As for your second part, I personally would rather be shot clean by a high powered rifle than not. Why? Higher power means the bullet, if not hitting a major vital spot, will more than likely just go clean through. Less powerful shots (that still have enough power to penetrate to a certain point) are going to get stuck inside me, tumble, and cause far more damage to my insides. That is what the AR-15 is designed for. Enough penetration on a human target without over penetration. The bullet is shaped to have enough penetration to get in, go in deep enough without popping out the other side, and to tumble a crap ton. That tumbling is what actually makes the wound channel much bigger.
First thing about physics, it takes far more velocity to equal the same amount of kinetic energy than when there is more mass when it comes to force.
First thing about physics, it takes far more velocity to equal the same amount of kinetic energy than when there is more mass when it comes to force.
AR-15's fire a 5.56 cartridge which is a relatively SMALL cartridge for rifles. Not many smaller except .22lr really. Most of which have around 20-24 grams of gunpowder in the casing. Compared with the average 30-06 rifle which is a much bigger bullet (150-180gr bullet for 30-06 compared to 50-55gr 5.56 round) it also has around 55 grams of gunpowder in the casing. More gun powder adds more force to the explosive which is more gas pressure which imparts more acceleration and thus more velocity.
The kinetic energy output from just about every regular hunting rifle on the market surpasses the AR-15. The AR-15 isn't designed as a "high powered" rifle at all.
As for your second part, I personally would rather be shot clean by a high powered rifle than not. Why? Higher power means the bullet, if not hitting a major vital spot, will more than likely just go clean through. Less powerful shots (that still have enough power to penetrate to a certain point) are going to get stuck inside me, tumble, and cause far more damage to my insides. That is what the AR-15 is designed for. Enough penetration on a human target without over penetration. The bullet is shaped to have enough penetration to get in, go in deep enough without popping out the other side, and to tumble a crap ton. That tumbling is what actually makes the wound channel much bigger.
Another thing people like you don't know about guns is that it takes a lot of damage to kill a target if you don't hit a vital spot like the central nervous system. This is why cops are training to do "mag dumps" when they are required to fire at a target. Shoot center mass of the target (because it's the easiest to aim at), and then unload everything your gun has. Why? It takes that many shots most of the time to put a person down.
If you look at the formula, it would appear that it is the other way round. I.e. A relatively modest increase in velocity (bullet speed), will give a dispraportionally big increase in punch (Energy), due to the fact that it is being squared (V^2).
I have heard that for military weapons, they use less destructive ammunition, on purpose. This is because, a shot and very badly wounded soldier, is no longer a fighting force/threat. But can be very useful, as it will hurt the enemy as they will have to expend resources, dealing with the badly wounded soldier.
I'd like to see to that mod.
but it'd probably be more amazing on a 249 or 240B not that there are any civilian versions of those but it be interesting to see how long they'd fire before the barrel needed to be changed assuming the water-cooling allows that easily.
If you look at the formula, it would appear that it is the other way round. I.e. A relatively modest increase in velocity (bullet speed), will give a dispraportionally big increase in punch (Energy), due to the fact that it is being squared (V^2).
False.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/4/14/ohio-ordnance-works-m240-slr/
No idea why someone would want a semi-auto medium machine gun. Seems like a waste of money for all, save the hardcore re-enactment/collector crowd. Or madoka.
If you look at the formula, it would appear that it is the other way round. I.e. A relatively modest increase in velocity (bullet speed), will give a dispraportionally big increase in punch (Energy), due to the fact that it is being squared (V^2).
If a bullet passes through a target, only a portion of its kinetic energy will have been dissipated.
If a bullet passes through a target, only a portion of its kinetic energy will have been dissipated.
There is a good Mythbusters episode, which I remember/think goes into this, about the bullets and velocity.
Water (which is what we mostly consist of), behaves rather strangely when it gets hit by ever increasing velocities. Essentially it gets more and more solid, the faster you hit it. That is why you can jump into a swimming pool, without too much difficulties.
But if you fall into water from say 100 feet up, it will be like hitting solid concrete, because of the weird properties of water, at ever increasing velocities,
So a very high velocity bullet, hits a very solid object (a human body, i.e. mostly water) and expends its energy, in a relatively short distance. But a slower bullet, may actually be able to travel further through the human body.
Another example, is that is why you can't be shot underwater. Assuming you are at least 5 feet (not sure of the exact safe distance, but maybe less is ok), underwater. Again, there is a Mythbusters episode about it.
This is true to an extent, but to paraphrase Randall Munroe, sometimes the answer to a physics based 'this or this' scenario is 'Yes'. It gets to a point where muzzle velocity and mass don't matter anymore, because either combination will kill you just as easily.
I have heard that for military weapons (which I think the AR-15 is based on), they use less destructive ammunition, on purpose. This is because, a shot and very badly wounded soldier, is no longer a fighting force/threat. But can be very useful, as it will hurt the enemy as they will have to expend resources, dealing with the badly wounded soldier.
If you look at the formula, it would appear that it is the other way round. I.e. A relatively modest increase in velocity (bullet speed), will give a dispraportionally big increase in punch (Energy), due to the fact that it is being squared (V^2).
If a bullet passes through a target, only a portion of its kinetic energy will have been dissipated.
I have no idea where you get this wives' tale from, but you can put it back there. The standard side arm for a long ass time for the military was a .45 acp round for the 1911 and the standard rifle was the M1 garand. Those two was only toned down for guerilla warfare when fighting in urban environments because of the chance the more powerful firearms would over penetrate and either hit civilians or friendly units.
The other major reason for the smaller ammo is simply weight. Less weight, more maneuverable rifle, easier to carry, and the modularity made it easier to fix. Also, less powerful rounds have far less recoil which allows for better aim and less chance of hitting something you don't want to be hitting.
Until we figure out how to change them maybe that final lesson of a bullet to the head is all society has left to teach them.
My understanding is that whatever ammunition and gun(s), you choose for the soldier/Police or household defender, is going to be some kind of compromise, between various issues. There is no magic bullet (ignore the pun), where one size suits all.
Maybe one day bullets will have tiny computers built into them, so that they only take out the bad guys and enemies.
Apparently there already are smart bullets (I'm not sure what they are called, and they need special guns to fire them from), which can shoot round corners, by using tiny miniaturized electronics built into the bullet.
My understanding is that whatever ammunition and gun(s), you choose for the soldier/Police or household defender, is going to be some kind of compromise, between various issues. There is no magic bullet (ignore the pun), where one size suits all.
Maybe one day bullets will have tiny computers built into them, so that they only take out the bad guys and enemies.
Apparently there already are smart bullets (I'm not sure what they are called, and they need special guns to fire them from), which can shoot round corners, by using tiny miniaturized electronics built into the bullet.
Which is why I said calling the AR-15 a "powerful" assault rifle is just silly. It's a rifle designed to be used on human targets as a light weight, easy to maneuver, easy to repair, and easy to use in an urban environment. You want a powerful rifle? Use a .50 BMG and now you can have rounds that basically penetrates through concrete, cars, and body armor pretty easily.
The point I was making is that your statements about guns for the most part are very wrong.
I think you are stuck at the same point most anti-gun folks get stuck. You are trying to find some way to put the onus to use the firearm responsibly on the firearm itself. You are searching for some magic technology or law that will make sure guns are never misused.
I completely understand why because it's a scary bit of knowledge that the willingness to commit violence is the ultimate power and control in our world. No amount of gun control, technology or laws can completely eliminate violence and those willing to use that violence criminally against others.
True cultural change and educating our young to be better human beings is our only hope of escaping violence. Even if we can ever achieve that lofty goal, the good still need to be vigilant and remain armed. Completely disarming in the name of peace is a fools dream, until we can guarantee evil no longer exists.
I remember being kind of amazed a few years back when, out of curiosity, I was looking up muzzle velocity of old firearms.
A springfield 1861 fired a .58 (15mm) ball at 950 ft/s. I can only imagine how much that would have hurt, considering if it didn't catch you in the head, it was probably like having someone jamb their thumb through you about halfway.
I'm enjoying the ballistics discussion, but back on topic a bit.
I know this will sound harsh, but we need to get over the idea that all human life is sacred. Most of us have a built in drive to preserve human life at almost any cost. Firefighters rush into burning buildings to pull folks out. When a single hiker is lost we will send sometimes hundreds of rescuers out to search for them. We willingly risk numerous human lives to help those in trouble. This is the beautiful human instinct to care about our fellow man that lives in most of us. I have no greater respect than for those who risk themselves to protect their fellow man.
Violent criminals don't have that same instinct to care about others. It's been replaced, or they've learned through a flawed upbringing, that violence and crime are acceptable ways to fulfill their needs. They will hurt others to get what they want and are a danger to a safe, productive society.
It's my argument that when folks choose to be criminals we don't need to necessarily think of their lives a sacred any longer, but as sometimes as a cancer that needs to be cut from the otherwise healthy body of society. I don't say that lightly because, ultimately, the failure of parents, relatives and society to raise our young people to be productive, law abiding citizens is a blame we all share to at least some degree.
It is tragic that these three young men died, but they were old enough to know better. Or at least old enough that we should have taught them better by now. Can we overcome whatever is broken inside young adult violent criminals and rehabilitate them? Statistics on criminal recidivism says usually not. Prison obviously isn't working. The religion most incarcerated criminals turn to doesn't help. I'm just not sure how to reach the broken and those who were not taught at a young age to be good people.
Until we figure out how to change them maybe that final lesson of a bullet to the head is all society has left to teach them.