SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.
The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.
A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.
People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.
The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.
I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.
Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?
The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.
A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.
People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.
The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.
I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.
Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?