HS Shooting in MD, LEO Responds in 1 Minute

[UCFBS]

Until you actually provide a source for this absolute bullshit about pistols being stronger than rifles

^^^ I never said that! Just admit it, you did not bother to understand my point from the get-go -- and that statement is proof!

1) All rifle catridges (short of the .22LR and smilar) have more energy than all automatic pistols cartridges (sans maybe some of the select automags versus small calibre rifle cartridges), so they are going to wound better, at any range.

2) Nearly all rifle cartridges have better killing capability than nearly all automatic pistol cartridges in close ranges too, even within 10m.

But ...

3) Most loads for the 5.56 NATO do not kill quickly as well in close range. That's why even military special forces don't use it, especially with the 30+ years of R&D into 9mm loads, let alone options like the 6.8 SPC, 7.62 AAC BLK, etc...

Let me say that again, for one final time ... There is a damn good reason why operators do not opt for the 5.56 NATO for CQC if they have a choice!

The FBI has only done more recent 5.56 testing with self-defense loads that the military does not carry, and most civilian target shooters do not buy either. And the only reason the FBI is doing this is because of inertia and logistics for existing SWAT teams that won't re-outfit their ARs with a larger calibre cartridge.

Give the FBI another decade, and it will improve for SWAT still outfitted with 5.56 ARs, possibly so it always kills better than nearly all automatic pistol cartridges, in close range where the pistol cartridges do not lose enough energy (again, cross-section over energy, you cannot ignore 1/3rd to 1/4th cross section, when something has only twice, or less, the energy).

Geez, just admit it, you overlooked my point from the get go. Let alone the statistics are there in mass shootings to back it up!

Use 5.56 and you're likely going to kill less per wounded person. This is not the battlefield where people do not get medical help in 8+ hours, but usually within 15 minutes. You want cross-section and enough energy, which 9mm has (especially today's +P HP, among others), so you get a key organ, and kill them in with minutes, if not seconds.

There are 5.56 loads that improve that, and with time, there will be more ... but still, the cartridge isn't really good at killing humans, or human-sized targets, quickly. Statistical fact. Heck, the USMC aims for the T for a reason!

 

[NinjaKnight]

Obvious troll still can't provide a single source for his blatantly obvious troll claim.

 

[UCFBS]

Obvious troll still can't provide a single source for his blatantly obvious troll claim.

And you cannot provide a single source for your assumption either. Pot call kettle black.

BTW, have you watched some of the ballistic gelatin tests of various 5.56 and 9mm loads? HINT: The 5.56mm FMJ looks like it does the most wounding, but the channel is everything.

 

[NinjaKnight]

It's obvious you are new to this whole scientific method construct, but here's a hint the one making the outlandish claim has to provide the proof.

Do you want proof that a 50 BMG does more damage than a 9mm as well? How about 30 mm? Where does your ridiculous claim end?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[UCFBS]

Do you want proof that a 50 BMG does more damage than a 9mm as well?

^ This is why your responses are a joke.

Just face it, you assumed that energy = killing, especially on the battlefield where medical response is measured in fractions of a day, instead of in a building in a populated area, which is measured in minutes. Wounding matters most in the former, but not the latter.

 

[NinjaKnight]

^ This is why your responses are a joke.

Just face it, you assumed that energy = killing, especially on the battlefield where medical response is measured in fractions of a day, instead of in a building in a populated area, which is measured in minutes. Wounding matters most in the former, but not the latter.

Answer the question you troll.

 

[UCFBS]

Answer the question you troll.

The question is beyond stupid.

The .50 caliber, regardless of its energy, is going to seriously f'up anyone from sheer cross-section at any range, at least until it loses enough energy after a few kilometers, and even then, it's gonna be pretty bad if it hits anyone before the ground.

Again -- even putting energy aside -- how could a 12.7mm bore (12.9mm bullet) be less than a 9mm bore/bullet when it comes to cross-section and the sheer statistics of hitting something vital for a near insta-kill?

This is why you're the ultimate troll. You missed the entire point of my original post, and you're just dancing around the real physics I put forth.

 

[NinjaKnight]

^BS this needs to be your avatar.

Just to let you know: pretending to be a moron isn't a very impressive debate strategy.

 

[UCFBS]

^BS this needs to be your avatar.

Just to let you know: pretending to be a moron isn't a very impressive debate strategy.

This should be yours ...

Damn you are a prideful, sheepish fool. Just admit it, you utterly missed my entire point from the get-go.

Then, after I re-explained it, you said I was 'backtracking.' No, it was the exact same detail! You just failed to understand it.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Still waiting on a single shred of evidence, other than your obvious troll self

 

[btbones]

This should be yours ...

Damn you are a prideful, sheepish fool. Just admit it, you utterly missed my entire point from the get-go.

Then, after I re-explained it, you said I was 'backtracking.' No, it was the exact same detail! You just failed to understand it.

Excellent post . Would read again

 

[UCFBS]

Still waiting on a single shred of evidence, other than your obvious troll self

I'm still waiting for you to understand my point -- from the beginning until now. You keep wanting to prove me wrong, and that means trolling with argumentative non-sense.

If you admit you didn't realize what I was saying from the get-go later, and said I was 'backtracking' when you finally started to realize what I was saying, I'll get you what you want.

Until then, keep saying law enforcement and special forces use "5.56 FMJ" for CQC within 10m, and there's no reason to use anything else, just as school shooters have proven, despite the statistics to the contrary (of death v. non-death injuries).

 

[NinjaKnight]

I'm still waiting for you to understand my point -- from the beginning until now. You keep wanting to prove me wrong, and that means trolling with argumentative non-sense.

If you admit you didn't realize what I was saying from the get-go later, and said I was 'backtracking' when you finally started to realize what I was saying, I'll get you what you want.

Until then, keep saying law enforcement and special forces use "5.56 FMJ" for CQC within 10m, and there's no reason to use anything else, just as school shooters have proven, despite the statistics to the contrary (of death v. non-death injuries).

Please, tell me more about how bullet diameter is the only thing that matters inside of 10m. How about .308, you saying that would be a better choice than 9mm if you had to choose what to be shot with inside this magical 10m zone you invented.

 

[UCFWayne]

havent swat teams used sub machine guns for decades?

 

[fabknight]

Bottom line: Getting shot would suck, no matter what caliber it was.

 

[NinjaKnight]

havent swat teams used sub machine guns for decades?

Yes, because they were the most powerful but still compact weapons widely available, now that the AR platform has proliferated (mainly bc of advances in reliability of shorter barreled ARs) the majority have switched to the much more powerful 5.56 round.

The fact that Wayne thinks this is a debate is hilarious, btw.

 

[UCFWayne]

Yes, because they were the most powerful but still compact weapons widely available, now that the AR platform has proliferated (mainly bc of advances in reliability of shorter barreled ARs) the majority have switched to the much more powerful 5.56 round.

The fact that Wayne thinks this is a debate is hilarious, btw.

so cops/swat teams have used pistol caliber guns in close quarters for multiple decades yet you continue to argue and be a dick.

thats sad btw

 

[UCFKnight85]

so cops/swat teams have used pistol caliber guns in close quarters for multiple decades yet you continue to argue and be a dick.

thats sad btw

SWAT teams here almost exclusively use rifles. However in Europe it's much more varied; there are tons and tons of MP5's, MPX's, MP7's, and SMG's in service with SWAT and MOI Response teams.

Some are getting phased out. The French police dumped most of their MP5's to buy G36 rifles once they realized they have to battle assholes with AK47's in the streets.

 

[NinjaKnight]

so cops/swat teams have used pistol caliber guns in close quarters for multiple decades yet you continue to argue and be a dick.

thats sad btw

Because they didn't have better options...JFC I literally just said that. You do know that technology progresses and leads to better improvements...right? Seriously please tell me you people are just pretending to be this stupid.

 

[UCFBS]

Please, tell me more about how bullet diameter is the only thing that matters inside of 10m.

Huh? Just when did I say that?!

Cross-section + energy + load (how it reacts in the medium it's in) is what matters.

Let me cover this again ...

- Well inside of 10m, pistol calibers are still retaining most of their energy.
- Cross-section -- when it comes to actually hitting something -- now matters
- Load, when it comes to reacting and expanding, now matters

Just 10 years ago, there weren't a lot of 5.56mm defensive loads. That's why a lot of mass shootings with the 5.56mm didn't result in the deaths.

In fact, let's look at the "Ultimate, supremo US media 'worse case scenario'"!!!
- AR-15 style
- Drum magazine
- Military load 5.56mm

Result?
- 1:4 kill:wounded ratio (one of the worst in a contained space)
- Magazine-gun jam (what's that about 'high capacity' again?)

^ This is what it's all about.

But because you're a media sheep, the new, US Federal Assault Weapons Ban lists the .22LR -- yes, .22 Long Rifle -- as an "Assault Weapons" cartridge!

How about .308, you saying that would be a better choice than 9mm if you had to choose what to be shot with inside this magical 10m zone you invented.

Did I not explicitly say .300 AAC BLK?!?! Let me say that again ... Did I not explicitly say .300 AAC BLK?!?!

I repeatedly stated this is why Special Forces, and even home defenders, use 6.8 SPC and .300 AAC BLK!!!

Of course I'd love .300 AAC BLK over 9mm in a home defense situation! How many times do I have to say it?!?!?!?

That's why it's used for CQC! Despite having a lot less energy than the full-up NATO 7.62. You stil;l get more energy and almost as good of cross-section, as 9mm! And with a more defensive loading, it can be quite good.

But because the military general issue and even law enforcement doesn't have the budget to convert, and the sheer existing logistics/inertia, it hasn't been adopted much by the military or even law enforcement, as a general issue.

Heck, .300 AAC BLK is pretty ballistically interesting, and predictable, out to 100-200m, despite the reduced aerodynamics over the 5.56. A lot of it has to do with its use of 7.62 NATO bullets, which doesn't apply to CQC, so I'll skip that aspect.

 

[UCFBS]

Okay, you win.

Rifle cartridges are why the .22LR is in the new US Federal Assault Weapons Ban Bill. Seriously. This is the case-in-point.

 

[NinjaKnight]

JFC I said .308 not 300 blackout.

Please just tell me you are trolling and you aren't actually this stupid.

 

[UCFBS]

JFC I said .308 not 300 blackout.

Seriously WTF?! Are you this blind?!

Did I not explicitly say .300 AAC BLK?!?! ... That's why it's used for CQC! Despite having a lot less energy than the full-up NATO 7.62.

^ literally and explicitly stated NATO 7.62!!!

This is why we make fun of you. Seriously. You have no excuse. You pull the same 'ignoring'/'editing' crap that the US media does.

I explicitly state something, and you literally play dumbsh-- ... or maybe you really are one?

Please just tell me you are trolling and you aren't actually this stupid.

No, you just proved you are totally not reading anything I say!

You have either:
A) done this on purpose (playing dumbsh--) ... or
B) you've gone full retard (really are dumbsh--)

In case you've gone full retard ...

Like .308 [Winchester?] and NATO 7.62, .300 AAC BLK is the same 7.82mm bullet diameter = the same bullet cross-section

So assuming at least a similar or same bullet design and loading, at least the same weight, how would .308 [Winchester?] not be at least as effective as 300 AAC BLK, especially with more energy?! Now if it was a FMJ and there was a JHP or other loading that was better for defense, at the same energy, the latter "bullet" (ignoring energy for a moment) might be a better "base." But in this case, if you mean the .308 Winchester, the energy would likely more than make up for that!

Because the .308 Winchester has over double the energy of the 5.56 in a typical, US military SBR. Heck, why do you think there is a HK417 SBR that special forces use dumbsh--?! Heck, the whole reason the .300 AAC BLK exists so it can be used in an AR for 56mm OAL cartridges!!!

Geez, you're either just being a total a-hole, or you really have gone full retard. I explicitly stated NATO 7.62!!! Man, this is just pure a-hole in action, or you really are not just playing dumb ... you actually are!

Insert his next post saying he meant some .308 "Magnum" or something that requires an action capable of handling a cartridge OAL of 83mm+ (and not just 71mm like the FAL/AR-10 or 56mm like the AR-15) ...

 

[NinjaKnight]

Type another novel without providing a source for your insane claims. This is amazing. Full on Milton 100%

 

[UCFBS]

Type another novel without providing a source for your insane claims. This is amazing. Full on Milton 100%

So, as you admitted in PM, you're not actually a dumbsh--, you're just playing dumb on purpose. Point taken.

You literally have only proved me correct at every turn.

 

[NinjaKnight]

So, as you admitted in PM, you're not actually a dumbsh--, you're just playing dumb on purpose. Point taken.

You literally have only proved me correct at every turn.

Resorting to lying now? I guess you aren't Milton. Damn.

 

[UCFBS]

Resorting to lying now? I guess you aren't Milton. Damn.

Hey man, you just keep putting words in my mouth, things I never said.

So, let's step back and see why I've made this such a 'big deal.'

1) The US media says we need to ban semi-auto rifles, because they shoot faster and kill more people, so civilians don't need rifles

2) The US media will eventually say we also need to ban semi-auto pistols, because they shoot just as fast -- sometimes even faster -- and can kill just as many people -- and statistically they kill 20x as many Americans, especially more children than rifles -- so civilians don't need pistols either

Do you see where this is headed?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Do you see where this is headed?

Yes, you moving the goal posts (again) because you can't find a shred of evidence to back up your amazingly ignorant claim that rifles are less deadly than pistols within some arbitrary distance.

 

[UCFWayne]

this argument is stupid. pistol rounds are not as powerful as rifle rounds. never have been and never will be. that said a pistol or sub gun can be just as effective if not more in a close quarters scenario vs a rifle. not talking about sbrs or anything like that, just a typical rifle.

 

[UCFBS]

Yes, you moving the goal posts (again)

I never moved the goal posts. My statements have not changed since post 1. I'm sorry you couldn't understand my original point from the get-go, and are only now realizing it (hence comments like this, and 'backtracking').

Next time stop to understand my original point, and not treat it like a 3rd grader statement. I'm an engineer after all.

this argument is stupid. pistol rounds are not as powerful as rifle rounds. never have been and never will be.

100% correct. That's why NATO 5.56, even in a SBR, even in military FMJ form and not a 'defensive' load, is always better at wounding for bleedout -- ideal on a battlefield, including fragmentation (without expansion).

The FBI has a great study on its last 10 years of improving the 5.56x45 for wounding** in self-defensive loads, including expansion and mitigating over-penetration, as well as associated legal issues, so it's at least on-par with 9mm HP in this regard (and better in many other ways), and safe to use in a home of wood frame and drywall.

**

Spoiler

NOTE: I just had a colleague confirm as of last night, the only study is on wounding. Some people may be entitled to others on select schedules, just like IT security information.

that said a pistol or sub gun can be just as effective if not more in a close quarters scenario vs a rifle.

As I've said all-along, when it comes to near-instant killing in close quarters (<10m), this is a factor of ...
- Energy, and most importantly ...
- Hitting something critical -- of which itself is ...
- - Accuracy (shooter)
- - Cross-section (bullet)
- - Terminal ballistics (bullet design)

not talking about sbrs or anything like that, just a typical rifle.

The biggest problem with the NATO 5.56, let alone less powerful 5.56 options, is that it continues to be the worst combination of ...
- Muzzle Energy** (for a rifle)
- Bullet Cross-section (for a rifle bullet)
- Common Availability of Military Loads (fine for target shooting, battlefield bleedout, not so good for CQC)

**

Spoiler

And this doesn't even address energy bleed (although not remotely as bad as a pistol caliber), of the .22 versus virtually every other rifle cartridge, even just .24, let alone .26+.

The great advantage of a rifle cartridge has always been its vastly superior energy at the muzzle (not even looking at distance, where it's absolutely superior), has always made its often smaller bullet cross-section, compared to most pistol calibers, a non-issue, even for near-instant killing. But the .22 caliber, even in high velocity, really takes that down a whole level.**

**

Spoiler

The British really hit this on the nose in full, post-WWII analysis, and decided nothing less than .26 in a rifle cartridge was effective -- which just confirmed what the Swiss, Japanese and Russians had been saying since the late 19th century. Even the US Army had also come to this conclusion by the '30s, but the winds of war were twirling, and it was shelved. The British worked on.27-28 options post-WWII, before Churchill came back into power, which meant "follow American logistics, they are our lifeblood," and the rest is history.

Again, because the .223 is going nowhere anytime soon, and both the US military and common SWAT teams are stuck with it out of inertia and logistics, the FBI has done a number of studies. Again, there is a public one on wounding, including mitigating over-penetration.

 

[NinjaKnight]

holy hell, it only takes one sentence to say "you are right ninja, rifles do more damage than pistols, this is ballistics 101"

 

[UCFWayne]

i dont think bs was ever saying it did the same amount of damage. i think he was saying its as effective within 30 feet.

 

[UCFBS]

i dont think bs was ever saying it did the same amount of damage. i think he was saying its as effective within 30 feet.

Effective at killing someone quick enough they cannot be saved by first responders, correct.

Furthermore, I'd rather be hit with 9mm (let alone bigger) in close quarters (where energy has not dropped off) for the following, 2 reasons ...

• statistically, the cross-section is going to hit something more critical, and kill me sooner (although loadings will make this vary greatly)
• statistically, the .223 is sub-.26, and it going to wound a human like a bitch for hours far more than it will kill me, especially against any 9mm loading, and definitely if FMJ instead of a defensive load

I honestly want at least .26 in a rifle, ideally with at least 40-50% more energy , to kill or cause me to wound great enough to die faster.

Although in the end, the shooter's skill matters. It's the difference between Parkland ... and Aurora. Parkland, sharpshooter w/10 round mags, Aurora, common American w/drum, all in a similar engagement range too.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Holy shit this is hilarious.

 

[Knight_Light]

Yes, you moving the goal posts (again)

I never moved the goal posts. My statements have not changed since post 1. I'm sorry you couldn't understand my original point from the get-go, and are only now realizing it (hence comments like this, and 'backtracking').

Next time stop to understand my original point, and not treat it like a 3rd grader statement. I'm an engineer after all.

this argument is stupid. pistol rounds are not as powerful as rifle rounds. never have been and never will be.

100% correct. That's why NATO 5.56, even in a SBR, even in military FMJ form and not a 'defensive' load, is always better at wounding for bleedout -- ideal on a battlefield, including fragmentation (without expansion).

The FBI has a great study on its last 10 years of improving the 5.56x45 for wounding** in self-defensive loads, including expansion and mitigating over-penetration, as well as associated legal issues, so it's at least on-par with 9mm HP in this regard (and better in many other ways), and safe to use in a home of wood frame and drywall.

**

Spoiler

NOTE: I just had a colleague confirm as of last night, the only study is on wounding. Some people may be entitled to others on select schedules, just like IT security information.

that said a pistol or sub gun can be just as effective if not more in a close quarters scenario vs a rifle.

As I've said all-along, when it comes to near-instant killing in close quarters (<10m), this is a factor of ...
- Energy, and most importantly ...
- Hitting something critical -- of which itself is ...
- - Accuracy (shooter)
- - Cross-section (bullet)
- - Terminal ballistics (bullet design)

not talking about sbrs or anything like that, just a typical rifle.

The biggest problem with the NATO 5.56, let alone less powerful 5.56 options, is that it continues to be the worst combination of ...
- Muzzle Energy** (for a rifle)
- Bullet Cross-section (for a rifle bullet)
- Common Availability of Military Loads (fine for target shooting, battlefield bleedout, not so good for CQC)

**

Spoiler

And this doesn't even address energy bleed (although not remotely as bad as a pistol caliber), of the .22 versus virtually every other rifle cartridge, even just .24, let alone .26+.

The great advantage of a rifle cartridge has always been its vastly superior energy at the muzzle (not even looking at distance, where it's absolutely superior), has always made its often smaller bullet cross-section, compared to most pistol calibers, a non-issue, even for near-instant killing. But the .22 caliber, even in high velocity, really takes that down a whole level.**

**

Spoiler

The British really hit this on the nose in full, post-WWII analysis, and decided nothing less than .26 in a rifle cartridge was effective -- which just confirmed what the Swiss, Japanese and Russians had been saying since the late 19th century. Even the US Army had also come to this conclusion by the '30s, but the winds of war were twirling, and it was shelved. The British worked on.27-28 options post-WWII, before Churchill came back into power, which meant "follow American logistics, they are our lifeblood," and the rest is history.

Again, because the .223 is going nowhere anytime soon, and both the US military and common SWAT teams are stuck with it out of inertia and logistics, the FBI has done a number of studies. Again, there is a public one on wounding, including mitigating over-penetration.

Please stop responding to the troll. If you haven't noticed he/she does not read what you write so save your breath and move on