THIS IS AMERICA. SANDY HOOK BACK TO SCHOOL PSA (2A / GUN RIGHTS DISCUSSION)

[Hua Guofang]

5 hours ago, misteraven said:

Both, since they’re both important characteristics in an effective round for general military, even if most small arms confrontations are at fairly close distances. Most of the world is using 7.62, which has greater range and hits a hell of a lot harder. Countries going up against that have realized that they are disadvantaged with 5.56. Further, from a ballistic standpoint, you’re still shooting roughly .22 caliber projectiles. Putting more charge behind them, just punches clean little holes more effectively, compared to the stopping power and ballistic coefficients of other commonly available rounds. 5.56 was largely developed for portability and since we have better supply chain ability in the decades since it was developed, the slight portability over 7.62 isn’t worth the disadvantage faced when that’s what you’re almost always going up against. Not saying it’s going away as LEO will still use it for decades to come, but USA military already phased it out mostly for spec ops and already starting to phase it out for big army. Once we do it, most others will follow suit because it’s smarter and because it’s often us selling it to everyone else. 

 

I think we’ll see 10mm make a wider appearance. Might even see other countries adopt 300BLK since it overlaps with 7.62 quite a bit. 7.62 will almost entirely eclipse 5.56. And we’ll see far better rounds like 6.5 creedmore and 3.38 lapua become more popular for distanced precision shooting, though the latter is already a pretty popular round with snipers. But then again 50mm is super widely manufactured and though not as optimized, it’s still gets the job done (with overkill). There’s also still something to be said about the big American hunting rounds that are still common and still pretty good, like 30-06. 

I do find this argument confusing. I don't know that much about ballistics but I'm a qualified marksman and used to rate pretty well in international skill at arms comps. I can fire pretty accurately out to 400m with 5.56 (even further with the longer-barrel gun) and as you said, very few contacts are going to come at a shorter distance than that. With that in mind, the standard infantry weapon doesn't really need more range than that.

 

Regards impact, I'm not sure that argument hits the target as the standard shooter doesn't require impact from a round. Australia used to use the F1 Ball round, which was a standard solid slug. You're right, it did just punch a hole through folk, who were then able to keep on moving until they bled out, or even get patched up if the round didn't hit more than muscle. With that, the SS109 was brought it, which has the soft copper jacket and an inner tungsten core. What I was lead to believe is that when the round hits target the jacket shatters (which also amplifies impact) and the core tumbles and rips gaping holes in flesh. Therefore, stopping power is achieved without having to increase the size of the projectile.

 

Now, I have not researched any of this and I'd lean towards you having more info on this than me and if if US Army and Marines are phasing the round out for 7.62 for the general soldier, there must be a reason. I'm just going off what I was told by the chaps in the armories from back when I as serving. And I have no idea on the validity of their knowledge.

 

I do think the idea of 5.56 just being a glorified .22 is a bit much though. The cartridge size is obviously different, giving much greater range and velocity. Plus, the majority of .22 is not designed for combat, has less mass, made of different materials and has a very different shape - all leading to very different characteristics.

 

Being ex-airborne and always having to carry the gun, given that I'm bulkier than average, I shudder at the thought of having to hump 1000 rounds of 7.62 over hill and dale!

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

I do think the idea of 5.56 just being a glorified .22 is a bit much though. The cartridge size is obviously different, giving much greater range and velocity. Plus, the majority of .22 is not designed for combat, has less mass, made of different materials and has a very different shape - all leading to very different characteristics.

Like I said, the diameter of the bullet is the same. Very tiny difference between .223 and 5.56, which is why most guns that shoot them are multi cal and shoot both. And indeed, it does have more mass and more powder behind it. But that’s part of the problem with it. It often punches a clean hole straight through, because it’s a small diameter bullet, who’s mass comes from being long, which also has a hot charge in comparison to its diameter. And yes, there’s several weights as well modifications made to it’s shape and makeup, many of which are not allowed for warfare under international law. But again, if most of the world is shooting 7.62, mostly out of AK pattern weapons, why show up with 5.56? It’s a clear disadvantage from a ballistics standpoint for both distance and impact? That’s the main reason for the change out here, though consolidating calibers makes a lot of sense as well if you’re already fielding a bunch of it for spec ops groups. Even as far as snipers, USA often fields 7.62 as it has enough reach for most engagements. I’d guess it’s also because the USA civilian version, .308 is a very common hunting round so probably have a lot of guys going into the military that have been shooting it half their lives. 

[misteraven]

But my point was that the MSM is so hell bent focused on AR’s due to how they look. They’re used in very few of the incidents in discussion and when among the primary arguments from those against are that nobody needs military grade weapons, it’s a fallacy because it’s not weapon used by any military and soon won’t even be a round used by our military. Further, there’s a lot of carbines and rifles capable of much more devastating fire that are never mentioned in these discussions because they don’t look the part. 

[Hua Guofang]

2 hours ago, misteraven said:

Like I said, the diameter of the bullet is the same. Very tiny difference between .223 and 5.56, which is why most guns that shoot them are multi cal and shoot both. And indeed, it does have more mass and more powder behind it. But that’s part of the problem with it. It often punches a clean hole straight through, because it’s a small diameter bullet, who’s mass comes from being long, which also has a hot charge in comparison to its diameter. And yes, there’s several weights as well modifications made to it’s shape and makeup, many of which are not allowed for warfare under international law. But again, if most of the world is shooting 7.62, mostly out of AK pattern weapons, why show up with 5.56? It’s a clear disadvantage from a ballistics standpoint for both distance and impact? That’s the main reason for the change out here, though consolidating calibers makes a lot of sense as well if you’re already fielding a bunch of it for spec ops groups. Even as far as snipers, USA often fields 7.62 as it has enough reach for most engagements. I’d guess it’s also because the USA civilian version, .308 is a very common hunting round so probably have a lot of guys going into the military that have been shooting it half their lives. 

You seem to have missed that the SS109 round used by many countries does NOT punch a clean hole through the target. Some argue it has a better chance of a kill than 7.62 when hit in places like shoulder, upper leg, etc. because the core often redirects into other parts of the target. You're referring to the F1 Ball round or the M855, which was the US equivalent that folk were complaining about after the shitfight in Mog. The SS109 is not illegal for combat in terms of international law, neither is the US equivalent now used by Army and Marines and it does not punch a clean hole when used with correct grain counts and muzzle length.

 

 

I've found some reading saying that they are not switching to 762 but to a new sized round. The reason for the change is to penetrate body armour, not range or impact (because other rounds were going straight through) https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23654011/army-68-calliber-bullet-replace-556/

 

The only reading I can find about 762 is for squad level marksmen - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/12/army-receive-762mm-squad-marksman-rifles-early-next-year.html

 

None of this is relative to what SF do as their role is very different to standard squad/platoon level operations - demands and roles are not the same at all.

 

[Mercer]

16 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

With that, the SS109 was brought it, which has the soft copper jacket and an inner tungsten core. What I was lead to believe is that when the round hits target the jacket shatters (which also amplifies impact) and the core tumbles and rips gaping holes in flesh. Therefore, stopping power is achieved without having to increase the size of the projectile.

Bullets designed to expand, or fragment after impact are illegal under international law for military use. There's no restrictions on a rounds size, or velocity though.

[misteraven]

Unsure if you’re trying to explore the topic or go out your way to argue about it. I’m speaking in terms of the USA on a commentary regarding .223, the civilian equivalent of 5.56. I’ve said USA spec ops have largely done away with 5.56 in favor of 7.62, and that 5.56 is now likely to replaced for USA military in general. As I’m sure you know, these processes take years worth of review before a contract gets accepted, but there are several reviews happening now in regards to replacing the M4 and doing away with 5.56. No doubt there’s a multitude of drivers for it, but the main one I’ve heard described, by the guys actually put doubt the fighting, is that the 5.56 doesn’t put threats down effectively and just about every small arms engagement in modern USA warfare pits US troops against someone shooting at them in 7.62. Would stand to reason that at the very least, you’d want a caliber with as much effective range and no doubt they’d also appreciate stopping power. I’m sure that articles mention of body armor is a nice plus, but if you pause a moment to consider who American troops are regularly going up against for the last few decades, it’s certainly not ones that are normally wearing armor. Whether us ends up being 6.8, it doesn’t change the point I’m making regarding 5.56 and that it’s lacking. 

 

Ultimately my point is that .223 isn’t a particularly good round has little devastating impact compared to just about any other rifle round. Considering how well most modern rifles shoot with quality glass, it doesn’t even have the range. 

 

In terms of what’s readily available from the average shop out here, it sits second from the bottom in terms of ballistics, with only its little brother, the .22 sitting below it. (Yeah, I know both are available in various weights and projectile types, and year there are other plinking arounds that are less powerful than even the .22, but I’m taking about common calibers that are most commonly available from the average shop). 

 

The .223 is being targeted because it’s used by AR’s and right now that’s all the MSM and gun grabbers can see. It’s not based off any understanding of guns, ballistics or even evidence of use, since long guns represent a small fraction of gun deaths in the USA and AR’s are only a fraction of that subset. It stems from an emotional reaction to a gun that is black and scary looking, engineered by gun grabbers and promoted by MSM to make people think that military “assault weapons” are flooding our country and responsible for a “crisis” that’s painting the streets in blood. Reality is very far from that if you take the time to look at the evidence and understand the subject. 

 

 

[Mercer]

 

23 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Unsure if you’re trying to explore the topic or go out your way to argue about it.

I agree 5.56 is insufficient in most cases. Just pointing out why fragmenting 5.56 rounds might add stopping power, but would be problematic for military use due to international law.

 

23 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I’m speaking in terms of the USA on a commentary regarding .223, the civilian equivalent of 5.56. I’ve said USA spec ops have largely done away with 5.56 in favor of 7.62, and that 5.56 is now likely to replaced for USA military in general. As I’m sure you know, these processes take years worth of review before a contract gets accepted, but there are several reviews happening now in regards to replacing the M4 and doing away with 5.56. No doubt there’s a multitude of drivers for it, but the main one I’ve heard described, by the guys actually put doubt the fighting, is that the 5.56 doesn’t put threats down effectively and just about every small arms engagement in modern USA warfare pits US troops against someone shooting at them in 7.62. Would stand to reason that at the very least, you’d want a caliber with as much effective range and no doubt they’d also appreciate stopping power. I’m sure that articles mention of body armor is a nice plus, but if you pause a moment to consider who American troops are regularly going up against for the last few decades, it’s certainly not ones that are normally wearing armor. Whether us ends up being 6.8, it doesn’t change the point I’m making regarding 5.56 and that it’s lacking. 

From what I've gathered in my own research, 300 blk round was designed specifically to address the transition into higher caliber rounds. The round is compatible with just about everything, minus the barrel on a 5.56 rifle, including the magazines in most cases.

 

23 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Ultimately my point is that .223 isn’t a particularly good round has little devastating impact compared to just about any other rifle round. Considering how well most modern rifles shoot with quality glass, it doesn’t even have the range. 

Only advantage I see is load-out weight 1/3rd of a similar number of 7.62 rounds. Doesn't mean much when the smaller rounds are mostly wasted because they can't penetrate light cover, or give the enemy a reach advantage. Something fragmentation won't help.

 

23 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

In terms of what’s readily available from the average shop out here, it sits second from the bottom in terms of ballistics, with only its little brother, the .22 sitting below it. (Yeah, I know both are available in various weights and projectile types, and year there are other plinking arounds that are less powerful than even the .22, but I’m taking about common calibers that are most commonly available from the average shop). 

 

The .223 is being targeted because it’s used by AR’s and right now that’s all the MSM and gun grabbers can see. It’s not based off any understanding of guns, ballistics or even evidence of use, since long guns represent a small fraction of gun deaths in the USA and AR’s are only a fraction of that subset. It stems from an emotional reaction to a gun that is black and scary looking, engineered by gun grabbers and promoted by MSM to make people think that military “assault weapons” are flooding our country and responsible for a “crisis” that’s painting the streets in blood. Reality is very far from that if you take the time to look at the evidence and understand the subject. 

Doing my own research as a novice I was surprised to discover this and came to the same conclusion.

[Mercer]

Forgoing the normal 2A violation debate, does anyone besides me see a problem with red flag laws violating:

• The 4th Amendment (No crime has been committed, so there's obviously no evidence, or probable cause.)

  Quote

  The Fourth Amendment (1791) protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer or to a demand for a blood test to a search of an individual's home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime. It also imposes certain limitations on police investigating a crime and prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial.

   

• The 5th Amendment

  Quote

  The Fifth Amendment (1791) establishes the requirement that a trial for a major crime may commence only after an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury; protects individuals from double jeopardy, being tried and put in danger of being punished more than once for the same criminal act; prohibits punishment without due process of law, thus protecting individuals from being imprisoned without fair procedures; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to reveal to the police, prosecutor, judge, or jury any information that might incriminate or be used against him or her in a court of law. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation", the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

   

• The 6th Amendment

  Quote

  The Sixth Amendment (1791) provides several protections and rights to an individual accused of a crime. The accused has the right to a fair and speedy trial by a local and impartial jury. Likewise, a person has the right to a public trial. This right protects defendants from secret proceedings that might encourage abuse of the justice system, and serves to keep the public informed. This amendment also guarantees a right to legal counsel if accused of a crime, guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused, and guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against them. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that, with the Fifth Amendment, this amendment requires what has become known as the Miranda warning.

This is why you can't assign a government the task of limiting itself via a constitution. The idea is laughable. In reality, every gun law is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and there are thousands of these violations on the books if you add them up from every state, county, and local municipality. In fact there are many laws and practices in place violating almost every Amendment, infringing faster during this generation than any other.

 

Feds are now entitled to make a copy of your cell phone now upon re-entry to the U.S. LE can seize your property/cash without any evidence, or even charging you. Murder or assault you on camera, wiretap you, lock you up and make you prove your innocence, the list is infinite. The truth is, unless you've got money you basically have zero rights under the law now. It's not just guns, and every violation starts with the inability to even recognize these as clear violations because they often come wrapped in an opaque shroud of good will, like in this situation.

[Hua Guofang]

5 hours ago, misteraven said:

Unsure if you’re trying to explore the topic or go out your way to argue about it.

 

 

What?

 

I actually provided material to back up my thoughts on the matter but I'm just going out of my way to argue about it? What am I supposed to do, just take your word for it because you say so?

 

You might hang out with a small group of ex-soldiers but as opposed to you, I actually was a soldier, mate. I actually have been into combat, I'm not just running on some one elses war stories

 

In one thread I'm a troll for asking questions and in this thread I'm just "going out of my way to argue" because I don't take your word as gospel.

 

I reckon that's about it for discussing issues in this joint. All yours gents.

[Kults]

Oof that last one was cringy. Take a break. 

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Hua Guofang said:

What?

 

I actually provided material to back up my thoughts on the matter but I'm just going out of my way to argue about it? What am I supposed to do, just take your word for it because you say so?

 

You might hang out with a small group of ex-soldiers but as opposed to you, I actually was a soldier, mate. I actually have been into combat, I'm not just running on some one elses war stories

 

In one thread I'm a troll for asking questions and in this thread I'm just "going out of my way to argue" because I don't take your word as gospel.

 

I reckon that's about it for discussing issues in this joint. All yours gents.

Yeah, so seems it was about arguing I guess. This has zero to do with being a soldier. This discussion is centered on the a social topic dominating USA’s attention at the moment. Great that you were a soldier, but unless you’re an American or at the very least living in America for any length of time, being an ex soldier from another country doesn’t maybe you especially qualified.

 

Point still stands. 

 

The gun gun grabbers in America are obsessed with banning military grade “assault weapons” that aren’t recognized as assault weapons by a single military on the planet. The ammo they are not targeting - .223 - sits second from the bottom as far as easily accessible rifle ammo in the United States. 

 

So a weapon that makes up a fraction of what’s used in gun crimes, that isn’t particularly powerful in comparison to all the options that are legal and readily available out here, yet dominates the news and cultural conversation... What would it be other than taking advantage of people’s ignorance and emotions to ban a weapon that would have virtually no effect on gun crime?

 

I merely mentioned that spec ops have abandoned that platform and caliber, and they have. Then mentioned our military in general are also in the process of following suit, which you discovered yourself. You found a single article that gave the reason as being armor penetration, which I speculated as possible but unlikely to be the driving reason when you take a minute to consider it. 

 

So your upset that I called you out on it despite showing a single reference you googled? And that somehow you’re more qualified to discuss American culture and the social debate on the second amendment because you served in Australia’s military?

 

Sorry man, but yeah... Does seem to me that you’re trying to argue rather than explore the topic. The minutia your getting hung up on has little to do with the discussion, let alone the point I’m making and your service in Australia makes you little more qualified as an expert on the second amendment and American culture than any other Australian. 

[misteraven]

If there's one thing good that seems to have come from this mess (plague), its that a whole shit ton of people that were anti gun are suddenly realizing the merits of the second amendment. Thought there's been some buzz of second amendment infringements, like CA designating weed dispensaries as critical business, yet shutting down gun shops and rumors that certain states are shutting down the transport of firearms and ammo, there's also stats saying that firearms sales are up over 300% compared against this time last year. I can say for certain that my usual supply spots for quality ammo are all but wiped out and I've gotten more than a couple messages asking me about what I might have for sale or questions on what to buy.

 

Anyhow, since the COVID-19 thread seems to have largely run its course, I thought this would be an interesting topic to re-explore considering the context has changed for a lot of people. I think people are starting to realizer that it might be a bad idea to entrust your safety / life and that of your loved ones to others and that even in the best of times, when seconds matter, help (at best) is minutes away.

 

I don't want to sensationalize this topic, but when we last discussed  a lot of these situations they were speculative. Now there's reports that in some areas, police are no longer responding to calls about theft and vandalism, leaving people to fend for themselves. No doubt you'd have to be an idiot (and will be a criminal yourself) if you decide to respond to something like that with lethal force, but we're barely even ramping into this pandemic situation in the USA and we're seeing reports of hospitals at critical capacities, police departments being shut down due to COVID-19 infection amongst officers and as a whole, law enforcement simply not equipped to handle the massive social disruptions we're being challenged with.

 

 

Now this being said, I am concerned about a rush of people that have zero clue about guns and gun ownership panic buying guns. I've noted on social many pro-2A advocates continuously reminding people of the 4 basic rules of firearms handling and directing people to classes, videos and knowledge to quickly get all these people up to a basic understanding, but what I also see is that this debate is likely a dead subject for the next couple years or at least until some not job decides to flip his wig and do something tragic (starting the cycle all over again).

 

Anyhow, it'll be very telling to see how politics proceed as 2A was a key debate up until the plague hit. My gut tells me that it will very quickly be handed off to the back burner as I'm guessing a lot more people are now understanding the importance of having the ability to defend yourself during extreme circumstances.

 

Seems most of 12oz was largely supporting of the right to defend yourself, but was wondering if anyone has shifted their stance or has anything new to contribute to the conversation now that we are living in a very different world than when this thread was started.