Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Women Need AR-15 (Scary Looking Guns)


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#46    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

You always have to consider that the smaller (military) calibers were not designed to kill but seriously maim and injure. Killing a enemy takes one out, maiming one that screams and howls will take out another 2 or three to carry the guy back as he demoralizes the rest of the troops.


Many people will see themselves on the wrong side of a law suit after defending themselves with a castrated assault rifle.

Myth. The smaller caliber bullets such as the 5.56mm NATO, although does not have the stopping power that a larger caliber may have, was designed to tumble and fragment once it hits the body, causing much more complex injuries which will cause the enemy combatant to bleed out and die.

In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#47    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:56 PM

View Postaztek, on 08 February 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

lets not get into dishonesty part, cuz there is a lot more dishonesty on gunhaters side, than facts.

also they are not banning assult rifles based on how lethal the round is,  there is also very few crimes commited with AR\AK,, next to handguns.

yet al we hear, is assult rifles this, and assult rifles that.  that is a lot bigger dishonesty.

actually i 've heard of more murders using .22 weapon, than .223.

I'm not arguing any of that here, nor am I arguing that there are more .223 related deaths than .22. What I'm saying is that its dishonest to tell people that somehow a .22 is virtually the same as a .223

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#48    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Myth. The smaller caliber bullets such as the 5.56mm NATO, although does not have the stopping power that a larger caliber may have, was designed to tumble and fragment once it hits the body, causing much more complex injuries which will cause the enemy combatant to bleed out and die.

In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

After quite an agonizing time, yes. You will also die if a .22 hits you from 400 yards away in the guts, just not immediately. but you will unless rushed to a hospital. Wit a man stopper you will keel over and that is the end of it.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#49    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:58 PM

Quote

In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

I believe that has more to do with landmines and such that maim after the conflict and pose a great danger to civilians even after the conflict has moved on. But not to bullets.


#50    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:06 PM

Quote


I believe that has more to do with landmines and such that maim after the conflict and pose a great danger to civilians even after the conflict has moved on. But not to bullets.

I didnt think it was in specific reference to landmines... its just that landmines were the logical extension of it.

Quote

After quite an agonizing time, yes.

Bleeding out doesnt take "quite an agonizing time". Its not instantaneous, but neither is it as long as I believe you think.

The 5.56 (and the M16) was designed so that soldiers with relatively little amount of training could carry a lot of ammunition and fire it on full auto with a decent amount of accuracy while still being able to kill the enemy.

The problem with wounding the enemy is this: They can still fire back, and they can still fight another day. If you wound a member of the enemy force thats attacking you, thats not going to take 2 others out of the fight to "rescue" him--- no no, the attack continues. It continues until you're dead and the opposing force has won the battle --- only then do they deal with their injured.

One of the Sgts in my unit actually works for Colt and did a whole presentation on the design and effects of the 5.56mm NATO round we use... it is not "designed to wound", I can tell you that for sure.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#51    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:08 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 February 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I didnt think it was in specific reference to landmines... its just that landmines were the logical extension of it.



Bleeding out doesnt take "quite an agonizing time". Its not instantaneous, but neither is it as long as I believe you think.

The 5.56 (and the M16) was designed so that soldiers with relatively little amount of training could carry a lot of ammunition and fire it on full auto with a decent amount of accuracy while still being able to kill the enemy.

The problem with wounding the enemy is this: They can still fire back, and they can still fight another day. If you wound a member of the enemy force thats attacking you, thats not going to take 2 others out of the fight to "rescue" him--- no no, the attack continues. It continues until you're dead and the opposing force has won the battle --- only then do they deal with their injured.

One of the Sgts in my unit actually works for Colt and did a whole presentation on the design and effects of the 5.56mm NATO round we use... it is not "designed to wound", I can tell you that for sure.

Well, then I guess that in West Point you learn myths instead of strategy.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#52    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:19 PM

lol, myths again.

it was simply designed to be effective low recoil, full auto controlable round. it brakes up once it hits, tears flesh. it does not make clean hole, and comes out. it might come out sideways, or in parts. simple physics, it loses energy fast, since it is so light
the round they had before 308 aka 7,62 nato, is too strong for full auto.

the idea that it was designed to tie up 2 other soldiers to help wounded is a holywood myth. especially since the round was made to use again soviets, for the most part, but they never told soviets that they had to have 2 guys pick up wounded instead of firing at the enemy, afgan war 1979-89 showed that pretty clear.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#53    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:29 PM

View Postaztek, on 08 February 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

lol, myths again.

it was simply designed to be effective low recoil, full auto controlable round. it brakes up once it hits, tears flesh. it does not make clean hole, and comes out. it might come out sideways, or in parts. simple physics, it loses energy fast, since it is so light
the round they had before 308 aka 7,62 nato, is too strong for full auto.

Which is why the Russians AK 47 is still the most effective assault rifle? Opps, sorry can't be. It is a 7.62...

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#54    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:52 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

Well, then I guess that in West Point you learn myths instead of strategy.

You learnt that its designed to wound at West Point?

Regardless, people, even professors, do occasionally speak of rumors as if they are fact simply because some rumors make sense.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#55    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 February 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

You learnt that its designed to wound at West Point?

Regardless, people, even professors, do occasionally speak of rumors as if they are fact simply because some rumors make sense.

I suggest you look at the FN advertisements when they introduced the NATO caliber (could not find any online). They even announced it as "more humane and less death causing". One of the reasons the US wanted to keep the man stopping 7.62 but lost out to the majority of NATO that wanted the new caliber.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#56    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:33 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

I suggest you look at the FN advertisements when they introduced the NATO caliber (could not find any online). They even announced it as "more humane and less death causing". One of the reasons the US wanted to keep the man stopping 7.62 but lost out to the majority of NATO that wanted the new caliber.

I believe I know what your referring to, but it may help to add a bit of context:

When they were trialing the 5.56mm rounds, the competition went out to many different companies. There was one version, called the M193 which meeted all the required standards, but was not selected for one reason. It was too good, in a sense. It was considered overkill, and because of that, it was deemed "inhumane" to use. The one that ended up being chosen was a belgian made SS***** something designation. I believe this is why they referenced it as "more humane and less death causing".


I don't know where the myth that its "designed to wound, not kill" came from, but I'll tell you this: Even among soldiers in the infantry, I've heard all sorts of "myths" as to how the 5.56mm NATO round "works". Its common to hear many different claims about the 5.56mm round. The reason this particular myth is so popular (in my opinion) is that at first glance, it sounds plausible. When facing an enemy with superior numbers, why shoot to kill, taking 1 soldier out of the fight when you can shoot to wound and take 3 out of the fight? If you look at the situation a little bit more closely, though, you'll see that that premise itself is erroneous. Soldiers are not taught to come rushing to the aid of their buddies as soon as they get injured. Long story short, they win the battle, and then go to the wounded soldier --- which means that if the myth were true, you'd be taking 1 soldier partially out of the fight, and giving him a real chance of living to fight another day.

And if you look at it from another perspective: If the bullet is designed to wound, not kill, it becomes much more difficult to inflict a significant enough wound to take him out of the fight, than if you have a bullet thats designed to kill.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#57    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

When facing an enemy with superior numbers, why shoot to kill, taking 1 soldier out of the fight when you can shoot to wound and take 3 out of the fight?
that is a holywood myth, the superior number force they planed to fight was ussr, it was not in ussr practice to pick up wounded before fight is over. even if it was, you can't rely on 2 sodiers come pull out a wounded one right after he falls. but it sounds so good in the movies

RESIDENT TROLL.

#58    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,340 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:49 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

And if you look at it from another perspective: If the bullet is designed to wound, not kill, it becomes much more difficult to inflict a significant enough wound to take him out of the fight, than if you have a bullet thats designed to kill.

If it fragments enough it is all over the body and after the adrenaline of the shock wears down keeps the person for a long time in the hospital. War over for that one. Now, with a single wound, as long as the adrenaline lasts the guy can keep on fighting unless there is a strong hit and large amounts of blood loss(as typical with the large calibers).

The kill/wounded ratio has increased dramatically (in favor of wounded) as well as the round kill ratio (to the point that in WWII it was about 25K rounds per kill, in Vietnam twice that and in Iraq almost ten times that). And not because soldiers hit less, they just wound more.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#59    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,758 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:09 PM

The difference in rounds as it's relevant to the subject:





"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#60    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,758 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:40 AM

Hey Piers, who needs a TV show on CNN?



"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users