THE BLAST EFFECT This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

[Swede]

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Idk if I want to see this.

Or if I'm ready.

[BigMin28]

2. Until

This country is forced to see what really happens in these situations, until they actually see the carnage, this will never stop.

[grumpyduck]

10. Yeah, like what the Allies did with forcing Germans

to view the piles of bodies in concentration camps.

[Girard442]

3. Horrific and gruesome -- but common knowledge for years.

The people who promote these weapons want deaths. There is no other explanation.

[grumpyduck]

9. I don't know that they necessarily want deaths.

I think they want the money and don't give a shit about the deaths.

[James48]

4. The thing is-

An AR-15 round is actually LESS powerful than most hunting rifle bullets. Yes, it is a high velocity round, but so are numberiys other rifle shells. All are killers.

My point is- just thinking you ban a certain bullet or rifle- that isn’t going to do much. Any other / many other calibers have similar destructive effects on the human body.

5.56mm x 45 (NATO M-4/M-16 round) is a mid-size round.
The 7.62 x 51 NATO has more energy/double the power, but less speed.

It is just as, if not more lethal, than the AR-15 round.. As is a host of others-

[Swede]

5. They come in handy killing kids in schools, too.

FFS

[Aristus]

11. Lighter rounds tend to tumble when they hit something.

And it's the tumbling effect that causes such devastation to the human body.

[hack89]

13. That is a myth

a round that is prone to tumbling is inherently unstable which makes it inaccurate - the military puts a premium at long range accuracy.

[BlackSkimmer]

36. Thank you for the info. nt

[Turbineguy]

6. That's why they are such great hunting rifles.

It turns your game into hamburger.

[onethatcares]

7. that's also why they're such great war weapons

they take your enemy off the battlefield with massive injuries and turn them into hamburger

[Kaleva]

18. The Army is replacing the round as it's deemed not powerful enough

[Zeitghost]

8. The standard AR cartridge (.223)

Is not powerful enough for hunting most game animals. They are considered acceptable for prairie dogs and coyote. In most places they are not considered acceptable for deer and are often illegal to use due to their lack of power.

The damage to the flesh of the animal is considerably worse with traditional hunting rounds like the .30-06.

[gratuitous]

15. Good to know

We're more considerate of the effects a .223 cartridge has on deer than on schoolchildren. And this is considered normal thinking in the United States.

[Zeitghost]

19. I'm not sure if considerate is the word I would use...

For a school shooter using a more powerful cartridge to ensure the quick death of their victims.

[James48]

16. Um, the .30-06

Wasn’t a hunting round to begin with. It was the standard military round from 1906 until 1957.

[Zeitghost]

20. Yes, I know that

It's also one of the most popular hunting cartridges of all time and is what many people think of when picturing their dad or grandpa's old hunting rifle.

[Kaleva]

22. The .223 is gaining popularity with hunters

For small game. It's legal in Michigan for deer hunting but I personally would use it for such

[Zeitghost]

26. It suited well for small game

But like you, I would feel uncomfortable using it on deer, especially here in the West were shots are a bit further out. Maybe up close on a small deer it would be okay, but you better be right on with placement.

[Kaleva]

27. I agree

[hack89]

12. It is banned from hunting in 10 states

because it is not powerful enough for larger game like deer.

[thatdemguy]

14. Yes the round is actually not that great. The military is changing to a round

That is much more powerful. This is due the m16 bullet is not very effective at stopping people during a war. They have had many complaints it just plain worked poorly at stopping people.

[Kingofalldems]

17. Gunners not liking this for some reason.

[Kaleva]

21. Nobody seems to care about the Ruger Mini-14 which fires the same round

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

The Mini-14 is just as lethal and can be fitted with high capacity magazines but it's always under the radar when it comes to talk about banning or severely restricting

[Ilsa]

23. Add it to the ban list. nt

[Kaleva]

25. Oregon is proposing banning assault weapons but they excluded the Ruger

I think it was also left off the original AWB list too

[joshcryer]

31. The Ruger was specifically white listed.

The ban included the Ruger but it was specifically and directly white listed for "muh hunting".

[Zeitghost]

28. It doesn't have many of the cosmetic/ergonomic features

That are used to ban AR pattern rifles.

Banning them by name/model is pointless because they just call it something else.

[joshcryer]

32. The AWB was more general. It banned the Ruger.

The Ruger had to be specifically white listed along with a few dozen other "hunting" guns.

Instate an AWB without a white list and watch what happens.

[sl8]

34. It was whitelisted, but the vast majority wouldn't have been banned anyway.

In the 1994 AWB the definition of a rifle assault weapon was:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one-
- Grenade launcher

Even pistol grip ARs weren't banned, so long as they didn't have another special feature

[joshcryer]

35. "detachable magazines" is the key.

Most of the worst mass shootings (not talking gang violence) employee "'extended magazines" (over 10 rounds for the purpose of the discussion), and the shooter had time to reload their magazines with ease (Christchurch, Vegas, Norway). Limit the actual ability to unload lots of high velocity bullets at close range, and you will save innocent people from random mass targeted shootings.

[maxsolomon]

30. No one's banning shit.

They all do a great job putting bullets into bodies semi-automatically.

[Ilsa]

24. The public needs to see crime scene photos.

At least of adults. Let the public imagine the carnage on a child's body. If people saw it, I think they'd demand action.

[Disaffected]

29. Lots of rifle rounds can cause horrific damage.

The broader issue IMO is that all semi-auto firearms should be highly restricted, both handguns and rifles. And, there is no compelling reason for use of semi-auto firearms in either hunting or target shooting.

[Kaleva]

33. I agree.

[BlackSkimmer]

37. Thank you for sharing the article.

Horrific.

[hippywife]

38. Read a great, and very detailed, article about this in the NYT years ago.

Written by a trauma physician. Nothing has changed at all.

[NickB79]

39. As others have said, this is pretty much all rifle bullets

Only bullets specifically designed NOT to expand, such as ones made for really large game that requires deep penetration, wouldn't create a wound cavity like this.

Hell, there are even specialty 9mm non-lead, lightweight pistol bullets that will do this. It all comes down to velocity; above 2000 fps bullets start to expand and fragment on impact, and pretty much all rifle rounds travel at this speed.

The reason we don't see a lot of larger-caliber hunting rounds used in mass shootings is that calibers like the 5.56mm are accurate, have low recoil, utilize large magazines, and the guns that chamber them are designed to be reloaded rapidly. If we really want to tackle gun proliferation in this country, we have to focus on the speed at which someone can both discharge AND reload a weapon. A shotgun can be fired almost as fast as an AR, but only holds 5-8 shells and takes a lot longer to reload. Same with a lever-action .30-30 deer rifle.

So, ban high-capacity magazines. Canada limits them to 5 rounds. New York does 7, I believe. California does 10, as did the 1994 AWB nationwide. Make an AR the functional equivalent of Grandpa's deer rifle, and you can at least reduce the body count at the end of the day until we figure out a better path forward.

[IronLionZion]

40. Why should innocent children have to pay the price of freedom

The right only has BS arguments because they like these weapons. They didn't use it to overthrow the government on Jan 6. Police don't want to be shot by these weapons like in Uvalde TX.

So if brave adults can't handle the price of freedom, why should kids who made no choices whatsoever leading to being torn apart by these weapons. Kids in school should not have to be faced with this sort of threat. It shouldn't be acceptable in our society.

[Samrob]

41. Is it available anywhere else? I refuse to go to Twitter. nt

[Crepuscular]

42. ...

The contrast noted in this article, comparing the devastation caused by .223 rifle cartridges vs. pistol caliber cartridges, is largely a distinction with no meaningful difference, in the context of school or mass shootings.

The Nashville Shooter used a pistol caliber carbine, chambered in either 9mm or .40 S&W. All of the victims that were shot are dead, despite the fact that they were not shot with a centerfire rifle round.

Focusing on banning assault weapons is a huge red herring. Criteria such as flash protectors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc. are merely cosmetic and have no tangible impact on the functionality or lethality of the weapon.

Detachable, high capacity magazines are the one feature, whether in rifles or handguns, that significantly multiply the killing capacity of a weapon. Unfortunately, there are billions of high cap mags in circulation, so all banning the sale or production of them accomplishes is driving up the price.

If you could wave a magic wand and get rid of high capacity magazines, you may, might, maybe see an infinitesimal reduction in body counts but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If people are sick enough to want to kill a whole bunch of other people, they will probably manage to find a way to do it.

Banning all guns might help but that is a totally unrealistic expectation, given our society, courts and laws.

Red flag laws, eliminating transfer loopholes, enforcing strawman purchase laws and other measures could help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and we should continue to pursue such measures but repeating the mantra of "ban assault weapons" and believing that doing so would provide any actual reduction in the carnage that we see is ultimately as hollow and meaningless as offering "thoughts and prayers" to victims.

I realize this won't be a popular viewpoint, just my two cents as someone who is very familiar with firearms, their capabilities and who has a decidedly skeptical view of human nature.