‘It’s a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage’

I believe I hear the fellow from CNN (who appears to close his eyes while firing) saying of the AR-15 “It’s a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage,” here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYjjWPvL9j0

Really? One reason they adopted the .223 is that troops can carry more ammo because it’s lighter, of course. But I seem to remember reading, long ago, that the .223 round was also chosen in part because it’s more likely to WOUND (see dead vs. wounded stats at any “mass shooting,” let alone any combat engagement), and a wounded man will take three enemy out of action, since it takes two guys to haul the casualty back to the aid station.

I wonder how much trouble it would be for someone to put together a “reply” video (shot outdoors, not at a 50-yard indoor range):

“They want to ban the civilian, semi-auto AR-15 because CNN reports it’s ‘designed to inflict maximum damage.’ OK, let’s examine these three cartridges: This is the .223 developed in the 1960s and used in an AR-15 (second from right, above, next to the Russian short.) This is the NATO .308 that was standard way back in the 1950s (third from left.) And this (far left) is the .50-caliber Browning, developed more than a century ago. Now let’s see what each of these rounds does to those three watermelons out there. First, three rounds of .223 at 60 yards — and it’s a good thing we’re not firing through sawgrass, by the way, since that’s known to deflect these little slugs. OK, I see some entrance holes, and the size of the exit holes are going to vary considerably depending on whether I’m using a metal-jacketed or a soft-point round. Not saying I’m about the volunteer to get shot with this thing, mind you, it’s certainly a dangerous firearm. But we’re examining the claim that the AR-15 is ‘designed to inflict maximum damage.’

“Now, three rounds of .308 from this 1950s-era M-1A into the second watermelon, at 100 yards. Mind you, this M-1A is effective to about half a mile, and these rifles are common and perfectly legal. Again, a soft-point hunting round would almost certainly cause larger exit holes than a metal-jacketed military surplus round. Let’s compare the visible damage from the .308 as compared to the .223, which is supposedly ‘designed to inflict maximum damage.’

And now, a single round from this civilian-legal, semi-auto Barrett Model 82 in 50-caliber Browning, into that watermelon WAAYY out there are 200 yards. . . . Wow. I’m afraid we’re going to need a new watermelon.

(See it in slow motion at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyPuZYQ8ANg .)

“Folks, the .50-caliber doesn’t just destroy people, it destroys motor vehicles. A dozen rounds can bring down a fighter aircraft, which is why our B-17s used to carry at least half-a-dozen guns firing this round. And this round and this rifle are perfectly legal, which will be a very good thing when the day comes that we ever need to defend this country.

But what can we say, now, about folks who want to ban the AR-15 — or prevent 19-year-old Marines or 20-year-old police officers from practicing their marksmanship with it on weekends — because its little 22-caliber bullet is “designed to inflict maximum damage”?

“Maximum damage” compared to what? Are they really that ignorant . . . or are they just hoping to fool a few million urban voters who actually know little or nothing about modern firearms . . . and can’t be bothered to learn?”

— V.S.

8 Comments to “‘It’s a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage’”

  1. Thomas Mitchell Says:

    Now this is an argument that never occurred to me:

    “I seem to remember reading, long ago, that the .223 round was chosen in part because it’s more likely to WOUND (see dead vs. wounded stats at any “mass shooting,” let alone any combat engagement), and a wounded man will take three enemy out of action, since it takes two guys to haul the casualty back to the aid station.”

    And it does seem to make some perverted sense.

  2. Henry Says:

    Progressives parrot talking points. If moveon.org published an article claiming that Hershey bars cured diabetes, you’d hear it parroted all over the country within three days by trendsetters, talk show hosts, and other people who like to present themselves as “more informed on every issue than you.”

    The canonical talking point on the AR15 is that it’s “good for one thing nd one thing only: to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.” You’ll see it repeated verbatim by these self-anointed experts, in articles going back over 20 years.

    That’s why when you buy an AR15, it’s known as an “assault weapon.” When police departments buy it (in quantities of tens of thousands), it’s known as a “patrol rifle.”

    https://www.tactical-life.com/lifestyle/military-and-police/ar-15-patrol-rifle-evolution/

    Because who would be unpatriotic enough to want to deny our stalwart men and women in blue the capability to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible?

  3. Colin Campbell Says:

    Thanks, Vin, for articulating this. I was thinking the same thing. Isn’t it true that several states ban AR-15s for deer hunting because it’s not sufficiently lethal?

  4. Russell Patton Davis Says:

    The question of ‘to who?’ begged by the ‘inflict maximum damage’ criteria is VERY significant.
    A sharp point bullet is more likely to give a through-and-through injury with less shock wave damage that a rounder point. The person shot is disabled but more likely to survive and even recover. Also a person behind that 1st person shot with a sharp bullet is apt to be shot also and also with a survivable wound requiring medical attention. A high velocity powder charge and barrel increases the odds of both battle achievements. One such bullet, well placed can remove 4 to 12 combatants for the combat.

    Heavy, slow, round pointed or worse bullets have a higher kill to disable ratio.
    The need to win a battle seems vastly more honorable that the will to kill one person.
    Those persons trying to out-law fast, sharp ammunition in favor of slow dull ammunition make them selves stupid tools of evil.

  5. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger Says:

    And here’s a 78-year-old Solothurn in 20mm. . .

  6. Vin Says:

    Video of the 20 mm Solothurn:

  7. Technomad Says:

    If these snowflakes ever saw what my old Marlin Guide Gun could do with its .45-70 rounds, they’d faint.

  8. Larry Spencer Says:

    I don’t think those AR15/watermelon videos are genuine. None of them show shotgun hulls extracting off to the side of the video frame, like the watermelon video a colleague of mine tells me he saw aired on the DC area NBC affiliate just within the past two weeks.

Comment:

RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe



Warning: Unknown: open(/home/content/46/13966646/tmp/sess_mt9nqlap6qp21v8ch773160br5, O_RDWR) failed: No such file or directory (2) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct () in Unknown on line 0