Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

[HARK!]

It doesn't have to use the phrase FMJ, but the reason the US military uses FMJ ammunition is to comply with the Hague Convention.

Not in the most effective firearm used in the Vietnam War.

 

[JosephZ]

It has nothing to do with who is shooting. Where they are hit can make a difference; but in the end it comes down to only three factors.

1.) The mass of the object.
2.) The velocity of the object.

Factors 1, and 2, give us the kinetic energy of the object.

3.) How much of that kinetic energy is absorbed by the target.

FMJs pass through the target more easily than other rounds; so less of their kinetic energy is absorbed by the target.

You can talk all the science you want, but in the end it comes down to the skill of the person doing the shooting and where the victim is hit as to whether or not a hollow point or a FMJ round is more lethal.

 

[HARK!]

You can talk all the science you want, but in the end it comes down to the skill of the person doing the shooting and where the victim is hit as to whether or not a hollow point or a FMJ round is more lethal.

LOL Skilled marksmen generally don't require full auto firearms for precision placement.

A hollow point is potentially more lethal no matter where it strikes. It's that science thing.

Your arguments are all over the map.

The objective is to neutralize the enemy, and that requires a soldier to shoot to kill. Shooting at an enemy combatant with the intent to only wound can get yourself or members of your unit killed.

 

[JosephZ]

LOL Skilled marksmen generally don't require full auto firearms for precision placement.

I haven't mentioned anything about using fully automatic weapons. Where did that come from?

A hollow point is potentially more lethal no matter where it strikes.

A hollow point doesn't have the penetrating force as a FMJ round, so this isn't always true.

Your arguments are all over the map.

My position has been consistant.

 

[HARK!]

I haven't mentioned anything about using fully automatic weapons. Where did that come from?

Ummm... You're in a AR-15 thread, and you're bringing the military into it.

A hollow point doesn't have the penetrating force as a FMJ round, so this isn't always true.

You really should study stopping power. It's a science thing.

My position has been consistant.

Nope. On one hand you're talking about shoot to kill or be killed. On the other hand you're talking about reduce the suffering of the dead by using less lethal rounds.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why would a follower of the Prince of Peace need an AR-15?

To protect yourself and your family.

 

[Tuur]

A hollow point doesn't have the penetrating force as a FMJ round, so this isn't always true.

Not quite the same thing. FMJ has lower expansion rate than hollow points. Once a bullet expands, it has a larger diameter and that increases resistance and transfer of energy but first it has to hit the target. Both FMJ and hollow point of the same mass and with the same charge is going to have close to the same energy when it strikes the target. They hit with the same force. It's what happens after they strike that comes into play and that's from increased resistance, not higher force.

For instance, I'm thinking hog again. Boars are notorious for developing thick gristle sometimes called a shoulder shield. You want a round that punches through that. A round with too much expansion may loose too much energy and not do much damage. You want to be able to get through that. OTOH, you can have a round that doesn't expand at all, and that's no good, either, as it doesn't transfer as much energy to the target and makes a smaller wound channel. You want a round that expands, but not too fast.

 

[Tuur]

To protect yourself and your family.

Firedragon's question is more properly framed as "Why would a follower of the Prince of Peace want a weapon?' That's a more honest question than singling out the AR-15. The AR-15 is hardly a "super weapon." The more pertinent question is why would a Christian want any weapon at all, and that's really the central issue. And yes, as you said, to protect yourself and your family. That leads to a Christian discussion of self-defense.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They wouldn't. But some want to have the ability to kill every person who isn't like them. I'm pretty sure "turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with "blowing away any competition in regard to race or religion."

This is an absolutely absurd statement with no truth to it whatsoever.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is true; however, the AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15 design. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians.

Guns were originally invented to kill the enemy. The AR has been redesigned to be tailored for civilian use.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is true; however, the AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15 design. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians.

The reasons have been posted here numerous times. They make great hunting rifles and they’re great for self defense in certain situations. The truth is, there’s no reason why they should be illegal for civilians to own.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Firedragon's question is more properly framed as "Why would a follower of the Prince of Peace want a weapon?' That's a more honest question than singling out the AR-15. The AR-15 is hardly a "super weapon." The more pertinent question is why would a Christian want any weapon at all, and that's really the central issue. And yes, as you said, to protect yourself and your family. That leads to a Christian discussion of self-defense.

People have this idea that Jesus is a pacifist, remind me what He’s going to do on Judgement Day according to Revelation 20. Punish the wicked?

 

[BNR32FAN]

For the same reason that he told his followers to buy swords.

Actually the reason He told them to buy swords was to fulfill the prophecy that they will be named among the transgressors.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm happy with my AK-47.

I recently purchased a Yugo M-76 that fires 8mm, so I have choices.

Yeah an AK would be my preferred choice. Better all around rifle.

 

[Laodicean60]

The purpose of the sword found in Luke 22:36 was to fullfill prophesy.

Did Jesus lie to fulfill the prophecy? ” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

 

[JosephZ]

Not quite the same thing. FMJ has lower expansion rate than hollow points. Once a bullet expands, it has a larger diameter and that increases resistance and transfer of energy but first it has to hit the target. Both FMJ and hollow point of the same mass and with the same charge is going to have close to the same energy when it strikes the target. They hit with the same force. It's what happens after they strike that comes into play and that's from increased resistance, not higher force.

For instance, I'm thinking hog again. Boars are notorious for developing thick gristle sometimes called a shoulder shield. You want a round that punches through that. A round with too much expansion may loose too much energy and not do much damage. You want to be able to get through that. OTOH, you can have a round that doesn't expand at all, and that's no good, either, as it doesn't transfer as much energy to the target and makes a smaller wound channel. You want a round that expands, but not too fast.

Everything you said here is correct and I agree with what you're saying. I probably could have used better wording when responding to the other member. Instead of saying a hollow point doesn't have the penetrating force as a FMJ round, I probably should have said it doesnt have the same "power to pierce or pass through" rather than the term "penetrating force." That being said, what makes an A-15 so lethal is its high muzzle velocity combined with a light bullet that begins to tumble once it strikes its target, this results in catastrophic damage when it enters a human body.

 

[JosephZ]

Guns were originally invented to kill the enemy. The AR has been redesigned to be tailored for civilian use.

This is why I said the AR-15 "was initially designed" for the military. It has since been redesigned for civilian use as you correctly stated.

The reasons have been posted here numerous times. They make great hunting rifles and they’re great for self defense in certain situations

There are far superior rifles available for hunting and weapons available for self-defense. If the AR15 was no longer available on the market, most serious hunters wouldn't object.

The truth is, there’s no reason why they should be illegal for civilians to own.

I disagree. Unlike many other semi-automatic weapons, the AR-15 and similarly designed weapons are more effective at killing a large number of people because AR-15's have high-capacity magazines that can be changed in less than 3 seconds. A 30 round magazine can be emptied in under 20 seconds, allowing a gunman wearing a tactical vest with multiple pre-positioned magazines to fire 90 rounds in under a minute. It doesn't take an expert to do this, it can be done by just about anyone with some practice. An AR-15 also fires a lighter round at a faster speed than most semi-automatic weapons, which has a much more devastating effect when it makes contact with a person's body.

 

[JosephZ]

Ummm... You're in a AR-15 thread, and you're bringing the military into it.

I'm still not making the connection.

You really should study stopping power. It's a science thing.

Nothing, not even science, makes up for shooting skill. Let's say you have an AR-15 in the hands of a novice with a hollow point bullet in the chamber and an AR-15 in the hands of a well-trained, experienced shooter with a FMJ bullet in the chamber. These two individuals are each about 50 yards away, and they see an assailant running at you with a knife as you lie helpless on the ground. With your life on the line, which one would you prefer to take a shot at the assailant?

Nope. On one hand you're talking about shoot to kill or be killed. On the other hand you're talking about reduce the suffering of the dead by using less lethal rounds.

Personally, I consider a FMJ bullet to be equally, if not more, lethal than a hollow point bullet, especially when the weapon they are used in is in the hands of an experienced shooter. A person who is hit with a lethal shot from a firearm isn't going to suffer very long, if at all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

FMJs are far less effective at killing than hollow points. Again, the dead feel no pain.

I feel like the topic has been derailed by this discussion. What I would like to know is why people think that civilians shouldn’t own an AR? So far the reasons I’ve seen are

1 because they’re designed for military use.
Which they’re not because they’ve been specifically redesigned for civilian use.

2 they’re too lightweight which seems completely irrelevant to me

3 because they’re assault rifles which they’re not because they don’t have selected fire modes and the AR designation has nothing to do with the term “assault rifle” it an abbreviation for the manufacturer’s name.

4 they’re too short which is completely irrelevant because they’re not easily concealed at all

5 I’ve seen clip capacity being mentioned which has nothing to do with the rifle itself and is a completely different topic all together.

6 I’ve seen people claim that they’re not good for hunting because they claim that spraying the animal with lead ruins the meat which is absolutely absurd because no hunter is going to be rapid firing at an animal they’re hunting to eat.

7 I’ve also seen people claim that it’s not good for hunting because the ammo damages the meat too much which doesn’t make any sense at all because it’s a lot smaller caliber than most hunting rifles.

So far I haven’t seen any viable arguments made for why civilians shouldn’t be allowed to own them. It seems to me that there’s just a bunch of people making a bunch of crap up that isn’t actually true at all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are far superior rifles available for hunting and weapons available for self-defense. If the AR15 was no longer available on the market, most serious hunters wouldn't object.

Really, can you name a few please? I’d like to compare them to the AR and examine how these other rifles are more effective at killing animals yet ant the same time are less effective at killing humans. This concept intrigues me. And please keep in mind that certain ammunition is used for certain pray. Animals typically hunted with an AR would be things like deer & antelope, not large pray like elk, moose, or bears.