What my military weapons training taught me years ago: The M-16 (the fully automatic-capable version of the AR-15) was created to help increase the effectiveness of American soldiers facing similarly armed enemies. The new U.S. rifles were lighter, could be loaded with more rounds of ammunition, were mechanically dependable and had a faster rate of fire and a higher muzzle velocity. The introduction of the M-16 was entirely necessary for soldiers slogging through hot and humid Southeast Asian jungles.
In the hands of the average soldier, the M-16 was not only more lethal but more forgiving of poor marksmanship. Firing range instructors pointed out that with an M-16, any hit on the human profile target was scored as a “kill.” The M-16’s small-caliber, high-velocity bullet would do more damage than the once standard, slower and larger 30-caliber projectile. A single M-16 bullet was designed to take off a hand at the wrist or ricochet inside a body to cause more medically untreatable damage. Though the M-16 could be fully automatic, we were taught to use it in semi-automatic mode — in other words, like an AR-15.
Rifles were built to be lethal in war
You have to wonder if not doing some basic historical research is a prerequisite for writing against gun rights. Dear God, any basic search is going to take people to read stories about the problems the M 16 had jamming constantly when finally fully issued to the troops in Nam and how long it took to get it fixed.
And then comes the ballistics part which it demands you simply set aside physics as we know it so it can be believed that a .308 round is a Nerf dart when compared to the 5.56.
And as always: If your cause is righteous, why lie?
6 thoughts on “Nother Stolen Valor for Gun Control.”
“You have to wonder if not doing some basic historical research is a prerequisite for writing against gun rights”
Proggies don’t bother with any kind of basic research because it would immediately disprove the lies they’re so keen to repeat ad nauseam.
“…a .308 round is a Nerf dart when compared to the 5.56.”
This is up there with the statement some politikritter made recently that AR-15’s are more dangerous than AR-10’s.
Yeah, I’ve been hearing for 50 years how the “M-16 bullet” was designed to tumble when it hit anything (“even so much as a leaf,” I once read, which must be hell on accuracy), and cause catastrophic damage such as amputated limbs and gigantic internal tissue destruction, with attendant exit wounds “the size of basketballs. But I’ve yet to see a photograph or an X-ray of anyone who has suffered those injuries from an M-16 or AR-15. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places.
Old 1811: Yeah, it is not as if the last, oh, hell, 18 freaking years has not provided an abundance of case examples of jihadis shot by US and allied forces, with 223 bullets. So, photos or bullshit.
“The M-16’s small-caliber, high-velocity bullet would do more damage than the once standard, slower and larger 30-caliber projectile. A single M-16 bullet was designed to take off a hand at the wrist or ricochet inside a body to cause more medically untreatable damage”
Sounds like this would make a perfect hunting round over the old school 30-06 and .308…. checking Winchester catalog for .223 Mega Deer Slayer ™…. ok, so there are some, but I sure wouldn’t use such a puny round.
It used to be hunting experience was common in our military ranks. I’m guessing this guy hasn’t spent much time in the woods.
And that is precisely why all the VC wanted to pick up the .22 caliber rifles our guys dropped in Nam – i no, wait – that was the other way around , now that I think about it. WE picked up AKs whenever possible since they were pretty much idiot proof, sent a heavier round crashing through brush…
Supposedly (and this is what I’ve read and heard, so I won’t testify as to veracity), the lighter round was to (a) allow the soldier to carry more ammo, and (b) wound enemies so they would have to expend resources on healing them.
While (a) is always good (show me a soldier who claims he has ‘enough ammo’; I’ll wait), (b) struck me as a weird perversion on the von Clausewitz idea of friction. It presumes that the injury would be enough to force the target from the field, and that the forces backing said target would care enough to repair the injury.
Login or register to comment.