The inevitable erosion of the lands and grooves within the barrel, resulting in drastically reduced accuracy.
No, neither does the second ammendment.. that leftist lie has been debunked, discredited, hanged for treason, burried, dug up burnt to ashes, mixed into concrete and dropped in the pacific. Where it was swallowed by Godzilla and crapped out to the ocean floor. Where it was then subducted and became part of the molten core of the earth flowed to new Zealand and caused the eruption that just killed people.
While the first part of your statement is true, no the US would never disarm the standing military in favor for a pure militia, however the second part is pretty false. Deterrence isn't about making yourself unbeatable but rather making your opponent second guess whether or not you are "worth it" to attack. The US military is the most powerful, well trained, and technologically advanced fighting force in the history of human civilization. I, personally, have felt the effects of what a poor dirt farmer in Afghanistan can do to the "US Military" with some fertilized goat crap and scrap metal and have spent years fighting against poorly trained teenagers with AKs produced in the 60s. If you haven't noticed, the most powerful military in the history of planet Earth is still fighting dirt farmers with half century old hardware after 19 years. We have F-15 bomb Eagles, Apache helicopters, Abrams Tanks, Paladin artillery batteries, troops that look like they came out of a sci fi movie nowadays. Yet after 19 years we still haven't defeated the dirt farmers who live in mud huts who make bombs out of tin cans and animal feces. We dropped more bombs during Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam than we did in all of WWII. We beat the snot out of the Vietcong yet we still "lost". We didn't "lose" as in attrition rates, we didn't meet our objective, Vietnam was no longer "worth it" to fight over so we left. Poor rice farmers held off the most powerful military on the planet for years and made themselves "not worth it" to fight anymore. An armed populace doesn't stand a chance against the actual military, that isn't the point. The point is to make the government take pause and wonder if the armed populace that is pissed off for some reason at their elected officials is "worth it" to suppress by force or should we bring them to the table to talk. I am a highly trained combat veteran with top of the line battle gear in my closet and multiple AR/AK style weapons. I am well trained and have years of experience in room clearing and breaching and assaulting urban objectives. If my buddies and I decide to "assault" someones house then we're likely going to win I don't care if you have AR-15s or not. However, if we are picking and choosing which houses we want to assault then we are going to choose the house that doesn't believe in guns over the house with the AR-15s in it because although we'd win out in both cases we'd rather not risk getting shot if we don't have to. Thats the point....
Yet rifles (of which "assault weapons" are a subset) are responsible for less than 500 homicides a year, which is less than the number of homicides caused by bare hands/feet, or clubs or knives/sharp instruments. Also, the .458 SOCOM is not low caliber/high velocity. It's high caliber/moderate velocity.
Please just stop posting. You know little or nothing about gun technology. Stop while you're only considered foolish. AK-47 is 7.62x39, meaning it's a roughly .30 vs. the .22 of the standard AR-15.
The 20" original relies on bullet wobble to do the damage once penetrating. It can break up causing much damage. The problem with the shorter barrels up close is that the bullet does not have time to wobble and can just pass through instead of disintegrating.
The only reason that the ER doctors think the .223 is so lethal is because they spend most of their time on wounds from handguns. Yes, the .223 is more lethal than most handguns, but it's also very rarely actually used in crimes. Most homicides by guns are by handguns. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Less accurate but larger caliber and more reliable. I would guess in most cases accuracy would not really be an issue.
Listened to a talk by an ER doctor. Only 1 out of 6 handgun wounds result in death and usually because they bleed out before anything can be done.
A chromed or nitro carburized barrel mitigates much of that. If you are shooting the volume needed to wear a barrel, the cost of ammo will be many times that. Barrels are cheap too.
The second amendment is clear, but becomes increasingly more difficult to read each time a politician wipes his @$$ with it.
About a year ago, a guy using a bolt action, single shot 6mm target rifle put 5 shots into an area only 1.02 MOA (about 1.09 inches) in diameter. At a distance of- 1,000 yards. That's accurate enough to shoot the "little hangy down thing" off the ear of a person so far away it would take you 40 seconds at 60 MPH to reach them. The sport of extreme long range shooting is growing rapidly. Imagine that standing army facing thousands of long-range snipers. That is the most feared of all weapons.
You don't need to go to 1000yds to make this point - anyone with a little training and forethought can take multiple aimed shots at multiple targets w/o revealing his location from 400-600yds - even closer, if equipped with the right muzzle device.
True. I've just become enamored with the challenge of pushing the limits. As the range increases, so do the challenges, particularly drift and reading wind. I have a new CM build almost done; plan to try 1500.
Indeed. My favorite thing during range qual was 500 yards with iron sights on my M16A2. Working out the dope for that and having the target come up with one spotter plug always made my day.
This is a great read on the subject IMHO-- highly recommended. Although primarily about the AK, the development and initial use of the M16 is well covered in this book including a lot of information concerning early claims of M16 stopping power. https://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chiv...qid=1578011135&rnid=2941120011&s=books&sr=1-1
No how would you form a militia with muskets? So why are there even military? They aren't particularly useful if someone drops a nuke on you.
