Banning AR-15s or “high velocity” weapons doesn’t actually solve this. Wound profile depends on a LOT of factors. I think you’d have to ban all rifles to have a chance at preventing people from owning rifles that could do the same. Compromise won’t work. https://twitter.com/nastynastyvet/status/966697169179770880 …
The 5.56 NATO round is something else, tho. It's damage profile is unique. It is designed to do damage in maximal ways. It is a terror, moreso than, say, .308 winchester.
-
-
Yeah, .308 is too fast and heavy, right? Intermediate calibers have increased potential to spin off-axis and cause that huge wound profile, though that depends on things like barrel twist and length too IIRC
-
I just don’t want another ban that bans rifles by name, or certain calibers. Those are toothless, right? Like, there would be a market for the next 5.56 (or the AK-74 caliber...5.45?) equivalent before the ink was dry, and they’d find one
-
Banning certain rounds is, imo, effective. (AK uses 7.62mm). There are a lot of rounds banned for civilian use that, were they available, would be devastating. The 5.7 armor piercing rounds come to mind.
-
The -47s use 7.62x39, but the -74s went to a different caliber (I think 5.45x45 but I don’t want to look it up right now). Both get updated models but the narrower one is in more common service now I think. Is a narrower ban your preference? Or just potentially effective?
-
Oh i misread, didn't see the transposition :P
-
Ha yeah. One of the odder mostly-coincidental pairings in firearms history, replacing the -47 series with the -74s. I was wrong anyway, it’s 5.45x39. Guess I haven’t played enough Arma recently.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.