the bullet expands, it delivers far more energy transfer and shock waves. A high velocity FMJ round is not going to deliver as much shockwaves, it just punches through. I will take the word of the US Army Medical Department, which deals with combat wounds, over an ER doctor who is advocating for gun control. Read the fucking after action report from the Battle of Mogadishu, they blame the lack of damage from the 5.56 mm NATO round for many of the US casualties. The 5.56 just punched through without causing lethal damage. There are similar reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam. This is well known. It's one of the reasons soldiers dislike the 5.56 mm FMJ. It doesn't fucking kill or knock down your target, it punches right the fuck through them. The Army and Marine Corp have spent billions of dollars redesigning 5.56 mm bullets trying to come up with a way to counteract this effect. The Army just said fuck it, and started all over with a new cartridge. At ten meters or less, the 9 mm pistol is actually considered more lethal than the M-16/M-4 rifle. So much so, that special operations troops will often sling their rifles and go to a pistol in short range situations.

              When you argue with me on this, you are actually arguing with 246 years of Army medicine, and specifically 57 years of combat data on the 5.56 mm cartridge. The military adopted the 5.56 not because of it's lethality (it wasn't particularly lethal at any range, which the military has never denied) but because you could carry far more rounds because it's so small.

              At under 25 meters, the MP-9 is considered more lethal than the M-16, despite having a smaller barrel, lower muzzle velocity, but it shoots the 9mm, and transfers more energy to the target. At under 25 meters, the Thompson is even more lethal, despite having a lower muzzle velocity than both the MP-9 and the M-4. But it shoots a .45 ACP.

              1. This is close to what Diane/Paul was alluding to, when some dipshit runs it's suck about something is knows nothing about, as if it is some kind of subject matter expert. 5 will get you ten that the laughable bs about the kid's bushmaster being a 'high-powered rifle' crop up, if they haven't. And of course its arguing with military ballistics and wound channel data, it knows better, it gets the talking points from the team blue.

                1. Yeah Joe is trying to say the AR is especially deadly because it's "high velocity". It's velocity really isn't impressive, yeah it's faster than some rounds, but around 3000 fps is pretty much standard and expected now a days in a rifle that isn't a .22 LR or smaller. He thinks velocity alone defines lethality and wound channel damage.

              2. *pistols have more energy transfer.

      3. The AR-15 is the Honda Accord of semi automatic rifles.

        1. Toyota Corolla. The Accord is too big to be the AR-15.

    2. You don't know dick about guns, 4 bit dick.

      1. Funny Quo, but until my posts, everyone was happy flapping their gums about how "assault rifles" only looked deadly. If you didn't the physics of velocity and mass of moving objects, you didn't know dick about guns.

        1. You only come here to post talking points; only reason I haven't muted you is that I like to call you out and your lack of reasoning and your obvious purpose.

          The FMJ 5.56 isn't designed to so much kill as it is to take an enemy combatant out of action [and thereby making a bigger problem for the enemy than a dead body]; if you hit a vital organ it will indeed kill you, but that is nothing exceptional about ANY caliber. Claiming that the .223/5.56 is "especially deadly" is a fools errand, and you are on it. Unsurprisingly. So go back to your handlers and get better talking points.

          1. He is mistaking penetration power with energy transfer. Myth busters used to do this all the time too, and it drove me crazy. FMJ out of a light, decent velocity round just punch through without transferring energy. The Army has known this since 1965(and one of the reasons they resisted when McNamara forced them to adopt the M-16 over the M-14). It's the same debate as the 9mm vs the .45 ACP. The 9 is more accurate, higher velocity but it takes twice as many shots to stop a target than the .45. what's the point of carrying twice as many rounds if I have to use twice as many rounds to stop you?

            I mean Joe is arguing something that gun shooters have been debating since the dawn of firearms. Go back to O'Conner and Carmichael's writings from the 1950s-1980s. This is all heavily covered. I doubt you can pick up a gun magazine that doesn't have one story dealing with this. It's not even a new debate. Hell, read about the Phillippines insurrection after the Spanish-American war and the .38 vs the .45 long Colt. It's why John Browning created the 1911 in the first place. It was widely covered during WWII as well, with the 1911 vs the Walther P-38. I tend to fall on the heaviest weight bullet, with a controlled expansion, and the highest velocity I can get, well maintaining a reasonable level of felt recoil (try to avoid the magnum flinch). If I had to choose one multifunctional gun, I'd probably choose the .30-06 for a rifle, and if I had to choose just one gun, it would be a 12 guage (the gun that actually won the west, carried by far more settlers than the Winchester of any model). But for my preference, I shoot a .270 WSM, and before that a .270 Winchester. I also like the Marlin 1895 lever in .45-70 but don't use it much out here on the plains. It's a thumper at short range but the recoil is pleasantly mild and I like lever guns. Bolt is more accurate, and I usually shoot a bolt but I just love a good lever action rifle. Under a 100 yards it doesn't really matter much. Under 25 yards, in a confined setting, I prefer either my XD-40 .40 s&w or my Ruger Redhawk in .44 mag. Also, the nice thing about the Ruger is it's a stout piece of metal, that if I smack you alongside the head with it, you'll notice. Not a big fan of the S&W .44 mags, cylinders are to light and not long enough, can't take the rounds I can shoot easily through the Ruger. On the other hand, the smith is a lot nicer to carry for distance, being lighter than the Ruger. It's all trade off.

            1. You're arguing with 10+ docs who see this in the ER soldier, and with physics, not me. The comparison is with other weapons actually commonly available and commonly used in crime, particularly handguns.

              1. Cool story bro. You got any others? I like to hear democrat fan fiction sometimes.

              2. You're arguing with 10+ docs who see this in the ER soldier, and with physics, not me.

                All I saw was a bunch of words flying out of your ass.

      2. 4 bit dick.

        Good band name.

    3. You should see what a hunting size cartridge does. Also the 5.56 mm NATO is chambered in FMJ rounds that are designed not to mushroom. Hunting cartridges are designed to mushroom, creating a much larger wound channel. I hit a 500 pound cow elk at 100 yards with a 150 gr,round nose Remington round out of a .270 Winchester at 100yards and the exit wound busted out the front shoulder and left an exit wound the size of my fist, plus destroying both lungs and the aorta, she took two steps and dropped in her tracks. I hit a 150 pound doe at 350 yards with a 140gr hornandy SST round out of my .270 WSM and it took out five ribs on the opposite side, destroyed both lungs and aorta, it took one step and dropped in it's tracks. Everything you've described is what I would expect from a round, and more. It sound impressive only to idiots who don't know anything about guns.

    4. That's what makes a high-powered rifle more deadly than a lower-velocity handgun. That has nothing to do with the ever-fluid definition of a "assault" rifle. Adding a pistol grip or a bayonet lug has no effect on wound ballistics.

      But no, that should not really matter to the gun control debate.

      1. A high powered rifle (which I generally believe is 6.0 mm/.24 caliber or larger, not .22 caliber/5.56mm) are more lethal at range, but in close situations, under 25 meters the pistol delivers more energy transfer than a rifle, the rifle velocity is so high that it generally punches through with very little energy transfer or wound cavitation. At close range a larger, slower round is actually going to do more damage as it delivers more energy transfer and causes more wound cavitation. It's the proverbial bush rifle vs a plains rifle. .30-30 and .45-70 are very popular in the dense eastern woods, but not so much on the plains. Plus most urban shootings are conducted with small caliber pistols, generally .22 LR or .25 ACP. So, the ER doctor is going to have the most familiarity with extremely small caliber pistol rounds. They likely aren't dealing with a lot of 9mm, .40 S&W wounds or .45 ACP rounds and are even less likely to be dealing with advanced self defense cartridges out of these larger handguns. A .22 pistol round will fuck you up but doesn't cause much wound cavitation because it is both small and slow, comparitivly speaking. But they are cheap and the ammo is very cheap, and they're pretty conceivable, so perfect for thugs. They also have very little recoil, and the bullet is often to damaged to recover ballistics from, especially hollowpoints. Yeah, if you are used to wound from that, the damage from a 5.56 mm is going to look unusually dramatic, but it's really not when compared to larger pistol cartridges or just about any other rifle.

        Hollywood loves to show gangstas shooting MAC-10s and Glocks, but that isn't usually the case from crime data. They are shooting cheap .22 and .25s. Small and slow.

        1. The docs above say you're full of shit.

          1. So do these just below.

          2. Give it up, Joe. You're wrong. You've been proven wrong repeatedly. You keep copy-pasting in content that you clearly don't understand and that doesn't actually say what you claim it does.

    5. Side note, at the same time the story broke about a heroin trapped bacha bazi, working for a pederast afghan policeman obiden liked, opened fire killing a tent of marines on a US base where he was being buttraped with Whitehouse impunity, The Atlantic was literally printing the story "the myth of the homosexual predator."

      No reason at all why anyone would cite a filthy rag like "the Atlantic."

  18. "Dr. Jeremy Cannon, the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.
    He served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

    “The tissue destruction is almost unimaginable. Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed. The injuries to the chest or abdomen — it’s like a bomb went off.” If a bullet hits an arm or a leg, he said, the limb often hangs at an unnatural angle. Such victims can need a dozen surgeries over months. “Some eventually decide to undergo an amputation if there is severe pain in the limb and it is dysfunctional,” he said.

    “Bystanders are traumatized just seeing the victims. It’s awful, terrible. It’s just a ghastly thing to see.”

    Dr. Martin Schreiber, Oregon Health & Science University.
    He was an Army reservist who served in Iraq in 2005 and in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2014.

    What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly, he said, is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: “The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater” than that from a handgun.

    “You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.”

    “I’ve seen people with entire quadrants of their abdomens destroyed.”

    Dr. Jeffrey Kerby, the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
    He was formerly an Air Force surgeon.

    Dr. Kerby will never forget the first victim of a high velocity bullet wound he treated when he was serving in the Southern Philippines 16 years ago. The soldier had been shot in the outer thigh. His first thought was that the wound did not look so bad. There was just a tiny hole where the bullet went in. Then he looked where the bullet had exited. The man’s inner thigh, he said, “was completely blown out.”

    Later he came to expect the telltale pattern. “You will typically see a small penetrating wound. Then you roll the patient over and you see a huge exit wound.”

    The high energy bullet creates a blast wave around the bullet. And the yaw can contribute to the larger exit wound. Striking bone can also cause bone fragments that radiate outward, cutting tissue in each fragment’s path.

    “Then the bullet starts tumbling, causing more and more destruction.” Even a bullet that misses bone can result in surprising damage; as the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital. Those who survive long enough are whisked to operating rooms, but often the injuries cannot be repaired.

    “If they are shot in the torso, there often is not a whole lot we can do,” he said.

    With a handgun, the bullets mostly damage tissues and organs in their direct path. Eventually, the bullets may be slowed and stopped by the body. Emergency surgery often can save handgun victims.

    Dr. Kerby said it used to be that surgeons like him saw victims of assault rifle shootings only in the military. No more. Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims — that is, those who survive long enough to reach the hospital.

    “These weapons are meant to kill people,” he said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

    1. Copy pasta, about which you know no thing.

      1. Pasta…..

        I might go out for Chicken Parmesan at lunchtime.

  19. PS Part of the effectiveness of high velocity weapons is the fact that by using smaller bullets there is less recoil, giving the user even more control killing whoever he's trying to kill.

    1. AR-15, 20" barrel - 2391 fps
      Remington 700 in .308 - 2650 fps, with a heavier bullet.

      Which one do you think does more damage? The AR-15, or a commonly available hunting rifle?

      1. Nobody "needs" more than one bullet, right?

      2. It is telling that the US Army is transitioning away from the 70 gr 5.56 mm cartridge to the heavier 130 gr 6.8 mm x 51 mm. Gee, I wonder why?

        1. Probably range, not an important factor for school kid and grocery store hunters.

          1. Range, lethality and knockdown power. You don't know what you are talking about. Heavier bullets have more knockdown power, period. Anyone who shoots knows this. You are giving an opinion on something you know nothing about. As usual.

            1. Like I said, range.

              1. "....and some other stuff that makes me look like a mendacious dumbass."

              2. No, range was just one criteria and range is a factor of retained energy. Thus longer range weapons have more energy. Damn you are fucking stupid and don't even know about what you're talking about.

                1. The experience in Afghanistan helped directed this consideration because of the distances often between combatants - range, which of course impacts "knock down and lethality" (as if the latter was a characteristic by itself).

              3. Educate yourself before you dig a deeper hole.

                1. Take his assault shovel from him.

              4. Lethality is also a function of kinetic energy. The 5.56 mm NATO has far less kinetic energy than even a .243 win, which is considered the minimum for mid size game like deer. A buck deer weighs about the same as an adult male. A doe weighs about the same as an adult female. The 5.56 mm is considered way to small.

                1. When I go to the range I've got friends who will shoot my AR all day long but are afraid of my .308 bolt action. They say it hurts their shoulder. Pussies.

                  1. A .308? LOL. I should let them squeeze some off from my .45-70 or .270 WSM. Actually the recoil on my .45-70 is pleasant compared to the .270 WSM, which is much sharper. The .45-70 has higher true recoil but lower felt recoil.

                    1. I'm going shooting this weekend with a Marine friend. He always pushes me out of my comfort zone. It will be fun. Don't know what he's bringing, but he goes moose hunting. Whatever he takes those beasts down with has to have a kick.

                    2. I hunted moose in Alaska with either a .270 WSM shooting 150 grain SST rounds or a .45-70 using 325 gr leverrevolution rounds.

                    3. I did shoot that rifle of his once. One of the first times I'd shot a rifle. The fireball was huge. Scared the shit out of me. And .270 sounds familiar. He said what he was using had a very flat trajectory. Start with that and lots of things are tame by comparison.

                    4. Always was a fan of Jack O'Conner who swore by the .270 Winchester before the .270 magnums came out. He took every big game animal in North America with a .270 Winchester. It's all about shot placement. I've read stories of Inuits killing polar bears and walruses with .22 LR. That's kinda why debating which round is more lethal is so stupid. It doesn't matter if it's stronger if you can't handle the recoil and a lot of guys develop magnum flinch but insist on .30+caliber magnums. It don't matter a hill of beans if it delivers huge velocity and muzzle energy if you can't hit the x ring with it.

                    5. I always advice people to go with what is comfortable for you, and practice with it, until you can operate it without thinking. I'm a big guy, so I can take a lot of recoil. And I've been shooting full size cartridges since I was 11 (and .22 since I was five). I'll be 46 this year. There's a lot of fancy cartridges now on the market, but I really don't have a lot of desire to spend money on a 6.5 creedmore or a .338 Lapua. I'm comfortable with my .270 WSM out to four hundred yards if I can get in the prone or off shooting sticks. Even here on the plains I consider that good enough. Now, I'm buying guns for aesthetics as opposed to trying to upgrade. Really want a good varmint rifle, and a Sharps in either .45-90 or .45-110 (and then get drawn for a buffalo tag just to say I shot a buffalo with a buffalo gun).

                2. Last time I went to the range someone let me shoot his M1 Garand. I'd never shot one. That was nice. I can see how it won the war.

                3. Exactly. KE = 1/2 mass * velocity squared, thus explaining the greater increased damage from high velocity rounds vs heavier ones.

            2. He also completely ignores fundamentally critical factor in recoil energy: the weight of the rifle and, in accuracy relative to recoil (with the bullet as a constant): the mass of the shooter/platform. Between the M1A, Savage 12 FV, and Aero Precision M5, even from the bench, the M5 gets no love from the wife or kiddos. The 9.5 lb. Howa 1500 in .300 WM is right out.

              1. Recoil is a thing. I don't feel recoil when I'm shooting at game, but feel it when I'm on the bench or range, and that's where it counts, because that's where you practice. Taking the rifle out of the safe once a year to go hunting is how you end up eating tag soup rather than venison tenderloins. The last couple of years I definitely haven't practiced enough and my freezer shows it. Fuck cartridges are too expensive and hard to come by and I haven't done enough reloading. The only way to get good is rounds down range, frequently and often. If you don't enjoy the recoil at the range, it doesn't matter much how accurate the rifle hypothetically is, you are likely to miss far more often than hit.

          2. You can't legally hunt deer around here with 5.56 because it isn't powerful enough.

          3. Copy pasta, you know dick.

      3. Bushmaster XM-15 used by the Buffalo gunman:

        3,260 feet per second (990 m/s) (rifle), 3,100 feet per second (940 m/s) (carbine)

        1. Those muzzle velocities have less to do with the model of the rifle and more to do with the ammo. You can get 5.56 subsonic ammo that barely cracks 1000 fps.

          1. Good point except they can fire high velocity, mass shooters favor them, and they don't go slow.

            1. Muzzle velocity has nothing to do with cyclic rate, idiot. And the muzzle velocity isn't really that high, it's pretty standard for modern hunting cartridges.

              1. I didn't say or mean cyclic rate jerk off. We aren't talking about deer hunting asshole.

                1. Such persuasive arguments.

                2. No, you stated mass shooters value them because of the high velocity. Which is a stupid statement, as there are high velocity rounds, with more energy and force available. And the 5.56 muzzle velocity isn't all that high as I've stated. Cyclic rate would be far more useful than muzzle velocity. That's why I mentioned cyclic rate you dumb fuck.

                  1. I didn't say mass shooters favor high velocity - most probably not that bright. I did say they favor "assault rifles" and they have this characteristic along with compactness and large magazines.

            2. Does it really matter if a bullet transits 100’ in .1 second (@1,000’/Sec) or .0333 second (@3,000’/sec)? You are unlikely to be able to tell the difference with your own senses. Worse, normal mass shooting distance are almost always shorter than that, resulting in even faster bullet transit times.

              1. Yeah. It's always a good thing these idiots really don't know about shooting. Imagine the damage they could do at the range they are shooting with a Remington 850 or Mossberg 500 12 guage with 00.

              2. And also the 3000 fps round is far more likely to punch right through without delivering much energy or wound cavitation compared to a larger, slower round at that range. Not to mention that generally these idiots are using the cheapest ammo they can get, thus 55 gr FMJ, which deliver very small wound channels. They aren't splurging $40/20 rounds on high end controlled expansion, self defense rounds. Bullet shape, design, weight, jacket composition, core composition all matter more than velocity for energy transfer and wound channel size and wound cavitation. But I doubt Joe even knows the difference between a bullet and a round. He probably thinks they're the same thing.

                1. The ER docs disagree, but what would they know compared to a weekend shooter?

                  1. Where were ER docs in Iraq and Afghanistan treating wounds with 5.56 mm rounds? The hajjis and Taliban were using AK-47 variants, and occasionally an old British SMLE.

                    Guess what size round an AK-47 uses? It isn't 5.56mm.

        2. Nope. Try a WW II M1 Garand shooting standard 30-06 ammunition. Standard battle rifle during that war, and used today to take down larger game, like elk. A lot of states ban using 5.56/.223 ammunition to hunt that size of game, because it is much more likely to wound than kill.

        3. Velocity is most important for accuracy not for lethality. Fast and small are more accurate. Heavy and slow is less accurate but more knockdown power. Heavy and fast has high recoil and is hard to control. The biggest complaint about the M-16 since it's introduction and adoption in 1965 is that it's to fast and slow to knock down targets.

          Also, 3100 fps is not really that impressive. My .270 WSM, with a 130 grain or larger round will achieve that and more. That's over twice the weight of the 5.56 mm FMJ round and because it's heavier it delivers far more kinetic energy. Additionally, you only can achieve that 3100 fps with a 62 gr or smaller cartridge out of a full length barrel. And then only under ideal conditions.

          Among hunters the .223 rem/5.56 mm NATO is considered only suitable for small game like coyotes. In fact, in many states it's not legal to hunt anything larger than coyotes with it. It's not even considered suitable for deer, which have the same mass and humans. The Army's new 6.8 mm round uses the same size bullet as the venerable .270 win, .270 weatherby mag, and the .270 WSM. These are all popular mid size game cartridges for a reason, while the 5.56 is not. The 5.56 was developed in the 1950s from popular varmint rounds, which all used a .22 caliber round (the bullet diameter of the .22 LR is the same as the 5.56 mm). The AR is not particularly deadly compared to the vast majority of hunting cartridges or historical and future military cartridges. The new 6.8 mm delivers almost the same muzzle velocity (3000 fps) using a much heavier 135 GR round thus it delivers far more kinetic energy and retains that energy further.

          1. "Velocity is most important for accuracy not for lethality"

            Not to people getting shot or the docs who treat them, dumbass.

            Deer hunting is not the subject, which the general public gives not a fuck about. Mass shootings and gun control are the subject the general public cares about and is what this column is about. Maybe you think you're on Field and Stream.

            1. High velocity rounds actually makes smaller wounds. And the AR-15 has the same velocity as a deer cartridge with a much smaller bullet, e.g. smaller wound fuckhead. You obviously didn't read what I wrote or you would know that. You fucking don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

            2. Velocity means squat to the mass shooter. They are purely going for looks. In fact, most mass shootings use pistols, not AR platforms. At short range a pistol is actually far better than a rifle, even a carbine. You quote velocities that aren't that unusual because you are impressed by mediocre muzzle velocities. I can guarantee you as a former medic, nurse and long time shooter I would much rather get shot by a 5.56 mm FMJ at short range than a 140 gr .40 s&w. The latter is guaranteed to do far more damage.

              1. So the docs are all declared wrong by the medic - wounds form high velocity rounds don't blow up adjacent tissue and organs and most patients make quick recoveries compared to handgun victims.

                Thanks for making a fool of yourself soldier.

                1. Hydrostatic shock is actually a controversial subject, meaning people are still arguing about it.

                2. That's exactly what I said stupid fuck. That was my entire point idiot.

                  1. That was my satire mocking you ass wipe. Here's the non-satire version:

                    ...wounds from high velocity rounds DO blow up adjacent tissue and organs and most patients DON"T make quick recoveries compared to handgun victims.

                    1. Bullshit, a high velocity round punches straight through a target, delivering less hydrostatic shock than a lower velocity, heavier, bigger diameter bullet. It's about energy transfer. You tried satire and got it all fucking wrong. You are the idiot. You don't fucking know what the fuck you are talking about.

                    2. David Petraeus was shot in the chest with an M16. He left the hospital 3 days later when he did 50 striaght pushups to show he was better. FMJ bullets suck. Even though they are high velocity, without expansion they don't deliver energy to the target.

                    3. soldier doubles down on declaring he ER docs not as smart or experienced as he is (note several of them are vets) and wrong.

                3. And I didn't declare the doctors wrong. I stated what they describe is not unusual with rifle sized cartridges.

                  1. Again you idiot, this is not about rifles and deer hunting, it's about AR-15s and handguns, treatable wounds and your guts blown up. Yes, if mass shooters started using deer rifles they could fuck people up just as badly, but being probably less compact and without large magazines, they probably don't get as many kills. When that becomes an issue - it isn't - we can discuss that.

                    1. First, my hunting rifle is the same length as my Bushmaster XM-15, and weighs less. Second. You are the idiot who insists that the AR is unusually lethal. When it's not very fucking lethal. It's a small rifle caliber. Third, handgun wounds take longer than rifle wound to recover. Pistol rounds are designed, unless they are military FMJ, to have maximum expansion and transfer maximum energy, and thus hydrostatic shock. You are calling me an idiot but you aren't even getting the fucking basics correct. You are wrong, period.

                    2. It's about close range. And I can guarantee you a 140 grain self defense round out of a standard length .40 s&w barrel, 5 inches, is going to do a fuck ton more damage than an AR-15, with a FMJ. The AR is going to pass completely through a target, transferring little energy under 25 yards. It's about energy transfer you dumb fuck. A faster, solid jacketed round is not going to transfer that much energy.

                      As Sarcasmic notes hydrostatic shock is highly debated because it has so many variables. Range, bullet design, bullet diameter, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, air pressure, relative humidity, powder (slow burning vs faster burning), cleanliness of the barrel, barrel length, where you hit the target, when was the last time the target ate or drank anything, position of the target, was the target moving or stationary, was the shooter stationary or moving, etc.

                    3. Once again soldier declares wrong the 10+ docs who have dealt with both handgun and assault rifle wounds in ERs who I quoted. Many are also vets who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and we can assume have at least passing knowledge of weapons.

                      I'm going with them, and the laws of physics, not the "medic", but hey, it's a free country and you can stay as dumb as you want to.

                    4. Joe, you're missing his point. The point is that there's nothing special about the AR and what it shoots.
                      I have a tube fed .22 that holds 15 rounds. It's an "assault rifle" under NJ law, so I'd have to sell it if I wanted to legally live there.
                      "Assault rifle" means a fully automatic rifle in rifle caliber, not some pansy ass 5.56 which is a pointy .22 in metric.

                    5. Ten doctors who wrote an editorial calling for gun control, vs 57 years of combat study from the US Army, specifically dealing with wounds from the 5.56 mm FMJ and it's impact on the human body, without partisan advocating. Read the fucking after action report from Vietnam, Somali, Afghanistan and Iraq to see why your cited doctors are wrong. At close range, the 9 mm is considered more lethal than the M-4. Why do you think in such settings special operations either use a 9 mm submachine gun or switch to their pistol from their rifle? You are wrong and the sad thing is that the article you cited had been debunked multiple times and the main reason is because it isn't accurate and was written for purely political reasons. It flies in the face of multiple decades worth of combat data from the M-16/M-4.

                      Let's do a test. I'll shoot you with my .40 using self defense rounds, and then shoot you with my AR using FMJ rounds and see which ones cause more damage. Joe is an idiot who keeps repeating the same thing, no matter how often he is proved wrong. He admits I know more about the subject, yet he keeps trying to prove me wrong and calls me the idiot. He doesn't understand what he is stating and relies on a known, debunked, editorial as proof. I rely on personal knowledge and 57 years of cumulative combat data. He thinks 3100 fps is high velocity, he thinks ten doctors (as opposed to the millions of soldiers and Marines who have used the 5.56 mm in combat all across the globe under almost any environment) is more authorities than the Department of the Army's findings in multiple theaters, using multiple different bullet designs, trying to address the lack of lethality inherent in the 5.56 mm. In fact the Army even states that the lack of lethality is why they are retiring the 5.56 mm for combat troops. Troops have died because the 5.56 is not lethal enough. Don't believe me, read fucking Blackhawk Down, the author goes into lengths about this problem. Read some of the reports from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, they all address this problem.

                      It is the same thing as the M-2 vs the Thompson in Korea. The M-2 had a higher muzzle velocity, but the Thompson was far more lethal and preferred when soldiers could get it. This isn't even a new debate. It dates back to WW2 at least. In close range situations, soldiers preferred the Thompson SMG over the M-1/M-2 carbine because someone hit with the .45 of the Thompson stopped, and died, while the .30 carbine had higher velocity but performed far worse.

                    6. Also, the doctors are probably dealing with a lot of drive by shootings, which take place at 35-50 meters distance, which is long range for most pistols. Most mass shootings take place at under 25 meters, which is the ideal range for a pistol, but considered less than ideal for a rifle, because it the bullet passes through without causing wound cavitation (which is the technical term Joe is trying to describe).

                    7. Joe is an idiot who keeps repeating the same thing, no matter how often he is proved wrong. He admits I know more about the subject, yet he keeps trying to prove me wrong and calls me the idiot. He doesn't understand what he is stating and relies on a known, debunked, editorial as proof.

                      You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make it learn.

                    8. His 10 doctors are best buds with the 50 intelligence agents that labeled hunter bidens laptop disinformation.

                4. Also, hydrostatic shock is impacted by a variety of things other than just velocity and bullet weight. The diameter of the bullet, shape of the bullet, the composition of the bullet, the jacket, where you hit the target at, etc.

                  Just a couple posts ago you were staying the 5.56 was a high velocity round, that caused organs to explode. But now you are saying high velocity rounds don't cause organs to explode. Which is it? Besides that isn't even true. A high velocity, heavier round will cause more hydrostatic shock than a low velocity light round. Pistols generally shoot a larger diameter bullet than rifles, with lower muzzle velocity, but similar bullet weights. Additionally, pistol cartridges are designed for maximum expansion, generally. So yes, a .40 caliber pistol round produces more hydrostatic shock, at close range, than a control expansion .277 calibre 140 grain round. But I can guarantee that .277 (bullet diameter of any cartridge labeled as .270) is going to cause organs to explode. I know this for a fact because I've cleaned plenty of deer and elk after hitting them with this size and composition bullet. A FMJ on the other hand produces far less hydrostatic pressure than an expanding round, which is one of the reasons most states ban FMJ for hunting and why the Geneva convention bans expanding rounds, and thus the military uses FMJ. Fuck. First, you basically say the same thing I did about rifle vs pistols (at close range) and then you don't even get the basics of hydrostatic shock correct. And you misinterpreted what the Doctor said.

                  1. Douchebag, I quoted multiple doctors who said that high velocity rounds like those fired from "assault rifles" explode organs and tissue adjacent to their path. Your confusion is all your work, not mine. You found me saying the opposite one time in sarcasm - so noted and labelled.

                    Your comments about your hobby are of no interest to me and irrelevant to the facts surrounding "assault rifles", mass shootings, and the excessive damage caused by these weapons as noted by the docs quoted above.

                    1. I think you guys could agree on the facts if you could agree on definitions. That's what we're squabbling about, isn't it?

                    2. A surgeon may know about wounds without knowing shit about guns. So what doc says about the rifle doesn't mean much.

                    3. The damage is not excessive and has nothing to do with assault weapons. Nothing in a semi-automatic rifle makes them more lethal. And you quote ten doctors, who wrote an op-ed calling for gun control, I'm talking about 57 years of combat data from the Army and Marine Corps.

                      My hobby provides me more knowledge about this subject than those doctors. My training and experience gives me almost as much medical knowledge and far more than you have. My knowledge on this subject means I understand that what the doctors wrote does not correlate to combat data or published bullet performance data. It defies everything else printed on the subject. The AR-15 is not more lethal at close range, than a pistol cartridge. And it's far less lethal than almost any bolt action rifle, and just as lethal as a bolt action rifle of the same caliber (actually probably less, as most .223 Remington bolt action rifles have a 24 inch barrel, while the AR has a 20 inch barrel). You don't understand why you are wrong here is the problem. You don't understand enough about the subject to critically read and judge the accuracy of what you are quoting. I do, on the other hand. You are impressed by things that really aren't that extraordinary.

                      You are talking about wound cavitation, which is a much more nuanced a subject than your simplistic explanation. The fact is is that at close quarters a shotgun or a pistol will put down a target, whereas the 5.56 mm is infamous for punching through without even slowing the target. This has been known since 1965. It is so undebatable that the Army and Marine Corps have spent literally billions redesigning the bullet of the cartridge trying to overcome this deficiency and haven't so they are scrapping it and going to a larger caliber because the 5.56mm has proven to be junk in combat. They have increased the weight of the bullet from 55 gr, to 62 gr and now to 75 gr, redesigned the bullet shape, redesigned the bullet composition. The only reason they haven't retired it was because Congress always killed any program to replace it, but as early as 1974 the Army was trying to replace the 5.56 because of it's poor combat performance. Soldiers and Marines were complaining about it's lack of lethality in 1965. They redesigned the rifle, changed powders, redesigned the bullet, redesigned the rifle again (a total of five times not counting the carbine version, which has gone through three redesigns). When my Dad served in 1975 they were trying to get away from the 5.56 mm because it lacked lethality. When I started serving in 1995 the Army was trying to do away with the 5.56 mm. It simply isn't considered effective. Yeah, you can carry more ammunition, but since it takes a lot more ammunition to kill someone, it really doesn't matter.

                    4. Here soldier claims more experience than the ER docs - some of whom are vets and likely may have been in ERs in Iraq or Afghanistan as well.

                      Intelligent readers can choose between an anonymous poster on a right wing nut board or named professionals who do this nasty work for a living.

                    5. Probably because the Taliban weren't using AR-15s, Joe Fuckface.

        4. Say I know nothing about guns without saying I know nothing about guns.

          1. Being queer for metal and things that go bang is not what I would brag about - I like road bikes, so I get the metal thing - but hey, it's a free country.

            1. Yes it is. I don't own a road bike so I don't fucking make an idiot of myself by comparing an electroglide to a gold wing or scout. But you, you are talking about shit you don't know anything about and trying to sound like you do. See the difference? I know enough not to discuss shit I don't know anything about. You offer an opinion on shit all the time you don't understand and try to imply people who actually do, are somehow less smart than you.

              1. I see an oft times self-righteous asshole about other peoples posting habits not able to intelligently discuss the facts about a serious issue instead resorting to personal insults.

                Weak.

                1. soldiermedic76 is one of the more tolerant and patient people here. You might learn something from him. I have.

                  1. He's a fucking jerk. I said nothing which should set him off, but he can't help himself. Disagree, sure, but with ER docs who live this shit? He's incapable of an honest intelligent discussion without throwing personal insults. I posted the most factual information this board has ever seen on what make an assault rifle deadly and what the results of their use in mass shootings is and he wants to show off his shooting range knowledge and make that the subject. Gee, that's great Sparky, but I'm trying to be serious here and you obviously aren't.

                    Fuck him and the ox he rode in on.

                    1. You're spouting about things you know little about, and it pissed him off. Your information is from the media and his is from real life. You insulted him and you deserved what you got. Lick your wounds and learn some humility. Maybe ask him some questions and pay attention to the answers. You'll learn something.

                    2. You need to take your blinders off and re-read the thread. You started the personal insults.

                      Further, your "factual information" is almost entirely cut-and-paste of text that you pretty clearly do not understand. Though in fairness, you do cite your sources and the inaccuracies and distortions may be the journalists' fault more than just your own.

                    3. Go back to your safe space sarcasmic. Save this and show it your ignorant buddies so they'll let you back in the club.

                      Tell me what I have posted that is wrong about wounds from high velocity weapons - quoting multiple docs who deal with them - or the physics of the effects of mass vs velocity on impacts of moving objects or the fact that "assault rifles" are - unlike most handguns - capable of firing high velocity rounds. You dumb fuckers - aren't you the ones who helped send over 300k people to their deaths because they thought Covid vaccines were bullshit? - want to talk about your shooting range gossip and pretend you're in a club with special knowledge. Not unless the laws of physics cease to exist there. This is a serious subject you could address but you're all on the dodge.

                      If I have a question for soldier, it would be about stump broke cows or drug store cowboys. If he thinks high velocity rounds don't cause the damage these 10 or so docs I quoted say they do and because they are high velocity rounds, he's too fucking dumb for anything else.

                    4. Just about everything you have posted is wrong. The AR is not more lethal. The velocity is not that great, it does not cause a wound channel or more hydrostatic shock than just about any other standard cartridge. You've been wrong because you are spouting facts, without any understanding.

                    5. And let's discuss physics. Because physics states a heavier object moving at the same velocity creates more energy. And I never stated the vaccines were bullshit. In fact, I've told you I got my vaccine. Fuck, you are to stupid to even remember what the fuck people have said, and even understand what they have said.

                    6. You are not able to discuss physics apparently soldier. As I accurately stated above:

                      "As a matter of physics, damage from a moving object increases directly with it's mass, but is squared when it's speed is increased."

                    7. That's the equation for force, you idiot. The equation for work is mass times velocity. When you are talking damage from a round you are talking work/energy you fuckhead. You don't understand physics obviously.

                      Force is the force which a round hits you at, the damage is from the energy, which is 1/2MV^2. You never see a cartridge force listed, but you always see it's energy listed. Damage is the energy of the bullet. Actually, the higher the force, the less damage it does, because it doesn't transfer energy.

                      You are forgetting Newton's laws of motion, specifically the first and third law. The object working against the bullet is the target. A fast light round punches through the target, a slower, heavier round delivers more energy to the target, a faster, heavier round delivers even more energy. The concept isn't hard to understand. If it was all about force, hunters wouldn't use half the damn cartridges that they do. Lethality is about energy transfer. a cartridge that punches straight through a target without delivering energy to the target is useless. So we balance between high velocity, and heavier rounds. For deer, and the reason I keep mentioning deer is that they are the same weight as humans, I use a smaller weight bullet than I do for elk, out of the same rifle. Why? Because I don't need as much energy transfer. My elk cartridges are heavier but slower than my deer cartridges, and my moose cartridges are even slower and heavier. Because I want maximum energy transfer on a larger body. You also miss a whole bunch about bullet design, jacket, bullet composition etc. I much rather get shot with a FMJ out of an AR-15 than a 140 gr .40 S&W Winchester defender. The FMJ creates a smaller wound channel and less hydrostatic pressure than the .40 s&w defender round. The latter is designed to inflict maximum damage and expansion. The FMJ is designed to produce a smaller wound channel, and not to expand. I've told you this multiple times in multiple ways. Yet you keep arguing based upon a single media source and a misunderstanding of the pertinent physics. Force is not the pertinent measurement in lethality, energy is. Look in any reloading manual, or any cartridge box, they don't list force, they list energy. Because that is what kills.

                    8. Joe Friday is wrong.

                      Momentum = mass • velocity
                      In physics, the symbol for the quantity momentum is the lower case p. Thus, the above equation can be rewritten as

                      p = m • v
                      where m is the mass and v is the velocity. The equation illustrates that momentum is directly proportional to an object's mass and directly proportional to the object's velocity.

                      https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/u4l1a.cfm

                    9. Joe, shut up and learn something.

                    10. Yeah, the momentum vs energy debate is a big one among shooters.

                      The fact is that any reloader or hunter will discuss energy and momentum, well never discussing force, including professional shooters, says everything about what is important in a cartridge.

                      Besides, if they really knew about guns, most mass shootings would cause far more fatalities and casualties using a Mossberg 500 or Remington 850 in 12 gu with 00 buckshot. Yeah they only carry five rounds plus one in the pipe, but they are easily reloaded and will cause far more damage.

                      The lead guy in a stack when breaching often carries a shotgun rather than a M-4 for a reason. In close quarters nothing beats a 12 guage and it only has a muzzle velocity of 1300 fps, but you have 8-9 (depending on shell length and manufacturer) .33 caliber rounds, which are lethal at up to 100 yards, and at 25 yards or less, almost guaranteed a kill. In fact, the American Army used buck and ball in their smoothbore muskets, for this very reason.

                    11. Joe, set aside the second hand news from media people with an agenda and listen to the people who have first hand knowledge. Set politics and petty insults aside and read what they're saying. If there's one thing I know for sure about gun nuts is that they know what they're talking about. These people on Reason can educate you much better than a journalist if you're willing to learn. Then you can reread the articles with some base knowledge, and I can say for certain that the articles will read much differently.

                    12. Besides, if they really knew about guns, most mass shootings would cause far more fatalities and casualties using a Mossberg 500 or Remington 850 in 12 gu with 00 buckshot.

                      Vs an AR with several loaded 30 round magazines? Yeah whatever you hit at close range with the shotgun is destroyed, but sometimes quantity beats quality.

                    13. Tell me what I have posted that is wrong about wounds from high velocity weapons...

                      Here's the problem. It's terminology. You say "high velocity weapons" as if it means something. You also use terms like "assault rifle". Those things have meaning. And they don't mean what you think.
                      So you are having a conversation with people who are using a different dictionary. And theirs is the correct one.

                    14. soldiermedic76 - Perhaps we can better persuade our liberal acquaintances about firearms if we agree on some terminology first. Like what do things like "high velocity" or "assault weapon" mean. Otherwise the conversation is pointless. It's like when I was talking to some liberal woman about school choice and she was all for it because she thought it meant abortion in schools, not parents choosing where their kids are educated.

                    15. I would label 3100 fps high velocity for .22 caliber weapons, but not even the highest velocity even in that class. The .22-250 has a thousand feet per second advantage with the same weight bullet over the 5.56 mm/.223 caliber round. So, for a rifle I would label it as average velocity.

                      As for assault rifle, I favor the traditional definition, which is a select fire rifle, chambered in an intermediate cartridge. It's a stretch to label a .22 caliber rifle an intermediate cartridge, but okay. The AR-15 is obviously not select fire, it's a semi-automatic.

                      As for the magazine thing. How many times do they actually unload a mag? They shoot a couple then move on to the next area usually. Plenty of time to reload a shotgun in other words.

                    16. ""....The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit...."

                      http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html

                      As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

                      In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

                      I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

                      The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

                      A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived....."

                    17. "kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

                      Kinetic Energy Calculatorhttps://www.calculatorsoup.com › Physics

                    18. I already stated the kinetic energy equation dumbfuck. And also informed you it isn't the only consideration. And you can keep citing the same article, it doesn't make it any more correct. You Are wrong. Go to you tube and watch videos with actual ballistic gel and see why you are wrong. Bullet diameter and weight transfer more energy than a small, fast round. The small fast round has greater penetration fuck I've told you. But you never fucking can accept you are wrong and just keep repeating the same fucking stupid shit over and over no matter how many times you get corrected. Fuck. This is why I muted you. Because you are a fucking broken record who can't fucking learn.

                    19. AT 6:11 above soldier confirms my statement just above without knowing it and demonstrating his intent to prove me wrong no matter what I say, no to discuss an issue with intelligence.
                      I wrote:

                      As a matter of physics, damage from a moving object increases directly with it's mass, but is squared when it's speed is increased

                      He answers:

                      "Force is the force which a round hits you at, the damage is from the energy, which is 1/2MV^2."

                      Then he goes on to say that the damage is lessened by higher velocity.

                      WTF is wrong with this guy?

                2. You just called me an idiot above for saying the exact same thing you restated when you tried to correct me. If anyone is incapable of intellectual discussions, it's you. You admit you don't know anything about guns yet decide to try and correct those of us who do. Who lacks intellectual ability here?

                  1. As noted above, soldier the medic is saying the 10+ docs quoted above from various articles are all wrong and because he spends a lot of time playing with guns, he knows this to be true. Apparently the laws of physics, which states that impact is squared by increasing velocity while only by direct ratio by mass is now declared wrong by soldier as well.

                    1. It is wrong.

                    2. You try to ridicule me, but you keep saying the same thing over and over again without even understanding why what you are saying is wrong.

                    3. kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

                      Kinetic Energy Calculatorhttps://www.calculatorsoup.com › Physics

                    4. Which I already stated above you moron. So a 140 grain round at the same velocity or even slower,delivers more kinetic energy than a 75 grain round.

                    5. That is also impacted by bullet diameter and bullet composition and barrel length. Because it's not just how much energy but also about energy transfer. Newtons third law. A faster round, with a smaller diameter and lower weight bullet, with higher acceleration is going to transfer less energy than a slower round, with lower acceleration and heavier, bigger bullet. It's not just the energy that you deliver it's how that energy is transferred to your target. A faster round may have more energy and more force but it transfers less energy. It's far more complicated than velocity.

                    6. This is commonly discussed on gun forums and other similar sites. Higher velocity does have more energy and more force, than a slower round, however, this really matters in two situations, accuracy and penetration. At close range this doesn't really matter, because almost any modern cartridge has more than enough penetration power at under 25 meters to strike a vital organs, even a .22 (which is also the most common pistol cartridge used in drive by shootings that or the .25). Energy transfer, or sometimes known by the misnomer knock down power, is different than penetration power. In fact the higher the penetrating power, the lower the energy transfer.

                    7. There are several YouTube videos which discuss this and use ballistic gel to show the shockwave from a small, higher velocity round vs a larger, slower round. Maybe if you took the time to learn a thing or two, rather than selecting the first article that supports your mistaken belief you wouldn't sound so uninformed.

                    8. Apparently the laws of physics, which states that impact is squared by increasing velocity while only by direct ratio by mass is now declared wrong by soldier as well.

                      The laws of physics to which you're referring only govern external ballistics, not internal, terminal, or transitional ballistics. Your assertion is like saying because a 10 gram inflated balloon and 10 gram bullet have the same mass and same kinetic energy due to gravity, they should penetrate the surface of a lake the same way. It's just a fundamentally retarded stance that ignores all the other physics that exists and was known to exist prior to the definition of kinetic energy. Leibniz and Bernoulli weren't the only physicist to ever exist and it's arguable he wouldn't have made his discovery without Archimedes discoveries millennia prior.

                    9. Probably because the Taliban weren't using AR-15s, Joe Fuckface.

                  2. I can't help your confusion soldier. You're so busy muddying the waters and talking about deer hunting, you can't keep straight what you've said. There is no doubt you disagree with the ER docs who have actually treated both those shot with assault rifles and handguns and who all agree the damage from the latter is more fixable and from the former, often not due to excessive damage, including to adjacent organs and tissue not actually hit by the bullet.

                    My source on the physics of high velocity rounds is from Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas., yours is from your prolific butt.

                    As to kinetic energy, as I pointed out in the beginning, increases in velocity increase damage exponentially (squared) while increases in mass are strictly proportional.

                    By the way, on covid vaccines, if you got one - congratulations - you sat here daily without objection as ignorant fucks dominated the debate here while ignoring the fact in both red and blue states new cases, ICU admittance, and deaths were led by the unvaxxed. How many reading this bullshit were encouraged in their ignorance and onto death and your silent acquiescence?

                    "COVID-19 vaccines could have prevented at least 318,000 virus-related deaths between January 2021 and April 2022, a new analysis found.

                    The analysis used real-world data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The New York Times and was done by researchers from Brown School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Microsoft AI for Health.

                    Their findings suggest that at least "every second person" who died from COVID since vaccines became available might have been saved by getting the shot..."

                    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/300000-us-covid-deaths-averted-vaccination-analysis-finds/story?id=84753284

                    1. Probably because the Taliban weren't using AR-15s, Joe Fuckface.

              2. I don't own a road bike so I don't fucking make an idiot of myself by comparing an electroglide to a gold wing or scout.

                The Scout is the high-velocity assault bike designed to kill civilians, right?

                1. I am not sure, but always have thought the Indian bikes are nicer looking than the Harley-Davidsons or the Hondas. And from what I've read the Indians are more reliable too than the Harleys.

                  1. So I guess they may be assault bikes, good looking and reliable, since that seems to be the major selling point of the AR. The scout is also lighter than the electroglide, so it's easier to pick up after you dump it. So, it really is the assault weapon of the street bikes.

      4. ....A good reason to purchase/build an AR-10 eh?

        1. My AR-15 started as an 80% lower. It's not that difficult.

    2. Yup. They're great home defense weapons. Everyone should have one at their bedside. You don't want to miss what you're shooting at when you're in a critical situation, and you especially don't want to hit someone who is "near" the line of fire.

      1. Along with a .45 and a short barreled shot gun.

      2. Not a gun owner myself, but a friend of mine who is once advised me that shotguns are his preferred home defense tool because they do not penetrate walls as easily. You only want to shoot the thing you are pointing at, not things behind them, or the things behind those things, like you would with a rifle.

        1. I'd advise a .22. Seriously. It won't make you totally deaf and after squeezing the trigger a few times most people are going to stop what they are doing.

        2. Pump action shotgun is the way to go. Intruders hear the pump and jump out the window.

          1. Small caliber handgun. Pop pop. They run away and you're not deaf.

          2. I'm already half deaf from going to concerts. Don't need to make it worse.

            1. The idea is after the pump sound, you don't have to shoot.

              1. Then they run away and know you have a gun to steal the next time you aren't home.

                Fuck that. Open fire. Let the cops follow the blood trail.

              2. Why are you jacking the pump? You should already have a round chambered and ready to fire. Waiting to jack the pump is asking for the gun to get taken away from you. It's a Hollywood thing. I've jacked a round before I even confront you, because if I need to resort to lethal force I'm ready for it not giving you time to rush me and take the gun away from me.

                1. Jinks

              3. As if there was any doubt, this confirms your idiocy, 4 bit Dick.

                This is a long discredited myth.

          3. While it's true that merely displaying a weapon far and away the most common (and commonly effective) defensive use, chambering a round of any caliber is effective. A pump-action shotgun is not particularly louder or more distinctive than the charging handle of an AR-15 or the barrel-slide of a semi-automatic handgun.

          4. Joe is that special kind of dumbass who likes to keep his self defense weapons unloaded.

            1. Him being a dumbass and storing his weapon unloaded doesn't really bother me. He's been told and he should know better. It's him telling other people that bother me. Here's hoping he effectively fucks around and finds out before effectively advising someone else to do the same.

        3. It all depends on what you are comfortable with and familiar with. And the situation. I keep my shotguns usually downstairs in my safe, and have my XD-40 upstairs in a small safe that I can access quickly. If given time I'll go for one of my 12 (have a Mossberg 500 pump I bought when I was 19 stationed in Texas and a Franchi Affinity I bought about 8 years ago, really like my Affinity, the Mossberg let's you know when you've shot it but it's a workhorse) or my AR. I have the AR simply because I'm really familiar with it after ten years in the Army. I can field strip it blindfolded and reassemble it (my son actually didn't believe I could do this so I showed him). I don't have to look away to load, cycle the action, reload etc, it's all muscle memory. It's not modified, it's a standard Bushmaster XM-15 sportster II mil spec I bought in 2008 (the day after Obama was elected, and it was the last one available in Anchorage when I bought it).

          My advice is spend some time on the range whatever you buy. There is no such thing as the perfect weapon. They all have trade offs. With a shotgun, you best hope you don't need to worry about accuracy, such as someone holding a hostage in front of them. If you are good, a .22 LR is cheap to shoot and shot placement is everything. But it won't stop someone as well as a .45 ACP will. But the .45 has far more recoil and is far more expensive to shoot. The 9 is accurate, but doesn't have the energy transfer, so less likely to stop an intruder or target. The .40 is a good compromise round, heavier than the 9 without the recoil of the .45 and a double stacked magazine isn't quite as big in your hands as a double stacked .45 (how big are your hands, because for a pistol that matters a lot). I owned a Walther P22 once, and absolutely hated it, it's the only gun I've ever sold. The frame was way to small for me, and it only liked high velocity .22 rounds, which defeated the purpose in my opinion of owning a .22 pistol (with standard cartridges ended up with a lot of stove pipe jams). Of course there are ways of cutting ammunition costs. You can shoot a .38 special out of a .357 (less recoil and cheaper cartridge) but it won't perform the same. Good enough for familiarizing and practice, but you will really need to fire some .357 magnum rounds to be accurate and confident with it. .44 special will fire through a .44 magnum with the same caveats as the .38 out of the .357. Out of an AR, UMC or another cheap brand will do the trick, and you can also fire the .223 Remington (the rule of thumb is you can shoot the .223 out of a 5.56 mm weapon but not vice versa as the 5.56 has higher case pressure). But for self defense you probably want to look at self defense rounds which are designed to have maximum expansion, and lower penetration and deliver more energy to target than the FMJ. They're also two to three times the cost. Bulk 5.56 FMJ are around $45/50 rounds, the Winchester defender 64 grain 5.56 mm bonded self defense round runs $35/20 rounds or more (and I can't find any in stock a lot of the time). I wouldn't recommend the FMJ for self defense, it over penetrates usually passing through without transferring energy and creating a very small wound channel with very little wound cavitation.

          1. I just want to say I greatly appreciate this post.

    3. Those from an M16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed.

      Comparing a M-16 rifle to a handgun instead of other rifles. Yeah, no dishonesty there.

      1. As a matter of public policy, no one cares about deer hunting, but crime - mostly handguns - and mass shootings - mostly "assault rifles" - are legitimate concerns, that is what these docs see in the hospitals, and the comparison is therefore apt.

        1. Ignoring deer hunting is what allows people to (falsely) portray the AR-15 as being uniquely powerful, when it is not.

          1. The type is not unique in using high velocity rounds, but for that group it is compact, with a large magazine, looks cool for playing "army man" or "assassin" and is the choice of mass shooters in the US.

            1. And a great deal more people who aren't mass shooters.

              You'd ban the Toyota Corolla if it was favored by wheelmen in bank jobs.

              1. High velocity capable weapons are not Toyota Corollas Unicorn. Maybe you're thinking of an M1 Abrams tank.

                1. The right to bear high velocity arms is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, while the right to own a Japanese-made personal transportation device is not.

                2. Tell that to every crazed psycho who has plowed a car into a crowd of people. We've had quite a few of those in recent years actually. Giant hunk of metal + high speed + inconspicuous right up until you swerve off the street. Face it, cars are basically ready-made terrorist weapons.

                3. In this thread, Ruby Tuesday deliberately misses the point.

            2. As opposed to low velocity rounds? What are you talking about?

          2. To be fair, it's likely a combination of bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

        2. Most mass shootings are done with handguns.

          1. link sarcasmic. By type or body count or what. Define your terms.

            1. Mass shootings are defined by the number of bodies, right? Most of the time the shooter uses handguns. Why? Because you can't easily conceal an "assault weapon". Look it up. It's common knowledge among people who know anything about guns.

              1. Clearly not this group who have no idea what high velocity rounds do to humans. I'll take that as a cop out answer sarcasmic and look for myself. I think you're wrong.

                1. Velocity by itself doesn't mean shit. 45 acp as in the colt 1911 is a subsonic round.

                  1. Few things by themselves are a problem sarcasmic but as attested by docs and statistics, weapons shooting high velocity rounds are both deadly and popular with mass shooters.

                    1. As opposed to what? Low velocity rounds? That's like saying most car accidents involve cars with engines.

                    2. High velocity sounds scary, but if it's a high velocity pellet vs a low velocity slug, the slug will do more damage. You're falling for people using words to elicit emotional reactions. Learn some things about guns before declaring this is more dangerous than that. Those of use who actually shoot things with different guns actually know. We see it. You're going on hype.

                2. "The mass shooting this past April at an Indianapolis FedEx facility has something in common with the deadliest massacres - the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Variations of the AR-15 were used to kill at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, a Pittsburgh synagogue, Texas church, a Las Vegas concert, a high school in Florida, and Sandy Hook Elementary School. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. There are over 19 million and they are rarely used in crime. Handguns kill far more people. But as we first reported in 2018, the AR-15 is the choice of our worst mass murderers. ..."

                  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-used-mass-shootings-weapon-of-choice-60-minutes-2021-06-13/

                  This one agrees with you but doesn't give a body count or define "mass shooting".

                  " Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 146 different handguns being used in 98 incidents between 1982 and May 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 127 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 77 percent of mass shootings.
                  The involvement of semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings
                  Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 50 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.
                  Mass shootings and gun control
                  Despite evidence of strict gun control measures reducing the frequency and severity of mass shootings in countries like Australia, citizens in the United States remain deeply divided over the issue. ...'

                  https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

                  1. "USA TODAY researched each shooting that Best mentioned and found that in 11 out of 12 of the incidents listed, AR-15-style rifles were used. The sole exception is the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, in which the shooter used an assault rifle that is not considered an AR-15 variant.

                    In the list below, we detail the weapon or weapons used in each shooting, in addition to the number of victims and their dates. Click on the headers for more information about the incidents from USA TODAY...."

                    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-missing-context-ar-15-rifles-and-mass-shootings/7039204002/

                    1. Safe to say that the worst mass shootings in recent times have been done almost exclusively with assault rifles, though the Statista article - going back to 1985 - says in total more with handguns.

                      In either case, assault rifles used in mass shootings is a serious problem because they are the weapon of choice and they are exceedingly deadly compared to a handgun.

                    2. The worst mass shootings in recent times have been done by people intent on killing a lot of people.
                      If they hadn't been able to obtain a scary black rifle they would have been less murderous?
                      Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

                    3. No, the USA today article refers to media mentions. The FBI data discounts the USA Today article, which found mass shootings (3 or more victims) were disproportionately done with pistols. The fact is that long arms (that means all rifles, shotguns and so called assault weapons) combined accounted for 200 deaths per annum. More people are killed with blunt objects than with all long arms.

                  2. FTA: "The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. There are over 19 million and they are rarely used in crime. Handguns kill far more people."

                    Black rifles are scary. But you can't hide them in your pants.

        3. The usual talking points, for which you are paid [and no doubt too much, even at 50 cents an hour, idiot].

          1. OMG who would pay people to post on this wasteland full of right wing trolls, idiots, and the occasional unwelcome libertarian?

          2. You stupid motherfuckers have never discussed high velocity rounds as the most deadly characteristic of "assault weapons" and you know it. No one does, but that is the most lethal aspect of them, not how cool or deadly they look, how big the magazines - though that helps get off more high velocity rounds - and the discussion on gun control should focus there so you guys could quit making fun of people who think their looks and magazines are the thing and actually have to defend what and why mass shooters love them and why doctors freak out when the victims hit the ER.

            1. It's a combination of mass and velocity. 5.56 doesn't have much mass.

              1. kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared.

                Kinetic Energy Calculatorhttps://www.calculatorsoup.com › Physics

            2. Gee, you sound frustrated.

              And like you've run to find some sources that you have copied here without fully understanding the topic, and now you're mad because none of us buy the bullshit you are trying to sell.

              The biggest advantages of the AR platform is that it is lightweight, has low recoil [enabling you to stay on target] and a soldier can carry more ammunition because it too is smaller and lighter. There is no "magic bullet" about it, regardless of what ER docs or trauma surgeons opine [I know my share of both, by the way]; the type of bullet used, be if FMJ, hollow point, or frangible has a lot more to do with what it does to a body than just how fast it is moving.

              1. And I'm betting, based on FBI data and other sources, the vast majority of those gang bangers are using a .22 or .25 caliber pistol, not even the 9 mm. A 22 grain .22 LR is going to leave a smaller wound than a 75 grain of the same bullet diameter. It's a function of weight of the bullet and amount of powder in the cartridge. A .22-250 is going to outperform a .223 Remington any day of the week, on any measurement, with the same bullet, because the .22-250 has a bigger cartridge which means more powder. A .25 ACP is useless in my opinion, but they are cheap and ammunition is cheap. A .22 LR is fun to shoot, but not good for much besides small rodents and game. And out of a pistol is worth even less. I'm not a huge 9 mm fan, but I'm really wanting the Sig-Sauer P320 M17 mil spec because it's a highly modular handgun. I'll keep my XD-40 in my bedroom safe for home defense and the P320 will end up in my truck, alongside my .22 magnum revolver. The revolver is for varmints and putting down livestock (a 30 GR hollowpoint behind the ear puts them down like a load of bricks) but if I'm having to go for self defense, I'd rather have a 9 over a .22 magnum. And it'll be loaded with the Winchester Defender rounds, because I personally like them in my XD-40. I also like the look of the M17 in coyote tan. Maybe mount a flashlight or laser sight. I wouldn't mind a flashlight or laser site for my XD either, probably go with the flashlight, since it's for home defense.

                If I carried, I've always leaned towards the Ruger SP revolvers, wanted one in .327 magnum for awhile. May only have six shots, but I'll take a revolver over an automatic, for reliability sake. But that's personal preference and I like the .327 over the .38. I don't mind bigger recoil in a pistol, I've shot a .44 magnum for decades, and can usually shoot a five shot 4 inch group at 25 yards off hand consistently with it using either 250 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint round or 425 grain hard cast, flat nosed bear round. I did kill a Richardson ground squirrel (which is smaller than a gray squirrel) with my .22 magnum revolver (SAA clone with fixed sites) at 25+ yards off hand (it took three shots and some Kentucky windage but I hit it in the head) last year. Tried a couple times to take out a badger thats been tearing up my pasture and my neighbors hay field, but he keeps ducking back into his hole whenever I get close enough. One of these days he'll make the mistake of sticking his head up when I'm carrying my AR, loaded with 53 grain Hornandy VMax bullets. Then he'll be digging up pastures in heaven.

    4. Have you ever shot a gun?

      1. He received intensive firearms training from Mike Hihn.

      2. Sure. I live in a rural section have a shotgun which I've used on critters and my father used to take me when I was a kid. Had a really cool lever action Winchester that would knock me over.

        It didn't take. I have no desire to shoot for fun or hunt. My metal fetish is focused on bicycles.

        1. Fair enough. There's a lot of guys on this forum for whom it did take, and we lean forward so we don't get knocked over.

          Also I really like my Gary Fisher. It's an old one, but it's still better than a lot of what they make today.

        2. My metal fetish is focused on bicycles.

          Lightweight, high velocity assault bicycles or classic, heavy Schwinns that couldn't possibly kill anyone?

          1. If Huffy made an airplane would you fly in it?

            1. To be fair, the first plane was built by two bicycle makers.

              1. And the STEN gun could be constructed out of parts easily available at any hardware store with minimal machining necessary. The M-3 'grease gun' was made by GMC's head light department.

  20. That the New York law didn't prevent what they were supposed to help prevent is beside the point. The New York law is unconstitutional either way.

  21. “How is that possible?”

    Because criminals don’t care what the law says.

  22. Notice how the damn coward was sure to pick out a place where there would not be return fire.
    Nothing ruins a mass shooting like getting blown away by an intended victim after just a couple of rounds.

    1. Gun free zones every time.

      I might die in the encounter, but not without a fighting chance. My personal security starts with me. And yes I take qualified training and practice.

      If others choose to rely on others for their safety, and insist upon a risk [specifically gun] free world, that is their problem.

  23. So they prohibit having a pistol grip which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon".

    So get a left hand upper, rotate the stock on the lower 90 degrees clockwise, mount an optic on the formerly right side of the quad rail and presto the pistol grip now protrudes conspicuously to the right of the action as does the magazine. Bonus, spent cases are ejected downward. Obviously reverse if a left handed shooter.

    1. Considering the number of forward assist users who will get confused and use the trigger to unjam the weapon sent a chill down my spine. Further considering that we're talking about forward assist users in New York made the chill go away.

      1. Well, forward assist is really just so people can firmly seat a 300 Blackout in a 5.56 chamber without realizing the bullet is seated on the neck of the chamber.

        1. Nah, the forward assist helps in combat situations when you are putting a lot of rounds down range, because the M-16 shits where it eats and that carbon does build up enough to jam the bolt after a couple hundred rounds. But, yeah for most civilians it is useless.
          How do you clear a malfunction on an M-16A2 rifle?
          SPORTS Sergeant! Slap the magazine, pull the charging handle, observe the firing chamber, release the charging handle, tap the forward assist, squeeze the trigger!
          Been 27 years since basic and I still remember that (when I went through basic at FT Leonard Wood they'd smoke you if you called them drill sergeant, at FT Jackson they'd smoke you if you didn't call them drill sergeant, basic is all about mind games and learning to work as a team under pressure).

          1. But, yeah for most civilians it is useless.

            The forward assist exists so that, after making a number of bad decisions, you can genuflect without taking your hand off the grip. It's largely useless to AR Protestants who think it's more about being lax in your faith, demonstrating obedience to the Church and any absurd doctrine they come up with, and don't actually believe it will save your immortal soul.

          2. Oh yeah, I get the whole dirty DI gun thing. I do question it on some guns, like Sig's MPX series and HK416/MR556/MR762 which are all piston driven with the exception of the HK416 22LR - which also inexplicably has one.

            I suppose it comes down to gov't contracts and having all the controls be the same/familiar.

  24. *FAKE MSM NEWS*
    PER AXIOS:
    "Buffalo police believe this weekend's racist mass shooting was meant to extend beyond Tops Friendly Market.

    'He was going to get in his car and continue to drive down Jefferson Avenue and continue doing the same thing,' Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia told CNN.
    The big picture: Law enforcement has yet to verify the 180-page racist screed reportedly posted by the suspect.

    Many police comments about the suspect's alleged plans and motivations have been similar to the document, AP reports.

    ???? Fresh lead: The Washington Post reports it has identified another online document — posted last month by a username used by the suspect — that says he was confronted by a security guard at Tops Friendly Market back in March.

    The document included a specific count of how many white and Black people were inside the store.
    The document referred to Tops Market as 'attack area 1.' "

    It was obviously a staged false flag! Never mind all those black Americans who seem to have maybe possibly died. Just more fake news.

    1. Don't fret- you'll get what you deserve.

    2. It was obviously a staged false flag! Never mind all those black Americans who seem to have maybe possibly died. Just more fake news.

      In Buffalo, or an average weekend in Chicago?

  25. In reaction to the headline, yes indeed, and the GOP making abortion illegal across the nation with a federal ban won't stop abortions either.

  26. "Why New York's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Didn't Stop the Buffalo Massacre"

    No article needed, I'll tell you.

    Laws don't stop people from doing something that they want to do.

    Murder is illegal already and that didn't stop him.
    Discharging firearms in city limits is a crime....didn't stop him.
    Threatening people with a deadly weapon is a crime....didn't stop him.

    Places were guns are illegal people use knives, bombs, illegal guns, clubs, etc.

    If laws, aka. just saying doing is wrong worked then never would a traffic ticket ever be written as nobody would dare violate some words.

    Now, since laws supposedly matter, can someone tell me about all the legal mass shootings that occur? Or were there laws in place already against murder, gun crime(s), threatening people with deadly force, etc?

  27. This incident is not a gun control failure. Instead, it's a failure of our mental health systems to identify and properly treat dangerous people. The perpetrator of this shooting was disturbed enough a year or so before the shooting for the police to have insisted on a mental health exam. He was hospitalized for a day and a half, and apparently given a clean bill of health. In most locations the minimum time for an evaluation like that is 72 hours, or 3 days. They went through the motions, but did not get an adequate examination, nor did they follow through after the exam. For someone as disturbed as he was, it should have been easy to bring out his violent, anti-social thoughts and potential for dangerous behavior in a thorough mental health exam, and arrange for appropriate treatment. Nancy Pelosi says she wants to do something about this sort of incident...she should start by looking at the state of our mental health care system.

    1. She could start with retiring, and declining her pension. That would remove a great deal of the rhetoric and useless posturing, and put some money back into the system.

    2. It's always the same story. The left focuses on the weapon, despite that not being all that correlative to mass shootings. But the one common factor in all of these is a history of mental health issues, generally untreated, and rarely do you hear anyone say 'i can't believe it from Joe.' No, almost always you hear those who know the shooter say 'there was always something wrong with him, he was always kind of creepy and gave you an off feeling'. They also tend to spend a lot of time on social media and when reviewed it almost always invariably shows that their social media presence gave plenty of warnings that people missed or ignored. Even the Columbine shooters, despite social media not existing, gave lots of warnings and people interviewed pretty unanimously agreed that those two were psychos long before the shooting (National Geographic actually did a really good special on this a couple decades ago that totally dispelled the bullied kids who snapped myth about Columbine, turns out they were the bullies not the bullied).

      1. The shooters also often have parents who ignored their kids troubling behavior and indulged them and often protected them from any repercussions of their previous actions.

      2. What do you suggest as appropriate in these situations? Changes in the law going back to the 1980s have made it very difficult to commit someone without their consent - see homeless problem - and we don't seem to have the funds or laser like ability to focus on the ones who will do mass killings and "treat" them.

  28. Thanks for sharing this information. This information is of great value to amateurs like me.
    Market Research Community

  29. Gotta love ignorant politicians. Assault weapons are capable of fully automatic fire and already illegal under the Firearms Act from the 1930s. These guns are only semi-automatic like most pistols and many rifles and shotguns. Banning these weapons because the look more dangerous is like writing speeding tickets for cars that look fast.

  30. So, the ultimate takeaway's from this article:
    "Mass murderers are not punctilious about obeying gun control laws."
    Well duh.
    Politicans / legislatures don't know what the f*** they're doing.
    Again, well duh.

  31. No law can stop anyone from killing, nor for killing by use of any kind of weapon. No "background check can look into a person's head. The idea is absurd on its face. The issue is that the POLICE, FAMILY MEMBERS, FRIENDS and ACQUAINTANCES, all KNEW of the mental depravity of this individual. The fact is they did NOTHING, neither did SOCIAL MEDIA ITSELF.
    The responsibility is not with a gun, it is with those that could have done something. They are the ones that deserve to know that they caused this....and live with the murders for the rest of their lives, they COULD and SHOULD have prevented it.
    I will say that had their been a few who had concealed carry on them this would have ended differently. SCOTUS has stated that POLICE have NO DUTY to protect, only a duty to INVESTIGATE. Meanwhile POLITICIANS take away the RIGHT to SELF PROTECTION. Makes sense?

  32. Let’s cut to the chase, eliminating the baloney.

    Point number 1. Semi Automatic Pistols appeared late in the 19th century, semi automatic rifles

  33. Every time these things happen, gun owners buy more large capacity magazines. Duh!

  34. More proof the left never bothers with the facts of the validity of what the print or say, why bother with the dilemma of a malicious story used to malign your opposition and never have to print a retraction or give a apology....For them Stupid really counts....

Comments are closed.