4 ms·

What does an AR-15 do to a human body?

16 points by Anon84 4y ago

jleyank 4y ago
In short: it's bad, particularly if the round tumbles. Lightweight, high-velocity it is. Wound ballistics for this and the previous rifle were all well-known in ancient times.
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  Some special forces groups insist on using lighter calibers because the round bounces/tumbles through.
bigtex88 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_cartridges#:~:text=The%20AR%2D15%20rifles%20usually%20comes%20chambered%20for%20either%20the%20military%20cartridge%205.56%C3%9745mm%20or%20the%20.223%20Remington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_cartridges.... For anyone that says "It's not an assault rifle!" - the AR platform comes off the shelf chambered for two different types of MILITARY ammunition. It is a weapon specifically meant to fire human-killing rounds. This is not an opinion; it is a statement of fact. So to answer the question posed by the OP's post: the AR-15 mutilates the human body, as it was designed to do.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  > chambered for two different types of MILITARY ammunition. Isn’t that the hardest to get a hold of these days? I figure the entire western supply is being stockpiled by militaries and/or being sent to Ukraine. Or unavailable due to sanctions (not sure how much was manufactured in Russia and making its way to North America). Though I’d argue military ammunition is moreso built to pierce through armour that most civilian’s bodies and personal vehicles won’t have.
  - blinded 4y ago
    nope 223 and 556 are super easy to get. civilians can get armour and high powered rounds too. also easy to get provided you have the funds.
  - mmh0000 4y ago
    No, it isn't hard to get at all, that's part of the problem. .223 one of the more common AR-15 rounds is cheap and most options have free or reduced shipping[1]. You can get 1000 rounds shipped to your door for ~$400. [1] https://ammoseek.com/ammo/223-remington https://ammoseek.com/ammo/223-remington
- jleyank 4y ago
  According to Google, it's straightforward to militarize an AR-15 into a semi-automatic (possibly more, didn't chase links). No need to hunt with a semi unless you're interested in hamburger. Per comments - brain-fart. Militarize into full auto. I don't hunt, sorry, merely worked with hunters back in the early 80's.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Semi-automatic just means you get one shot per pull of the trigger. Very common. Very little is “manual” these days. I think you mean “militarize into an automatic”.
  - aksss 4y ago
    A) the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle out of the box. B) "militarize a [gun] into a semi-automatic" - yeah, that's not a thing. C) "No need to hunt with a semi-auto" - no, there are several subjective reasons one might prefer to use a semi-auto hunting, and several objective circumstances where it makes sense. Remember that semi-auto means one pull of the trigger = one round fired.
  - brodouevencode 4y ago
    Ask anyone who's seen action if a fully automatic rifle is useful. On a vehicle or defensive position, yes - it's great for a variety of uses. But during a breach or even open field fire fight no one, and I mean no one, flips to full auto.
- aksss 4y ago
  Many rounds get their start in the military - .30-06, 45-70, and do substantially more damage to a human body than the 5.56 round, not because they started in the military, but because of ballistics. Other rounds start off in the private sector and get brought into the military, like the .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor. There is nothing particularly deadly about the .223 round that isn't common to all rifle rounds, particularly larger calibers. Rifle rounds are deadly to living creatures, human or not. The military has, time and again, dropped and adopted rounds balancing many interests, not only effectiveness on the battlefield, but also the logistics of moving ammunition from point a to point b. Sometimes the latter comes at the cost to the former. Recall that when the 5.56/223 round was introduced, it was panned as being completely inadequate for human targets. It was replacing a .30 round that had more stability in flight, more range, and more punch when it got there. Those rounds replaced a .45 caliber round before that. The reason people say, "not an assault rifle," is because in the gun world that has a particular technical definition that the AR-15 does not meet. Using the term outside of its technical definition is nakedly an appeal to emotion for political purposes. There are more sober ways to make the gun ban argument without resorting to this language, but I'm not holding my breath. Fearmongering is effective.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
Summary: Rifle rounds are more deadly than pistol rounds, which is well known to anyone who knows anything about guns. Aside from that one sentence of common knowledge it is just a lot of fear mongering about AR-15’s. “ The Post determined that there is a public interest in demonstrating the uniquely destructive power of the AR-15 when used to kill. “ Firstly, there is nothing unique about an AR-15 compared to other intermediate caliber rifles. There are a plethora of other rifles on the market with the exact same capabilities. Secondly, the .223/5.56 round they use called intermediate for a reason. It is illegal to use for hunting deer in many states because it doesn’t have enough power for humane kills. The reason militaries use them is for better recoil control during fully automatic fire and so you can carry more ammo for suppressive fire. It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about.
- NickC25 4y ago
  >It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about. Nonsensical or not, the damage the weapon does to humans is clear. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue. Semantics aside, there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. There's self-defense of one's person and homestead, and then there's "self-defense" as defined by a lobbying group backed by gun manufacturers, "patriots", and Russian psy-ops.
  - CharleFKane 4y ago
    “… there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns.” Actually, you do see that. “Single-shot hunting rifles” are “sniper weapons”. Handgun bans have been advocated since the 1960s.
  - aksss 4y ago
    You do see gun control advocates arguing for banning basic handguns and single-shot hunting rifles. The Brady organization comes from a political predecessor literally named "Handgun Control Inc." That was the push several decades ago. Here's Gabby Giffords advocating for banning all guns just a couple weeks ago: https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/ https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/
sillywalk 4y ago
Perhaps before you're able to purchase one, you should have to watch a video of its effects on children; to include the screaming of course.
LinuxBender 4y ago
It does a lot of damage as it is supposed to but I am going to vote for a shotgun using slugs doing the most damage. [1] Or if we are going for the full science then maybe a tank [2]. [1] - https://youtu.be/T5QNTnMO5xU?t=355 https://youtu.be/T5QNTnMO5xU?t=355 [video][ballistic dummy badly injured] [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbrUEBNdwGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbrUEBNdwGY [video][another ballistic dummy gone]

16 points by Anon84 4y ago

In short: it's bad, particularly if the round tumbles. Lightweight, high-velocity it is. Wound ballistics for this and the previous rifle were all well-known in ancient times.

brodouevencode 4y ago
Some special forces groups insist on using lighter calibers because the round bounces/tumbles through.

bigtex88 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_cartridges#:~:text=The%20AR%2D15%20rifles%20usually%20comes%20chambered%20for%20either%20the%20military%20cartridge%205.56%C3%9745mm%20or%20the%20.223%20Remington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_cartridges.... For anyone that says "It's not an assault rifle!" - the AR platform comes off the shelf chambered for two different types of MILITARY ammunition. It is a weapon specifically meant to fire human-killing rounds. This is not an opinion; it is a statement of fact. So to answer the question posed by the OP's post: the AR-15 mutilates the human body, as it was designed to do.

Scoundreller 4y ago
> chambered for two different types of MILITARY ammunition. Isn’t that the hardest to get a hold of these days? I figure the entire western supply is being stockpiled by militaries and/or being sent to Ukraine. Or unavailable due to sanctions (not sure how much was manufactured in Russia and making its way to North America). Though I’d argue military ammunition is moreso built to pierce through armour that most civilian’s bodies and personal vehicles won’t have.
- blinded 4y ago
  nope 223 and 556 are super easy to get. civilians can get armour and high powered rounds too. also easy to get provided you have the funds.
- mmh0000 4y ago
  No, it isn't hard to get at all, that's part of the problem. .223 one of the more common AR-15 rounds is cheap and most options have free or reduced shipping[1]. You can get 1000 rounds shipped to your door for ~$400. [1] https://ammoseek.com/ammo/223-remington https://ammoseek.com/ammo/223-remington
jleyank 4y ago
According to Google, it's straightforward to militarize an AR-15 into a semi-automatic (possibly more, didn't chase links). No need to hunt with a semi unless you're interested in hamburger. Per comments - brain-fart. Militarize into full auto. I don't hunt, sorry, merely worked with hunters back in the early 80's.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Semi-automatic just means you get one shot per pull of the trigger. Very common. Very little is “manual” these days. I think you mean “militarize into an automatic”.
- aksss 4y ago
  A) the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle out of the box. B) "militarize a [gun] into a semi-automatic" - yeah, that's not a thing. C) "No need to hunt with a semi-auto" - no, there are several subjective reasons one might prefer to use a semi-auto hunting, and several objective circumstances where it makes sense. Remember that semi-auto means one pull of the trigger = one round fired.
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  Ask anyone who's seen action if a fully automatic rifle is useful. On a vehicle or defensive position, yes - it's great for a variety of uses. But during a breach or even open field fire fight no one, and I mean no one, flips to full auto.
aksss 4y ago
Many rounds get their start in the military - .30-06, 45-70, and do substantially more damage to a human body than the 5.56 round, not because they started in the military, but because of ballistics. Other rounds start off in the private sector and get brought into the military, like the .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor. There is nothing particularly deadly about the .223 round that isn't common to all rifle rounds, particularly larger calibers. Rifle rounds are deadly to living creatures, human or not. The military has, time and again, dropped and adopted rounds balancing many interests, not only effectiveness on the battlefield, but also the logistics of moving ammunition from point a to point b. Sometimes the latter comes at the cost to the former. Recall that when the 5.56/223 round was introduced, it was panned as being completely inadequate for human targets. It was replacing a .30 round that had more stability in flight, more range, and more punch when it got there. Those rounds replaced a .45 caliber round before that. The reason people say, "not an assault rifle," is because in the gun world that has a particular technical definition that the AR-15 does not meet. Using the term outside of its technical definition is nakedly an appeal to emotion for political purposes. There are more sober ways to make the gun ban argument without resorting to this language, but I'm not holding my breath. Fearmongering is effective.

wilsonnb3 4y ago

Summary: Rifle rounds are more deadly than pistol rounds, which is well known to anyone who knows anything about guns. Aside from that one sentence of common knowledge it is just a lot of fear mongering about AR-15’s. “ The Post determined that there is a public interest in demonstrating the uniquely destructive power of the AR-15 when used to kill. “ Firstly, there is nothing unique about an AR-15 compared to other intermediate caliber rifles. There are a plethora of other rifles on the market with the exact same capabilities. Secondly, the .223/5.56 round they use called intermediate for a reason. It is illegal to use for hunting deer in many states because it doesn’t have enough power for humane kills. The reason militaries use them is for better recoil control during fully automatic fire and so you can carry more ammo for suppressive fire. It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about.

NickC25 4y ago
>It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about. Nonsensical or not, the damage the weapon does to humans is clear. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue. Semantics aside, there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. There's self-defense of one's person and homestead, and then there's "self-defense" as defined by a lobbying group backed by gun manufacturers, "patriots", and Russian psy-ops.
- CharleFKane 4y ago
  “… there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns.” Actually, you do see that. “Single-shot hunting rifles” are “sniper weapons”. Handgun bans have been advocated since the 1960s.
- aksss 4y ago
  You do see gun control advocates arguing for banning basic handguns and single-shot hunting rifles. The Brady organization comes from a political predecessor literally named "Handgun Control Inc." That was the push several decades ago. Here's Gabby Giffords advocating for banning all guns just a couple weeks ago: https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/ https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/

sillywalk 4y ago

Perhaps before you're able to purchase one, you should have to watch a video of its effects on children; to include the screaming of course.

LinuxBender 4y ago

It does a lot of damage as it is supposed to but I am going to vote for a shotgun using slugs doing the most damage. [1] Or if we are going for the full science then maybe a tank [2]. [1] - https://youtu.be/T5QNTnMO5xU?t=355 https://youtu.be/T5QNTnMO5xU?t=355 [video][ballistic dummy badly injured] [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbrUEBNdwGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbrUEBNdwGY [video][another ballistic dummy gone]