Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Honest question, not a gun guy, so I don't know. A retired Colonel up for a top Pentagon job said yesterday in a confirmation hearing that it's "insane" that civilians can buy a weapon like the AR-15. Is he right? Is there something inherently awful about the AR-15 and how it can be modified that it's an inherent danger in the public's hands? I always assume that a guy with a bunch of hand guns would be just as much of a threat as a guy with a rifle like this, but again, maybe not. What say all the experts here?

GannonFan wrote:Honest question, not a gun guy, so I don't know. A retired Colonel up for a top Pentagon job said yesterday in a confirmation hearing that it's "insane" that civilians can buy a weapon like the AR-15. Is he right? Is there something inherently awful about the AR-15 and how it can be modified that it's an inherent danger in the public's hands? I always assume that a guy with a bunch of hand guns would be just as much of a threat as a guy with a rifle like this, but again, maybe not. What say all the experts here?

The AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic weapon in terms of functionality.

The Vegas shooter did do more damage in a faster time with bump stocks. I will concede that, and I really don't have a lot of heartburn with the banning of bump stocks (though I do have SERIOUS heartburn with the Curbelo/Moulten bill as written). You can bump a semi-auto without them anyway. They just make it a little easier.

I'm not an expert but you can pull a trigger on a shotgun or handgun as fast as a stock AR or deer rifle. For the Vegas shooter he had the addition of the bump stock as 93 said, he had more capacity in a single magazine than a handgun, and had a barrel capable of giving him more range. Just like a walnut stock, non-black deer rifle.


http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear ... them-this/

So really, the range is the big difference (other than the bump stock and I know that came up in another thread)? So with the guy in Texas going into a building like that church, would he have been as deadly with just semi automatic handguns as he was with an AR-15? How do the size of magazines differ?

GannonFan wrote:So really, the range is the big difference (other than the bump stock and I know that came up in another thread)? So with the guy in Texas going into a building like that church, would he have been as deadly with just semi automatic handguns as he was with an AR-15? How do the size of magazines differ?

AR-15's come with 30 round magazines, while many of your full size handguns chambered in 9mm can have 17-19 rounds and some manufacturers have magazines exceeding 30 rounds in a handgun.

At close range, I think he could have been more deadly with handguns in that church IMO.

GannonFan wrote:So really, the range is the big difference (other than the bump stock and I know that came up in another thread)? So with the guy in Texas going into a building like that church, would he have been as deadly with just semi automatic handguns as he was with an AR-15? How do the size of magazines differ?

Other than the Vegas shooting (and going way back to Charles Whitman), you'd be hard pressed to find a mass-shooting incident where range mattered. In the Texas church and Sandy Hook, I don't think the results would have been any different if the shooters were equipped with a Glock 19 and pockets full of these:

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/10062 ... ymer-black

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:So really, the range is the big difference (other than the bump stock and I know that came up in another thread)? So with the guy in Texas going into a building like that church, would he have been as deadly with just semi automatic handguns as he was with an AR-15? How do the size of magazines differ?

AR-15's come with 30 round magazines, while many of your full size handguns chambered in 9mm can have 17-19 rounds and some manufacturers have magazines exceeding 30 rounds in a handgun.

At close range, I think he could have been more deadly with handguns in that church IMO.

Is it easier to reload with the handgun or the AR, or does it not matter? Is the firepower any different? Does the AR do more damage than a handgun?

Btw, I am looking hard at bolt-action precision rifles in the caliber du jour right now: 6.5 creedmore.

I just watched a Youtube video of a Finnish shooter pumping out rapid fire rounds and consistently hitting sub-moa sized steel plates from 600-1000 meters. Talk about devastation! And every liberal gun ban bill short of confiscation wouldn't do a damn thing about that.

GannonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
AR-15's come with 30 round magazines, while many of your full size handguns chambered in 9mm can have 17-19 rounds and some manufacturers have magazines exceeding 30 rounds in a handgun.

At close range, I think he could have been more deadly with handguns in that church IMO.

Is it easier to reload with the handgun or the AR, or does it not matter? Is the firepower any different? Does the AR do more damage than a handgun?

I would assume any person intent on doing harm like this would already have a number of magazines preloaded and ready to go so I'd call that kind of a wash. I can change a handgun magazine faster than an AR. A 9mm will create a larger hole than an AR, especially if you use hollow point ammunition in the 9mm.

GannonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
AR-15's come with 30 round magazines, while many of your full size handguns chambered in 9mm can have 17-19 rounds and some manufacturers have magazines exceeding 30 rounds in a handgun.

At close range, I think he could have been more deadly with handguns in that church IMO.

Is it easier to reload with the handgun or the AR, or does it not matter? Is the firepower any different? Does the AR do more damage than a handgun?

Reload exactly the same. Push a button, old mag drops, insert new mag. Skilled person does this in about 2 seconds.

Yes, .223 rem round is ballistically more powerful than a 9mm luger. Hence, I can hit man-size targets with my AR-15 at 500 meters all day. In Texas church and Sandy Hook, maybe 5 of the people would have survived the 9mm round? Just guessing.

They're fun to shoot...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Weeeee !!!!

I like 'em

93henfan wrote:
Reload exactly the same. Push a button, old mag drops, insert new mag. Skilled person does this in about 2 seconds.

Yes, .223 rem round is ballistically more powerful than a 9mm luger. Hence, I can hit man-size targets with my AR-15 at 500 meters all day. In Texas church and Sandy Hook, maybe 5 of the people would have survived the 9mm round? Just guessing.

I'd just add that in the confines of a small church that swinging around a weapon with a 16-18" barrel would make target acquisition a bit more difficult than a handgun IMO.

So what I'm getting out of this is that, other than the range a rifle gives you versus a handgun, a mass shooter with intent to harm could do the same damage with a handgun versus an AR. What do people use AR-15's for? Do people hunt with them or just shoot them on a range?

GannonFan wrote:So what I'm getting out of this is that, other than the range a rifle gives you versus a handgun, a mass shooter with intent to harm could do the same damage with a handgun versus an AR. What do people use AR-15's for? Do people hunt with them or just shoot them on a range?

Both. They usually use a larger caliber AR for hunting though. .223 is not the best for larger game.

And again, getting back to .223 vs 9mm in a close range setting. Both are devastating, though the .223 moreso. How much practically speaking? Who knows. Like I said. If I plugged 30 people with an AR and 30 with a 9mm, I'm going to say single digit more survive the 9mm.

GannonFan wrote:So what I'm getting out of this is that, other than the range a rifle gives you versus a handgun, a mass shooter with intent to harm could do the same damage with a handgun versus an AR. What do people use AR-15's for? Do people hunt with them or just shoot them on a range?

Both. A lot of states won't allow you to use an AR-15 to hunt because it's considered an inhumane way to kill a deer (it's a relatively low powered round vs. a .308 AR-10). AR-15's are more for varmints (i.e. coyotes, raccoons, possums, etc.). I take mine to the range only as I'm not a hunter.

Here's what .223 and 9mm actually due to human tissue-like ballistic gel.

I'm not volunteering to stand in front of either, but if I was forced to, I'd pick 9mm:

9mm


.223

93henfan wrote:Here's what .223 and 9mm actually due to human tissue-like ballistic gel.

I'm not volunteering to stand in front of either, but if I was forced to, I'd pick 9mm:

9mm

phpBB [video]

.223

phpBB [video]

My one and only post on this thread.

Bullet types vary greatly in the damage they do.
Distance will yield either greater or smaller wound channels like they did above...10 feet, really 93? really?

Oh, and 93, if you plan on getting shot with a 9mm, I would want something other than a Hornady XTP...just sayin.

grizzaholic wrote:

93henfan wrote:Here's what .223 and 9mm actually due to human tissue-like ballistic gel.

I'm not volunteering to stand in front of either, but if I was forced to, I'd pick 9mm:

9mm

phpBB [video]

.223

phpBB [video]

My one and only post on this thread.

Bullet types vary greatly in the damage they do.
Distance will yield either greater or smaller wound channels like they did above...10 feet, really 93? really?

Oh, and 93, if you plan on getting shot with a 9mm, I would want something other than a Hornady XTP...just sayin.

Is 10 feet feet not appropriate to the discussion at hand? In a church, school, etc.

In 1994, 5 years after the term “Assault Weapon” was invented by an anti-gun person, Congress passed “the Assault Weapon Ban”

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal ... eapons_Ban

It basically banned weapons with certain cosmetic characteristics...and left other weapons with the same shooting characteristics legal...

Here’s an example...



So, to the question posed by this thread, I’ll ask what’s wrong with AR-15 weapons???

93henfan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:So what I'm getting out of this is that, other than the range a rifle gives you versus a handgun, a mass shooter with intent to harm could do the same damage with a handgun versus an AR. What do people use AR-15's for? Do people hunt with them or just shoot them on a range?

Both. They usually use a larger caliber AR for hunting though. .223 is not the best for larger game.

And again, getting back to .223 vs 9mm in a close range setting. Both are devastating, though the .223 moreso. How much practically speaking? Who knows. Like I said. If I plugged 30 people with an AR and 30 with a 9mm, I'm going to say single digit more survive the 9mm.

.223 is good for deer & antelope....flatter trajectory over longer distances as well when compared to .3006 or .308. or even .270.

Col Hogan wrote:In 1994, 5 years after the term “Assault Weapon” was invented by an anti-gun person, Congress passed “the Assault Weapon Ban”

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal ... eapons_Ban

It basically banned weapons with certain cosmetic characteristics...and left other weapons with the same shooting characteristics legal...

Here’s an example...



So, to the question posed by this thread, I’ll ask what’s wrong with AR-15 weapons???

No need to get snippy - not scoring any political points here - genuinely wanted to know more about the AR-15 and what it can and can't be used for and really, if that gun was allowing people to be more deadly when a shooting occurs. From this thread, it seems very likely that it doesn't and that run of the mill handguns could and would do the same harm. I'm fully aware of the AWB and the complete ineffectiveness with regards to controlling guns.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Both. They usually use a larger caliber AR for hunting though. .223 is not the best for larger game.

And again, getting back to .223 vs 9mm in a close range setting. Both are devastating, though the .223 moreso. How much practically speaking? Who knows. Like I said. If I plugged 30 people with an AR and 30 with a 9mm, I'm going to say single digit more survive the 9mm.

.223 is good for deer & antelope....flatter trajectory over longer distances as well when compared to .3006 or .308. or even .270.

Around here you can't hunt deer with an AR and .223 is considered too small to hunt deer - inhumane. Of course, here's a pretty populated area and not a lot of hills, so there is rightfully concern for errant shots.

The inhumane argument is comical in a state that allows bow hunting too.

What would you rather be executed with if you were sentenced to death by bow or AR?

GannonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:In 1994, 5 years after the term “Assault Weapon” was invented by an anti-gun person, Congress passed “the Assault Weapon Ban”



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal ... eapons_Ban

It basically banned weapons with certain cosmetic characteristics...and left other weapons with the same shooting characteristics legal...

Here’s an example...



So, to the question posed by this thread, I’ll ask what’s wrong with AR-15 weapons???

No need to get snippy - not scoring any political points here - genuinely wanted to know more about the AR-15 and what it can and can't be used for and really, if that gun was allowing people to be more deadly when a shooting occurs. From this thread, it seems very likely that it doesn't and that run of the mill handguns could and would do the same harm. I'm fully aware of the AWB and the complete ineffectiveness with regards to controlling guns.

So, why the question specifically about AR-15s? It’s not the weapon, but the bullet that is deadly...the bullet can be delivered by a variety of platforms...

There are AR-15 pistols...and 9mm rifles...

I picked up one of these Keltec Sub2K Gen 2's in the spring. Shoots 9 mm and will take Glock 33 round mags. Not as smooth as the AR, but it folds in half and fits in a backpack or small range bag for easy carry.