Gun Control & RKBA

beemr wrote: When I would shoot my dad's Winchester model 70 in 30.06, it would just about take my arm off. When I shot the M16, it was like plinking with a .22.

strawman replied: Both of those statements are hyperbolic to the point of irrationality. The recoil energy of .22LR in an average rifle is .2; the recoil energy of .223 in a relatively light rifle is 3.9, or twenty times that of the .22LR; the recoil energy of lightly loaded .30-06 is 10.2, or about two-and-a-half times that of the .223. The .223 is much closer to the .30-06 than it is to the .22LR.

Fer chryce sake, he's not equating a 0.223 fmj to a 22 long. Beemr said it was 'like' plinking, and 'like' is synonymous with 'similar' in his context, since the recoil wasn't 'taking his arm off' like the 30.06. He's not equating both the 22 calibers recoil, just sayin that there's such little recoil in the m16 it was similar to plinking with a 22.
Then you lie with statistics, saying the .223 is 20 times the recoil of a 22 long, while the 30.06 has 'only' twice+ the recoil of the .223 ar15. By you going 50 mph is closer to 20 mph than 20 mph is to 1 mph.
You picked 125 grain 30.06 vs 62 grain .223, whereas a 150 grain 30.06 would be 17.6 recoil vs 3.9 recoil for the 62 grain .223.
__________________________________________

beemr wrote: The particular genius of the .223/5.56 is that this much smaller but faster bullet causes such catastrophic damage - reading the autopsy reports out of Vegas and such, with doctor's comments that it was common for a bullet to hit in the upper chest, and come out the butt, destroying everything in between.

straw man: As would pretty much any centerfire rifle round. The high speed and light weight of the .223 bullet make it less apt to penetrate, and more likely to yaw and fragment on contact. The wounds it causes are indeed severe, but that is not due to the type of penetration you describe.

Sure it is - beemr said wounds from the .223 were a result of high speed & light weight (which resulted in typical fragmenting as you said). Your mistake is interpreting the doctor's comments and applying those wounds generally and falsely assigning to beemr.
All the doctor said was that it was 'common' to see injuries of that nature - .223 bullets going through a body & causing gaping exit wounds, not that they were the rule. It would be 'common' for a doc to see the 7.62 bullet go thru a chest thru rectum as well, but causing less damage, without cavitating at all or as much as a .223.

comparison of ak47 with m16/ar15
M16 ........ bullet 5.56×45mm ... recoil 3.2
AK-47 .... bullet 7.62×39mm ... recoil 4.4 {6.9 accd'g chuckhawks}
AK-74 ..... bullet 5.45×39mm ... recoil {similar to m16}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

wiki: The original ammunition for the M16 was 5.56×45mm M193 round. When fired from a 20" barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber. These wounds were much larger than those produced by AK-47 and they were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.

AK-47's heavier 7.62×39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56×45mm ...The 7.62×39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment in soft tissue and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62×39mm round produces significant wounding in cases where the bullet tumbles in tissue, but produces relatively minor wounds in cases where the bullet exits before beginning to yaw.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

So in significant cases the ak47 bullet can act more like a dagger thrust thru the body with no cavitation or fragmenting of bullet, with a greater chance of survival, than the m16's .223 bullet more devastating wounds, which was beemr's, and mine in the past, contention.

Most, if not all, of the 7.62×39mm ammunition found today is of the upgraded M67 variety... However, like the M43, the wounding potential of M67 is mostly limited to the small permanent wound channel the bullet itself makes, especially when the bullet yaws (tumbles)..

I just learned the distinction tween ak47 and ak74, makes it all worthwhile: "The AK-74 assault rifle was a Soviet answer to the US M16." The Russians realized that the M16 had better range and accuracy over the AKM, and that its lighter cartridge allows soldiers to carry more ammunition. Therefore, in 1967, the USSR issued an official requirement to replace the AKM and the 7.62×39mm cartridge.[339] They soon began to develop the AK-74 and the 5.45×39mm cartridge

The [soviet} 5.45 mm bullet tumbles in soft tissue producing temporary cavities at a depth of (3.9 in) and (13.8 in).. The 5.45mm round offers better penetration over the U.S. round. However, unlike its counterpart, the 5.45mm round "does not deform or fragment when striking soft tissues." Nevertheless, during the Afghan war the Mujahedeen called the 5.45×39mm round the "Poison Bullet" due to the severe wounds it produced to extremities and the resulting need to amputate

straw man: I stand by the fact that larger and heavier centerfire rounds have penetration that exceeds that of the .223/5.56. It's elementary ballistics. The faster, lighter rounds penetrate less but do more tissue damage.

So what are you arguing about? you agree the .223 causes more damage.
Me? would rather be shot by an ak47 than an m16. If those were my only two options, that is.