This is why the gun control "side" loses credibility. The narrative is bogus, but appealing of course to those who know nothing of firearms. You'll notice the comparison of the 5.56 rifle rd v. a 9mm handgun rd. That was done purposely. Every centerfire rifle rd is more powerful that a 9mm pistol rd. Every rifle rd has a faster muzzle ve…
This is why the gun control "side" loses credibility. The narrative is bogus, but appealing of course to those who know nothing of firearms. You'll notice the comparison of the 5.56 rifle rd v. a 9mm handgun rd. That was done purposely. Every centerfire rifle rd is more powerful that a 9mm pistol rd. Every rifle rd has a faster muzzle velocity that a pistol rd. Why not compare the 5.56 to other rifle rds? Because the 5.56 is a weak rifle rd when compared to virtually every other centerfire rifle rd (30.06, .270, .243, .308. 30-30 etc) in common use in the country. Many states outlaw the 5.56/.223 for deer hunting BECAUSE IT ISN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH to bring down a deer on initial impact. The idea that the 5.56 rd is an "exploding bullet" is a complete falsehood. I'm actually a proponent of gun laws that can actually reduce school/mass shootings, but just when the gun control side has more political capital than ever before they blow it with bogus narratives like this! The Dr quoted (Jenkins?) about the damage caused by the 5.56 rd failed to mention that ANY of the rifle rds I mentioned above (with the possible exception of the 3-30) would likely do even more catastrophic damage to a person upon impact. Turn a femur into dust he claims? That's a complete and total falsehood. What makes the AR-15 arguably more deadly? It's the high capacity magazine, not the relatively weak bullet.
Tell me, if a 5.56x45mm XM193 or XM855 round hits a human chest cavity while traveling at over 2700 feet per second, what does the bullet do? Does it tumble and fragment inside of the chest cavity? Do other rounds do this as well or is it just the 5.56x45mm FMJ rounds?
Point being: while ALL rifle rounds will produce a temporary stretch cavity from higher velocities, not all bullets tumble and fragment into smaller pieces inside of their targets that take doctors a lot longer to pull out of people than other rounds. For example, the USMC moved to the Mk318 Mod 0 cartridge in Afghanistan in the later years because this round had a better track record of tumbling and fragmenting inside of human chest cavities at longer ranges than the standard M855E1 ball ammunition that grunts typically carry. They moved to a better-fragmenting round because they understood the special lethality that 5.56 has when the velocities are maintained. We're only now ditching 5.56 for 6.8x51mm because of body armor proliferation and the need for grunts to be able to crack ceramic body armor plates with a heavier/fast bullet. They had to engineer steel into the brass casing just to get a heavy bullet like that to fire at high enough pressures to produce the velocity necessary to crack armor plates with a heavy enough bullet.
So, do you favor the need for photos of the victims who require DNA testing to assure identification? I thought that was the issue rather than a technical discussion of weaponry.
I have no firm opinion on that - not informed well enough. And the issue is the article is full of bogus information which completely overpowers the identification issue. Thats my point.
This is why the gun control "side" loses credibility. The narrative is bogus, but appealing of course to those who know nothing of firearms. You'll notice the comparison of the 5.56 rifle rd v. a 9mm handgun rd. That was done purposely. Every centerfire rifle rd is more powerful that a 9mm pistol rd. Every rifle rd has a faster muzzle velocity that a pistol rd. Why not compare the 5.56 to other rifle rds? Because the 5.56 is a weak rifle rd when compared to virtually every other centerfire rifle rd (30.06, .270, .243, .308. 30-30 etc) in common use in the country. Many states outlaw the 5.56/.223 for deer hunting BECAUSE IT ISN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH to bring down a deer on initial impact. The idea that the 5.56 rd is an "exploding bullet" is a complete falsehood. I'm actually a proponent of gun laws that can actually reduce school/mass shootings, but just when the gun control side has more political capital than ever before they blow it with bogus narratives like this! The Dr quoted (Jenkins?) about the damage caused by the 5.56 rd failed to mention that ANY of the rifle rds I mentioned above (with the possible exception of the 3-30) would likely do even more catastrophic damage to a person upon impact. Turn a femur into dust he claims? That's a complete and total falsehood. What makes the AR-15 arguably more deadly? It's the high capacity magazine, not the relatively weak bullet.
Tell me, if a 5.56x45mm XM193 or XM855 round hits a human chest cavity while traveling at over 2700 feet per second, what does the bullet do? Does it tumble and fragment inside of the chest cavity? Do other rounds do this as well or is it just the 5.56x45mm FMJ rounds?
Point being: while ALL rifle rounds will produce a temporary stretch cavity from higher velocities, not all bullets tumble and fragment into smaller pieces inside of their targets that take doctors a lot longer to pull out of people than other rounds. For example, the USMC moved to the Mk318 Mod 0 cartridge in Afghanistan in the later years because this round had a better track record of tumbling and fragmenting inside of human chest cavities at longer ranges than the standard M855E1 ball ammunition that grunts typically carry. They moved to a better-fragmenting round because they understood the special lethality that 5.56 has when the velocities are maintained. We're only now ditching 5.56 for 6.8x51mm because of body armor proliferation and the need for grunts to be able to crack ceramic body armor plates with a heavier/fast bullet. They had to engineer steel into the brass casing just to get a heavy bullet like that to fire at high enough pressures to produce the velocity necessary to crack armor plates with a heavy enough bullet.
So, do you favor the need for photos of the victims who require DNA testing to assure identification? I thought that was the issue rather than a technical discussion of weaponry.
I have no firm opinion on that - not informed well enough. And the issue is the article is full of bogus information which completely overpowers the identification issue. Thats my point.