HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 03:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,459

Journal Archives

Thoughts...

First, you do realize Glasers come in .223 too, right? If you're that attached to the concept. They're redundant, but they sell 'em.

But your information is about twenty years out of date; the fact that .223 JHP penetrates less than pistol JHP and shotgun buckshot has been known since the early 1990s. For a primer (from 15 years ago, no less), I'd suggest Roberts G.K., "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: the Wounding Effects of 5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant", Police Marksman, Jul/Aug 1998, pp. 38-45. Or if you need something a little less academic, look at the pics here.

To quote the Roberts article, "When used with effective ammunition, the 5.56mm/.223 carbine simultaneously offers both greater effective range and less potential downrange hazard to bystanders than a 12 ga. shotgun, handgun, pistol caliber carbine, or SMG" (emphasis added).

I believe the most popular amongst ar15 owners is the 55gr, are they begging to 'be like swat' now too?

*I'm* an AR-15 owner, and 55gr JHP (my own choice) penetrates less than the loads SWAT typically uses. LE/SWAT seems to be trending toward the heavier 62-77gr loads for more barrier penetration, since LE use goes beyond sheltering-in-place, but even that is less prone to overpenetration than handgun JHP. But for suburban civilian use other than in law enforcement, I think 55gr JHP/SP strikes a good balance; more effective than the fragile 40gr loads, but with less wall penetration than heavier-bullet loads.

who really cares which one outperforms the other? the ar15 .223 can & does penetrate drywall & typical house walls & body armor & steel & can kill family in the next room, no doubt about it. That other self defense firearms can do so better is beside the point & a moot one as well to the point that was made - we're considering the 'most popular rifle in america', it's liability in home defense. A handgun has less chance of doing this, especially with glaser slugs.

AR-15's. Penetrate. Less. Than. Handguns.

Again---because it seems this is having trouble sinking in----a handgun has more chance of penetrating multiple walls and hitting an innocent than a .223 carbine using comparable ammunition, even though the absolute risk of both is quite low. Yes, if you shoot recklessly at an interior wall with *any* gun (even with Glasers), you can mortally wound someone on the other side of the first wall. But that is less likely with .223 loads than with almost any other caliber.

Re: Glasers, they were all the rage in late 1980's/early 1990's, but the consensus in the wound ballistics community seems to be that there are better choices now. I notice that even the Federal Air Marshals Service has now switched from Glasers to lightweight JHP for on-aircraft use. In 9mm, you're talking about a 75gr or 80gr capsule of very small birdshot at 1500 ft/sec, with neither the mass of a typical pistol round nor the velocity of a carbine. At $45 to $60 per magazine of Glasers, you can't exactly practice with them much, either.

Your shotgun with double aught is gonna have a hefty recoil if it penetrates that extent, & if you go lower recoil buck you're not gonna get such penetration.

Buckshot is buckshot; the lower recoil loads have a lower pellet count but roughly the same velocity and penetration, AFAIK. The shotgun still penetrates more walls than an AR unless you go down to birdshot, and birdshot isn't very effective at stopping a determined assailant beyond near-contact distance.

the ar15 might shoot 5 times more bullets in the same period gaining more 'unintentional' penetration overall.

Huh? An AR shoots at exactly the same rate as a handgun; it fires once and only once when you pull the trigger, and will not fire another round until you release the trigger and pull it a second time. You don't seriously think Title 1 AR's "spray fire," do you?

In a regular home-invasion scenario, it's most likely going to be a close quarter type of situation, and an AR-15 type gun would be unwieldy around corners/doorways/hallways.. the average house has a length of under 21 yards, that's still well within the range of what a handgun could handle.

In your hypothetical "regular home invasion scenario", I would be sheltering in place with 911 on speaker, not opening doors and moving down hallways. And in that scenario, an AR is just as handy as a shotgun, while offering more precision than a handgun or shotgun, more energy than a handgun, and less wall penetration than either. I have a 9mm if I need it, but if someone is trying to get in, I'll choose a long gun, thanks.

If your home layout is such that you'd need one hand to carry a child to the safe room, open doors to get to your child's room, hold a phone, etc. then sure, a handgun of decent capacity might be a better choice for you. But that's not my situation.

So you know where I'm coming from, I shoot USPSA matches with my HD guns (my AR and a S&W 9mm); stages are typically multiple targets from 2 to 20 yards, often with barriers or from cover, so yeah, I know how to run both at across-the-room distances. The handgun reloads faster, the carbine offers more precision.

handgun is also much easier to store securely in a bedroom but also have ready in a jiffy..

It's not either/or. In your "jiffy," I have a handgun; in a couple more seconds, I have the carbine. With the carbine stored in a quick-access safe, it's at hand if I'm in the room.

ARs sucks for inside the home defense. It over penetrates through walls and its too long to handle well in a small hallway. Shotgun or handguns are better.

An AR penetrates less than a handgun and is the same length as a shotgun. Pretending otherwise doesn't help your case.

The biggest problem with using a rifle in home defense is the velocity of the round, under stress if you miss and it goes through a wall and into your neighbors house and hits someone you are F*%#ed.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. With lightly constructed, relatively long-for-width JHP like .223, velocity across different loads is inversely correlated with drywall penetration, while mass is directly correlated. A 40gr .223 at 3600 ft/sec might penetrate one interior wall; a 55gr JHP at 3000 ft/sec might penetrate two; a .45 ACP 230gr JHP at 830 ft/sec will penetrate three or four. Head over to the Box o'Truth and check out the sections on shotgun slugs and .45-70; *those* penetrate like nobody's business because of their mass.

The reason that fast .223 penetrates so little is that when you take a lightly constructed .22-caliber JHP spinning at 300,000 RPM and whack it with a couple slabs of drywall at Mach 3, it tends to destabilize, tumble, and fragment because the centrifugal forces exceed the tensile strength of the materials from which it is constructed. The same is not true of most handgun JHP, since handgun bullets are less long-for-caliber, are traveling far slower, and are less likely to fragment when transitioning from an axial spin to a tumble.

A 12ga with 00 buck might not penetrate a IIIA vest but it will sure as hell knock them on their ass.

No. The momentum delivered to the target is equal to or less than the momentum delivered to the shooter's shoulder. If the 12-gauge doesn't knock the shooter on his/her ass, it won't knock a vest wearer down either. It could cause blunt trauma to someone not wearing a plate, or knock the wind out of them and drop them that way, but the main danger to the person wearing armor is from pellets that miss the armor.

That point is academic, though, since home invasions by people wearing armor aren't common.

Well...

Why would you prefer Democrats not re-take the House in 2014?

That is precisely the question that could be asked of Bloomberg et al right now, as he and his supporters seek to purge the Democratic party of pro-gun Dems, and corral Dems in swing states into pushing gun bans.

The parallels between early 1994 and now are striking, except (1) the bans being floated now are vastly more restrictive than the 1994 Feinstein law, (2) the guns slated for banning are now the most popular civilian firearms in the United States, rather than niche enthusiasts' guns, and (3) gun owners are more aware of pending legislation than in 1994. Yeah, that's going to really help at the polls in '14.

Much more than that.

Several years ago, an arms collectors' association put the number of SKS's in U.S. homes at approximately 7 million, though I was never able to track down the calculations. Add 4 or 5 million AR's, a million or so mini-14's, plus uncounted WASR's, Saigas, Kel-Tecs, M1A'a, FALs, CETMEs, M1 carbines, Remington 7400's, BARs, etc. etc. etc going back at least to the Remington Model 1908, plus a whole slew of pistol-caliber carbines going back decades, and that's just the centerfire rifles and carbines.

Add to that millions of Ruger 10/22's and other rimfire semiautos going back decades.

Add to that all the semiauto shotguns out there that would be affected by an AWB, and all the pistols with nontraditional features.

Then add to that all the over-10-round rifle magazines manufactured from the 1860's to the present, all the over-10-round pistol magazines made from the 1930's to the present, and all the repeating shotguns holding over 5 shells, that would be affected by magazine capacity limits.

Using some reasonable assumptions, I think you could easily exceed 40 million gun owners directly threatened by either features bans or magazine capacity limits, depending on the limits selected.

As an AR owner...nice thought, but I think I'll pass, thanks.

As part of a fun-n-games fundraiser, it's a neat concept, but not in the context of trying to bait me into compliance with somebody else's Authoritah. Besides, I'm very relationship oriented, so a kiss from a woman who is only trying to get me to comply with her employer's dictates...nah, I'll pass.

But I would like to revisit a statement you made upthread---that you couldn't understand why any reasonable gun owner would want to own an AR. That statement boggles my mind as much as my AR ownership apparently boggles yours.

You do realize we're talking about a non-automatic, small-caliber rifle here, yes? A Title 1 civilian centerfire .22. Not a heavy-caliber weapon, not a gun that fires faster than "regular" civilian guns, not a "badass" gun.

The civilian AR-15 platform has been on the civilian market since the early 1960's (JFK owned one), and there are good reasons why it been the top selling centerfire rifle in the United States for a decade now. The AR-15 *dominates* competitive centerfire target shooting in the United States. It's the most common defensive carbine in U.S. homes. It's the #1 centerfire plinking rifle in the United States. There are reasons for that---accuracy, ergonomics, reliability, economy, versatility, familiarity---that aren't going to be changed by manipulative advertising.

So you know where I'm coming from, I shoot a Rock River .223 AR for fun and competition, currently set up for 0-200 yard shooting with a holographic sight, and it's also my stand-in for a 12-gauge since I have little interest in shotguns. FWIW, I'm not an NRA member; I used to be, years ago, but dropped them when they got too cozy with some affiliates of the Religious Right.

Finn M39 on a 1905 Izhevsk receiver still bearing the Romanov crest,

Yeah, & you're not machismo eh? is that a mosin nagant, or I think that was russian made, doubled as a good pole vault (pole for vaulting, not for vaulting poles).

"Machismo" is a noun. The adjective form of your insult would be "macho", would it not?

In any case, on the macho-vs-geek spectrum, I'm very much at the geek end (technical writer, Perl wonk, Guild fan) and very proud of it.

Yes, a Mosin...a very nice Finn M39 on a 1905 Izhevsk hex receiver still bearing the Romanov crest, rebarreled and converted to M39 configuration in 1942 at VKT in Jyväskylä. A fascinating piece of history, in my opinion, and not your garden variety M1891. Best group so far is 1 3/8" at 100 yards, which isn't too shabby for a rifle that's 108 years old.

How many gunowners have a personal gunsmith? I never did, not too many do

Neither do I. That's one reason the AR is so popular. You can rebarrel, change caliber, change stocks, free-float, install a match trigger, install optics, install a light, install a sling, change length of pull, and anything else you'd want to do yourself without every having to pay someone else to do it for you. That's a key difference between an AR and (say) a Mini or a Remington 7400.

IN FACT, in good part, people who'd understand you above would be ex army/marines & some law enforcement

Knowing what the hell you're talking about when it comes to firearms, firearms law, and the shooting sports is not a radical position. Distressingly rare, perhaps; radical, no.

People who'd understand what I said would be target shooters, competitive shooters, and people interested in the technical aspects of guns and shooting, instead of just bleating about what a gun looks like or how well it kills Bambi or what kind of noise it makes when you cycle it or what Cletus on TV says about it.

People who understand things like sight offset, ballistic coefficient, muzzle energy, how momentum affects recoil, and such. The people who know the difference between a rimfire and a centerfire cartridge, or know how to use a ballistic table. *Those* are the people who understand why a non-automatic civilian centerfire .22 isn't some uber-superweapon. It's a rifle, period. A non-automatic rifle, and a small-caliber one at that.

Bottom line, you're fighting to outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles and HD carbines in the United States and you don't even seem to realize it. But you're in good company, far too many legislators are laboring under the same misconception, and it is going to hurt the party in 2014.

Umm, the AR-15 absolutely dominates centerfire target competition in this country...

Hardly a weapon you would need for target practice, home defense or hunting anything besides humans.


Umm, the AR-15 absolutely dominates centerfire target competition in this country. The only disciplines it *doesn't* dominate are those in which it is too physically small to dominate (I'm thinking F-class benchrest here). It not only is a target rifle in its many iterations, it is the top selling centerfire target rifle in the United States.

The AR also dominates centerfire recreational shooting, and the rimfire variants are making inroads on the ubiquitous (and functionally identical) Ruger 10/22.

As far as home defense goes, it's a centerfire .22. With JHP in the 50-62 grain weight class, it penetrates less in wallboard than either shotgun 00 buckshot or 9mm JHP, while giving better precision and less recoil than the shotgun, and far more more precision than the handgun. So, yeah, it's a darn good alternative to a 12-gauge, assuming you go with a 16" barrel and not a 20" or 24" long-range barrel. And it's easier to mount a light on an AR than it is to mount one on my old Mini-14.

As far as hunting, the AR isn't widely viewed as powerful enough for most deer hunting unless you step up to a bigger caliber upper than .223, and the power of the rounds it can feed is limited by the AR's small magwell. 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel would make pretty good deer calibers, as would the .30 Remington AR, but the overwhelming majority of AR's are chambered in .223, a coyote and prairie-dog round in the hunting world.

What it's *not* commonly used for is "hunting humans." Rifles are the least misused of all weapons in the United States, as you well know. And to this day the worst mass shooting in U.S. history used an ordinary 9mm and a backpack full of low-capacity magazines, as I recall.

You could buy 2 excellent rifles for the price of an AR-15.


Prior to the current ban-fueled buying frenzy, you could get a Smith & Wesson AR for $600. I'd love for you to show me "two excellent rifles" you can buy for $600 total. You could hardly buy a bare-bones Ruger Mini-14 for $600, never mind two higher-quality rifles. Heck, even a cheap-cheap Remington 770 at Walmart is, what, $450?

You've been spun, and hard.

A perfect case in point.

Assault rifles in america are bought generally for one or both of two reasons. Either the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego.


That perception is *exactly* why the gun control lobby keeps shooting itself in the foot on the subject of rifle bans.

Dude, I shoot an AR and two 9mm's competitively (local USPSA), and the smaller of the 9mm's is a Smith & Wesson Lady Smith. I'd love to hear your "machismo" take on that.

The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States not from "the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego", but because it is far and away the best small-caliber centerfire carbine on the market. Period. Compare a Ruger Mini-14 and a Smith & Wesson AR, which are identical in terms of capacity, caliber, rate of fire, and tell me why for the same money you'd choose a less-accurate, less-ergonomic, less-configurable, less-durable, less-weather-resistant gun for the same price. Show me another single gun you can use for F-class benchrest, IPSC/USPSA, .30-caliber deer hunting, .22LR squirrel hunting, *and* as a less-penetrative, lighter-recoiling stand-in for a 12-gauge in the HD role simply by swapping components with no gunsmith required.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/ar-15/all/

Exactly, they want to own military style firearms, without ever having to serve one, single, day, in a militia, or army - so as to pretend they are just as good.


Heh. My AR is a Rock River, in a configuration that has never been used by any military on this planet. It no less "civilian" than a Remington 700 deer rifle (aka "M24/M40 Sniper Weapons System") or a Winchester Model 70 (military-style Mauser derivative that served as the standard-issue USMC sniper rifle in Vietnam). FWIW, I own one and only one military rifle, and that one is a bolt-action made in 1905 that helped kick both the Soviets and the Nazis out of Finland. My 9mm's are both Smith & Wessons.

The gun control lobby made a huge miscalculation when they assumed, based on the arguments put forward by Diaz et al that you repeat upthread, that "black rifles" are fringe guns mostly purchased by Walter Mittys, and acted accordingly. The AR is the Winchester .30-30 of my generation (Gen-X) and subsequent, and will undoubtedly surpass the total sales of the Remington 870 within a few years. Face that fact or not, it's no loss to me, but it might keep your side of the argument from stepping in it quite so badly.

That might have been the case a couple years ago; probably not now, I think.

Universal background checks and improved reporting would be a compromise that would likely pass without greatly angering most gun owners.


That would have been the case until fairly recently, back when it appeared that gun-owner rights were seen as pretty safe from new AWB's and magazine bans. Now, I think such a move would be considered an attempt to proactively add teeth to the gun/mag bans being pushed at the state and national level, since without mandatory recording of transfers, such bans are completely unenforceable.

That's the boat I pretty much find myself in....OK with background checks for private sales in theory, but absolutely opposed in the current environment. NY, CA, and MD, and the Bloomberg machine have shown where they want this bus to go.

Sigh...

1. The assault weapons ban restricted sales from 1994-2005. Now that sales are booming, it's only logical that in time those guns will find their way into criminal hands, and then be put to criminal use.

The. AWB. Did. Not. Restrict. Sales.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. The AWB easily *tripled* AR-15 and AK sales. It merely required that all those new AR's/AK's being manufacture and imported had to have smooth muzzles, pinned rather than screwed on brakes, and pinned stocks.

Do I need to post BATFE sales figures? AR and AK ads from the late '90s/early '00's? My AK receipt from 2003? Those were the boom years for those guns.

I also question using the rifle categorization as an assessor since it includes things like hunting rifles we aren't concerned about.

Rifles of any type aren't significantly represented in U.S. homicide stats. Period. All rifles combined don't even reach 3% of recorded homicides most years.

You are in serious denial if you think that rifle homicide at <3% means that nontraditional looking rifles are a Menace To Society...

Have you seriously asked yourself the simple question of what will happen to all these guns in time?

Yep. The thing about guns is that if they are taken proper care of and not shot too much (or have worn-out parts replaced as needed), they last for many decades, or even centuries. Some will wear out, and those that don't will be passed down to heirs or sold back to gun dealers to re-enter the lawful retail market, just like civilian guns have done for the past 300 years. You are acting as if this is new, or as if a rifle with "Rock River Arms" on the side is qualitatively different from one that says "Winchester".

I currently shoot a rifle that is 107 years old. There's no reason my grandchildren's children can't enjoy shooting it a century from now, either.

Furthermore, the logical extension of the arguments made by those who think we should be allowed to carry arms wherever, whenever, we want is to de-emphasize the ability to conceal and to re-emphasize firepower. I'll call this the Wild West scenario where a society has gone from a stage where it doesn't have to address the problem of the public carrying arms to the point where you have to check your gun in with the Sheriff in Tombstone. Where does this "madness" (Bill Clinton's words, not mine) end if we are to have whatever gun rights we believe we ought to have irrespective of any possible social consequence?

No, not happening. The "open carry" movement started as pushback against California's lack of equitable concealed carry licensure, and were it not for that would IMO not exist.

Clinton's harshness on gun ownership was an attempt to triangulate law-and-order conservatives by looking "tough on crime". That was a serious miscalculation, as Clinton pointed out in his autobiography, and Dems paid for it by losing the trifecta for a decade.

{much drivel about the Confederacy, Red Dawn, and whatnot omitted}

Please don't put your delusions about what "real" gun owners think in my mouth. I haven't tried to use you as a sockpuppet; please extend the same civility in return.

4. I think the pro-gun lobby needs to ask itself how legal possession of guns becomes illegal possession of guns; for some reason (understandable), the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to engage this question in any meaningful way.

Since the gun-control lobby is primarily focused on banning the lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular civilian guns and rolling back CCW licensure, rather than specifically addressing diversion to criminal hands, I don't think you can exactly blame gun owners for that.

You wish to radically change the status quo, and enact sweeping new restrictions on the Title 1 civilian guns we may lawfully own. The answer to that is no. If you wish to discuss methods to reduce diversion from the legal market to the illegal one, let's talk.

This of course is understandable considering it makes for a great case for the true meaning of the Constitution, that the Second Amendment exists to create "a well regulated Militia" that can be called up to put down domestic insurrection or foreign invasion; rather than carte blanche gun rights.

Revisionist history that was eventually reversed in academia and shot down in U.S. v. Heller, which is now the law of the land. The 2ndA is an individual right that protects guns "in common use for lawful purposes." Next case.

5. I've already said I want a better written law so the gun manufacturers can't slither around the intent of the law.

The intent of the 1994 law was look "tough on crime" to law-and-order conservatives without alarming gun owners too much (hence the sunset clause and the fact that the law didn't actually ban any guns). Even so, it was a vast overreach, and the backlash all but destroyed the U.S. gun control lobby, gave us 49-state CCW, and made "assault weapons" the top selling guns in America by September 2004.

If you want to lobby for a far more restrictive law, in what is now a vastly less favorable political climate than in '94, when the guns you wish to ban now define the mainstream of the shooting sports, then go right ahead. Gun owners will ultimately thank you for it, as your movement follows the WCTU and the Temperance Party into the political dustbin.

I don't care about the gun porn; that weapon has no purpose in independent hands, not connected with service in the Militia, other than to be, what I humorously call a "death spewer."

You are free not to own one. It's a free country. But if you wanted the gun control lobby to remain relevant, you might want to try to have your positions reflect reality in 2012, rather than a Field & Stream fantasy from 1951.

As a movement, though, taking the position that the dominant sporting rifles in the United States have no sporting purpose, or that the top selling civilian rifles in the USA are not civilian rifles, is sheer idiocy from a pragmatic standpoint. It was exactly that sort of blind groupthink that led the gun control lobby to fall on the AWB sword a decade ago. I suppose I should be relieved to see that you guys are determined to stay on that sword until your movement bleeds out.

Meh, whatever. I'll keep shooting matches, going to the range, and taking friends and my kids shooting with the guns I supposedly can't do those things with. No worries.

6. Killing other human beings; it has no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose on its own merit.

I think you must have accidentally deleted some words here.

FWIW, re: Roosevelt, I notice that Eleanor Roosevelt was a competent handgun shooter, owned a revolver, and had a New York concealed carry license. I see that the Hanley-Fake bill was an attempt to repeal the Sullivan Act; I'll bet there is a deeper backstory there than your source is telling.

....Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons. I would never deny your right to ownership of weapons for hunting, self-defense, and sport. But when your choice of weapons present a clear and present danger to the safety of the public and their officials, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, I believe you have exceeded any Constitutional mandate to not have your rights "infringed."

Ah, notice the date: 2004. Back before Senator Kerry lost gun-owning Dems again, just like Gore had in 2000, just like the congressional leadership did in 1994, and before the DLC/DNC leadership began soul-searching to discover how they had managed to alienate gun-owning Dems so badly.

It wasn't until circa 2006 that the party began to get informed on the issue, discovered that (oops!!) "assault weapons" are civilian rifles (and the most popular ones, at that), and began to backpedal on the AWB, such that by 2008 the American Hunters and Shooters Association was confidently assuring gun owners that Obama had no interest in pushing for another AWB. They were right.

Legislating 19th century firearm aesthetics is dead. Handgrips that stick out are here to stay. Deal with it.

Or as a competitive shooter.

Here's a local IPSC match in Sweden.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »