Maybe those horrible, awful people who favor gun control will one day get their wish.

As long as citizens feel the need to be armed to the teeth

How can one be in favor of thousands of needless deaths?

Maybe it's a thing and I just don't get it?

Sounds like the specs were developed by a specific vendor and the new rifle has already been selected in closed negotiations.

Smells like the fix is in.

I know the SCAR 17 is pricey though. Seems like everything they need is already available in the AR 10 style rifle. Typical Army, spend a bunch of money to figure out nothing.

All the military needs too do is go too a local gun shop and by off the shelf ar-15's... since they are "weapons of war"......

Fixed it for you

Besides, one of mine is a Nat. Match in 308, and another is a Beretta.

I like them both but the Grand is definitely classier.

My father has one from CMP. I've fired it but don't ask me to load it. I got to fire the M14 and M14 EBR while deployed. At targets, not in anger. Fell in love. Wish they were not so heavy.

What problem do you have loading it? Afraid of "M1 Thumb"?

I shot the rifle many times over the years but I finally decided I wanted to load it myself. My father had always made us watch the loading process and we knew what it was about and what it could do. He gave me an in depth refresher right before I tried, and it still bit me hard. He makes it look easy. I'm sure I'll try again though. I don't give up and the rifle may be mine one day.

You are talking to a person who has had it twice.


Same day.

Same thumb.

Some of us learn harder than others.

...a friend was shooting next to me on the line (to my left) and a spent shell from the garand of the guy to his left went down the back of his shirt while he was firing sitting. Then he went to get up and get the hot shell out of his shirt and put his right hand down on the ground on top of another hot spent piece of brass.

I felt bad for the guy.

I'm familiar with the affliction but thankfully inexperienced

The drill sergeant was very sympathetic, told me not to bleed on HIS rifle stock or sling.

Then I would tell you about all five M1 Rifles that inhabit my safe.

It is designed to shoot all varieations of thia ammo. Black tip M2 is a armor piecing round, and will penetrate 1" of mild steel at 100 yards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_%28military%29

Wonder if the 6.8SPC will finally be realized for the great cartridge it is?


I have two lowers I've been putting off building ARs because I don't want another 556 and don't find the 300blk to be much use if you're not going to use a suppressor on.

I've always liked the 6.8 on paper...of course the 6.5 and creedmoor or grendel are also great options.

Keeping everything in the NATO family.

I personally think a .25-'08 (.257 bullet in a necked-down .308 Win. case) would be great, but nobody asked me. Load up a nice 120-grain bullet at about 2800 ft/s, get about 2,000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy out of it with a nice flat trajectory and moderate recoil.

About the same trajectory as the 62-grain 5.56, but 50% more power at the muzzle and twice the power at 300 yards.

I hate the AR10 platform, just too large for what it is.

Of course, that was way back in the Old Days, when anything beyond a single shot was looked upon as a fuck-up on the part of a shooter, and severely wounding an animal at 800 yds. wasn't considered "sportsmanship." No mystery why my guns are gathering dust in a closet. As for what the military ends up with in the way of a new rifle, I don't give a shit. There will be things wrong with it, it will be wildly overpriced, and it'll take 2 or 3 generations for another model to come along by way of "improving" things. As usual.

I remember when ARs were "plastic range toys for wannabes". Now, go in any gun store in the US or New Zealand, ARs galore. Have you tried to find a lever action lately?

...and take a chop saw to them- or at least permanently demilitarize them.

Wrong manufacturer - everything I have found points to S&W being the proud maker of the "Combat Masterpiece". And how in the hell did he become "certified" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) on an AR-15 in the Air Force, unless he served specifically between 1962 and 1964? Sounds like horse apples to me.

As for the rest - it's amazing that a rifle that is considered to be under-powered for deer hunting could "destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal". I don't know what to say to that, except to wonder if the poster is related to the reporter that was scared by the powerful recoil of an AR-15.

One last thing - he describes shooting at a 55 gallon drum full of water, and the horrendous effect it had when it exited the back. Surprisingly enough, I was able to find a video online showing someone blowing the crap out of a 55 gallon steel barrel full of water with an Ar-15:

...and the perp was called on it by myself and several other persons.

"That should come as a shock to all the gun haters who continually decry the easy availability of - and I quote - "high-powered assault-style rifles" in the commercial market. "

1.) They are "high-powered" enough to kill so many kids at Newtown.

2.) The term "high-powered" isn't limited to their caliber, which is admittedly low. It also refers to their magazine size and ease of re-loading. The more rounds you can throw, the more "powerful" (hence our national laws restricting the sales of machine guns of any caliber whatsoever).


You should think before you speak...

High power, when used by people who know what they are talking about, is about caliber.

Actually, I doubt the drafters of the National Firearms Act had that in mind at all.

Which would include me, as a former infantryman?

Anyway, your blanket statement is incorrect: caliber is certainly not the only dimension when it comes to power. For instance, another factor is the amount of powder in the shell, which affects muzzle velocity. Velocity in turn affects the kinetic energy of the round. Also, it affects the accuracy, although that is not a big deal in most civilian shootings (not many Oswalds running around anymore).

Furthermore, one can physically carry more lower-caliber rounds, all else held equal (one of the reasons the military uses 5.56 in the first place). The ability to carry more round and have more rounds per a given magazine size is a factor in the "power" of a weapon to kill a lot of people quickly.

which is sometimes used interchangeably as cartridge. We are both right in that regard.
Former infantryman doesn't mean an expert on ballistics or firearms, in general, any more than a policeman is. It does mean that you have formal training of using and caring for issue weapons. BTW, before I went to the USAF, I was a 13B, does that make me an expert on artillery? I also grew up with guns in the sticks, come from a family cops who hunt.

The second paragraph is historically correct, but that isn't why politicians and activists use "high powered". They use it to scare people, like "assault weapon" and "military grade", which have real definition. For example, the AR used at Sandy Hook was not an "assault weapon" under CT law or the now-expired federal law. However, under the New York SAFE Act, target pistols used in the Olympics and ISSF competitions like the Walther GSP, are "assault weapons".

"13B, does that make me an expert on artillery?" I would think you knew a bit about what damage you could do, unless you weren't very good at your job, I guess.

In the infantry, we learned about our weapons and what they could and could not do. "High-Powered" is a fine descriptor of an M16 (and an AR-15, for that matter), regardless of how small the rounds physically are.

The discussion of "assault weapons" is beside the point. The proof of my point is in the attacks that have happened using an AR-15. Perhaps you could argue that the attacks would have been worse with a larger caliber, but that would be a pretty sad argument in support of ARs.

...as getting details wrong (as you did upthread) has been a mark of more than one poster of,
shall we say 'questionable' military qualifications- though rarely as obviously as the one I
linked to above.

Oddly enough, they *also* felt the AR-15 shouldn't be in civilian hands.
The disinterested reader is invited to make of that what they will...

I'd also remind you that a 13B would also have been required to
qualify once a year on the issue rifle of the time- which would have been the M16.
Not to mention other personal weapons suitable for self-defense of second line-troops
(arty, transport, Signal Corps, etc). Those would have been M1 (or M2) carbines, M1911 pistol,
M3 greasegun, and/or combat shotguns. Therefore, your military experience lends no more
or less imprimatur to your arguments than gej's does to his.

Also, your invocation of Newtown means nothing- It was at an elementary school, FFSM's sake-
Lanza could have gotten the same results with a double-barrelled shotgun

"Therefore, your military experience lends no more or less imprimatur to your arguments than gej's does to his. " I had to take combat lifesaver courses, but I would acknowledge that an actual medic has more experience and training than I do, and is thus a better authority. Same with an arty guy vs. someone who spends his whole day with his rifle...

"Also, your invocation of Newtown means nothing- It was at an elementary school, FFSM's sake- Lanza could have gotten the same results with a double-barrelled shotgun " Nonsense. The question was whether the rifle is "high-powered", and Newtown proved it is.

"high powered" is not a good description of the 5.56x45/.223 round is not high powered. It, like the 7.62x39 and the .30-30, are intermediate rounds. Would a single shot or bolt action .223 be high powered? If so, why can't I use it for deer hunting in states like Wyoming? The answer is it isn't high powered by WFG's definition. Also, don't know how many died from the gunshot vs simply bled to death. That is how most of the Pulse Nightclub victims died. If the cops hadn't stood around with their fingers up their collective asses for three hours, most of the victims probably would have survived.
Using your definition, should .22 rimfires in an AR type rifle, which are popular in the UK for three gun competitions, be "high powered"? If so, why not a Ruger 10/22?

No, "assault weapons" are not beside the point. I was illustrating the fact that "high powered" in this context is a political term used for misleading propaganda that has nothing to do with the real issue by people, like Bloomberg, who get giddy when gun massacres happen to push their pet issue.

If I would argue what would be worse, I would argue that a worse weapon would not be a firearm at all.

"If I would argue what would be worse, I would argue that a worse weapon would not be a firearm at all." This argument would make little sense. One could just as easily argue that a nuclear bomb would be even worse, and the argument would tell us nothing about our current discussion.

"Using your definition, should .22 rimfires in an AR type rifle, which are popular in the UK for three gun competitions, be "high powered"?" Probably, though I guess we would need to see how they work in a mass-killing scenario. The issue is less about caliber and more about ease-of-destruction.

"I was illustrating the fact that "high powered" in this context is a political term used for misleading propaganda that has nothing to do with the real issue..." The real issue is the amount of death a weapon is capable of dishing out if used correctly. Once again, the fact of several high-profile mass killings using AR-15s is all I really need to support my argument that the AR can legit be considered "high-powered". It's obviously not just the caliber...


Edit: I just thought of something, I think you and I are talking about two different things here. I think you are talking about how the AR-15 is not "high powered" relative to other guns while I am talking about how the AR-15 is high-powered relative to other weapons in general (or at least, weapons available to a given psychopathic killer).

a much higher death toll without a firearm being used. My definition is means used. While shootings are more common in US mass murders, that doesn't mean we have a monopoly on a rampage killing. Arson is popular in Australia. Edged weapons are more common in China. Some of the knife attacks in Chinese elementary schools have had higher body counts than Sandy Hook. Does that make the knife high powered?
Or this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

I don't know what other weapons was available to Lanza outside of the rifle used to kill his mother and the one used to attack the school.

I could drive a car through a crowd of people and kill many, but banning cars would still not make sense due to their impact on the economy.

Knives are essential in the kitchen, and banning them also does not make sense.

Guns are not essential to anything except certain hobbies, so banning them at least doesn't threaten meal preparation.


I agree that some knife attacks may have been worse than Newtown. However, that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about the AR-15 and its relative power. My point is that gun-controllers are right to label it "high-powered", for more reasons than its caliber...

but banning guns would not make a peaceful world. If that were the case, Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela would be among the safest countries in the world.

Gun controllers label the AR as "high powered" for ONLY these reasons
Their entire movement depends on intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation. "high powered", like "military grade" and "assault weapon" is used to manipulate people who know nothing about firearms.
They are among the followers of the above.

"Their entire movement depends on intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation. "

Really, the ENTIRE movement? There is not even one iota of concern for the thousands of people who are shot and/or killed? Are you including my fellow DUers in that statement?

I agree that the discussion of knives is not really relevant to whether the AR-15 can be considered "high-powered".

...as see the revival of claims that gun manufacturers are entirely exempt from negligence torts
(Short answer: They're not)

I don't *your* sincerity at all, but the demonstrated mendacity and outright fabrications by
some of those who have expressed the same views have engendered a lot of skepticism from those
who disagree.

Strictly from a practical viewpoint, what you propose is akin to banning scotch to fight drunk driving-
moves like that will only mobilize a largish group of people that are known to vote at high rates and
cause them to actively oppose Democrats (as in : "FU, I'm not a spree-killer-in-waiting and will not
stand idly by while your party depicts me as one"

I agree about the tort thing, by the way.

*You* believe the 5.56 is a high-powered round. You are perfectly free to feel that way, and to
express that view.

However, the Army apparently disagrees, as do at least two ex-USA in this thread alone.

I thought you found something significant...

Feel free to keep up the good work!

...to the discussion. Squee is also ex-infantry, and disagrees with you- and so does the Army, if
the article linked to in the OP is to be believed.

Please give an example of a modern "low powered" gun.

I may be missing something but are all semi-auto firearms "high-powered" by this pro-restriction definition?

The term is relative to all weapons, not just all rifles (or all guns).

...leads the listener/reader to infer the existence of less powerful instances of the item described.

In an analogous explanation, if my employer assigns me issues to work on that are describe as having "emergency" priority than the term "emergency" (from my POV) is meaningless. Maybe it reflects a degree of panic on the part of my employer but it is useless in establishing a priority for me to use.

"leads the listener/reader to infer the existence of less powerful instances of the item described. "

Yes, I agree. My point was that the AR-15 and other .223 rifles are "high-powered" in relation to all available weapons for civilian shootings (e.g. knives, bats, cars, etc.). That is why I believe that it is accurate to rate the AR-15 as "high-powered". That is not to say that the AR-15 is the most powerful option.

If a gun-controller is talking to the public about violence and shootings, he is probably not using terms of art from the field of ballistics. It is more of a common-sense term: A killer with an AR (or any gun, really) has much more "power" over un-armed civilians than a killer with a bat.

..."If a gun-controller is talking to the public about violence and shootings, he is probably not using terms of art from the field of ballistics." Actually he or she is using a term from the field of ballistics and likely doesn't know that. This usage and its perpetuation by the media, politicians and public figures serves only to confuse the issue and imbue information and remarks by knowledgeable experts with false connotations.

Words have a meaning and, as I learned in school, if you don't know, look it up and if you confused ask. As my first Sensei said, "To learn, got to the source."

I would say the same about almost every other gun out there.

One of the most deadly mass shootings in the US was the Virginia Tech shooting.
It was a horrific event where many were killed and injured.
Semi-auto handguns were used with 10-15 rounds mags.

If it makes you happy to have "high-powered" mean nothing when you say it and to have no understanding of what an informed person means when you read or hear what they have to say, then please carry on with your trip down that rabbit hole.

"If it makes you happy to have "high-powered" mean nothing when you say it and to have no understanding of what an informed person means when you read or hear what they have to say, then please carry on with your trip down that rabbit hole. "

I already stated what I believe the term "high-powered" means in the context of talking to the public about firearms. I still have not seen your "official", "technical" definition of "high-powered". I did scan some other comment boards and one gun owner stated he had been told all his life that "high-powered" meant a certain number of mjoules of energy (I think it was 2,800, but I am not sure). Now, that is the kind of definition I am looking for (although a random guy on a comment board stating "what he had been told all his life" isn't really official, but its only an example).

I also found this just now (along with a few days ago) which discusses a BATF defintion of "high-powered rifle". However, the link in the discussion is dead 9https://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/70078-batf-definition-high-powered-rifle.html)

Finally, I have the NRA's handbook on high-powered rifle shooting that specifically includes the M16: https://rulebooks.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf

Almost every single source I've googled classifies it as a intermediate power cartridge, including wiki and global security (dot) org.

NRA rifle competition does not have a intermediate power classification. All centerfire rifle competition falls in the High Power Classification. That doesn't change what the 5.56/223 actually is.

I might add that you are the most "have to get the last word in kind of guy" that I have ever seen posting on a message board LOL.

No offense intended.

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

as they are semi auto 30-06 BATTLE RIFLES.

I majored in physics and lettered all four years on my college rifle team. The term "power" has a specific meaning to folks in the shooting world and to folks trained in the physical sciences.

Here's my take: Several years ago I moved to a new place and saw an ad in the paper for a local pizza joint. I asked a neighbor about this place a was told that they made great pizza. That evening I called for delivery and ordered a sub and a pizza. I asked for a small and was told 'they only make a large'. I asked hold big was a "large pizza" and was told 8 slices. Calling the pizza large and telling me how many pieces it is cut into doesn't characterize the size of the pizza.

The term "high-powered rifle" has (to those informed) meant something. Clearly a .50 BMG (used in a Tac-50) at 15,000 J is high-power. Using the term high-power when characterizing an AR-15 loaded with .223 ammo and having 1,700 J is just confusing.

However, if you want to use "power" to convey a higher death per minute capability, go ahead. People that know guns will think you're uninformed and the rest won't care. I suggest that almost all guns will qualify as "high-powered" in that sense. Therefore, adding that term to a sentence adds nothing for many and serves to (at best) confuse some.

Among the many reasons for learning a complex language like Latin is that the comprehensive vocabulary and deliberate grammatical constructions enable one to precisely and concisely convey a thought.

Power, is a scientific term that has specific denotative meaning. In a typical reference such as "high powered rifle" the information conveyed is that the rifle has a relatively long effective range. Power is basically a measure of energy delivered per a unit of time measured. A long trip through a resistive medium (air) drains energy from the bullet during its flight. A "high powered rifle" would be one which fires a round where the bullet retains sufficient energy at the end of a comparatively longer flight to impart an incapacitating degree of ballistic trauma.

Your edit does highlight what you mean well enough but the media often uses terms without a logical basis and frequently only for sensational effect.

I day to day I might remark about a "powerful" cup of coffee. There would be little chance of anyone inferring a scientific meaning from that remark.

Pardon the intrusion. Nice to have you here.

"High"-centerfire rifle cartridge.
"Low"-rimfire cartridge.

Perhaps this is where some of the confusion lies.

I had to unlearn a metric ton of bullshit taught by my Drills about the 5.56 round... Designed to maim, tumbler round, bouncing through the body.. etc..

I know many mechanics that could not tell you a every detail about how their pneumatic impacts work, or the mathematical formulas involving torque and brake horsepower. Most of my brother grunts were not gun guys, our '16s and '60s were just tools.
Having been through Sand Hill or Harmony Church does not make you a gun expert. far from it actually.

We all had to unlearn everything we learned in Infantry School. Every time we started learning something new there, the drill sergeant would lead off by saying "your unit will do things differently, but we have to teach you by the book"...

My point is that a soldier needs to understand what his weapon can and cannot do. My specific point is that I am aware that the M16 is capable of throwing a lot of (admittedly small) rounds downrange and can easily kill a human being. In this, the AR-15 is no different, especially since the only real difference is 3-round burst, which no one ever uses anyway.

The OP started by implying that the AR-15 is not "high-powered", which is not true in many ways. The mere fact that it shoots .223 instead of a larger round does not mean it is "low-powered".

Edit: And furthermore, the OP complained upthread about how the media uses the term "high-powered" because they have no knowledge of firearms or how they work. Well, if anyone has knowledge about this specific family of firearms, it is an infantryman. Thus my experience is very relevant to the discussion.

1) It's an argument from authority, and thus is no more or less valid than Squee's

2) Supreme Court case law going back to the 1930's held that possession of infantry weapons is
permissable under the Second Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Being that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16/M4, it "has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
and "its use could contribute to the common defense."

3) Your views simply don't have the political juice to gain traction in the forseeable future

1.) Squee has not made any argument bearing on the power of the AR-15 or .223 except to say flat-out that 5.56 is not "high powered". He has provided no further info on why he believes this to be the case.

2.) This bears no relation to the question of whether the round or rifle can accurately be described as "high-powered".

3.) This bears no relation to the question of whether the round or rifle can accurately be described as "high-powered".

Seeing as it follows the standard and accepted definition used by knowledgeable people.

Simply put, High Power, Intermediate and Pistol cartridges are accepted technical terms describing a multitude of calibers and cartridges. In no technical description is the 5.56, or it's civilian analog .223 classified as a High Power round.

You on the other hand are attempting the redefining an accepted term, and doing so, by your own admission, to influence ignorant people with misinformation. There is another technical term you should learn, propaganda.

Sorry, mister but you are out of your lane and a no-go at this station.

"In no technical description is the 5.56, or it's civilian analog .223 classified as a High Power round. "


Because according the NRA's rule book for "High Powered Rifles" (link below), the 5.56 qualifies (see page 8)



https://rulebooks.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf




To quote you: Sorry, mister but you are out of your lane and a no-go at this station.

...and experience you've been touting all through this thread.

This disinterested observer will note that all the other ex-military on this thread that have opined on the
subject have disagreed with you.

Seems as if the knowledge you gained in the infantry is valuable only insofar as it reinforces your political stance.

I just scanned the thread again, and while all the military folks are in agreement that the 5.56 is less powerful, they seem to all agree that 7.62 is what is needed. I hate to break this to you, but the 7.62 is also considered, technically speaking, an "intermediate" round.

Anyway, no one can possibly doubt the deadliness of .223 in the civilian setting. Regardless of whether there is some technical definition somewhere that states .223 is not "high-powered", it is certainly capable of killing unarmored civilians, which is the context in which we are operating for this discussion.

In the real world, however, .223 is rarely used to kill:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20

Note that more murder victims were stabbed or beaten to death than killed with rifles

Why is your ire directed at that round in particular?

Well, for one that is what the OP was about (well, if you lump in 5.56 with .223 anyway).

My original comment was about the OP's following quote:
"That should come as a shock to all the gun haters who continually decry the easy availability of - and I quote - "high-powered assault-style rifles" in the commercial market. "

I agree that it is not used much for criminal shootings, though. If I had my way, handguns would be the first to go, more based on their being concealable than any argument about their relative power.

One of your posts upthread seems to imply that very thing:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=203839

"The term "high-powered" isn't limited to their caliber, which is admittedly low. It also refers to their magazine size and ease of re-loading. The more rounds you can throw, the more "powerful" (hence our national laws restricting the sales of machine guns of any caliber whatsoever)."

If I have attributed sentiments to you that you do not, in fact, have- by all means let us
know and I will stand corrected.

As an aside, even my rather firearms-averse state of Massachusetts doesn't regard a Ruger Mini-14
(functionally equivalent to an AR15) as an 'assault weapon':

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/guns-that-are-not-assault-weapons.html


"Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons

Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?

Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not assault weapons, and therefore are not “copies or duplicates” of enumerated assault weapons. For example, the following are not assault weapons under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here links to PDF file. Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq. Consumer Protection Regulation;
Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon;"

The disinterested observer will note that a Mini-14 is just as capable of 'throwing' .223 rounds as
an AR15.

Are your objections are more a matter of personal taste?

It's been interesting, but duty calls at the moment. I look forward to continuing this discussion later...

Which 7.62?

I have more than once pointed out there are numerous 7.62 rounds. Some Pistol, some intermediate and some Full Power.

Again your imprecise language, and lack of knowledge, is leading to confusion.

I mean, s***, it took me two seconds to google this. Try it sometime!

Their misuse of the technical term in no way absolves you from a lack of knowledge. It has been put here before you the term does not apply. Yet you choose to use it to agitate and cause fear among the ignorant.
So I guess no wonder you use the NRA as a source.

See, for example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915839

More 'expertise':

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915194#post7

and yet I don't see you linking any sources that define "high-powered" and exclude the .223 round.

Please send me some links if you find them.

As for the NRA, while I do not trust them, it is beyond a doubt that they of all people have the incentive to make the AR-15 seem low-powered. The fact that they themselves call the rifle "high-powered" is a statement against interest and very good evidence IMO.

...and as pointed out elsewhere, the very organization in which you developed the experience you've
touted here disagrees.

2) True- but I was talking about *another* of you expressed views, a desire to ban AR15's for civilian use.
I stand by my citations of United States v. Miller.

3) I daresay it does if you are seeking to ban millions of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles
and are using "high-powered" as a 'trigger' (no pun intended) phrase as a means to do so.

whether the round was high-powered relative to .50 cal (considering how he also stated 7.62 is not "high-powered&quot .

I fully agree that a .50 cal is a higher-powered round than a .223.

This is not really relevant to my point that an AR-15 or .223 can accurately be considered "high-powered" as well.

...on this thread.

suggest that 7.62 is adequate where 5.56 is not. I mean, the Marine even said his M1 turns cover into concealment. If that is not "high-powered", I don't know what is!

But 7.62 is technically an "intermediate" round just like 5.56/.223. This is just another case where the technical definition of "high-powered" (if it exists at all, which has not really been shown with links) includes an "intermediate" round.

7.62 is not a specific "round" it is caliber..a .30 caliber

The Garand is a 30-06.. or 7.62x63.. The M14 uses a 7.62x51
7.62x39 IS an intermediate round used by the SKS and AK-47 for example.

The .30 caliber group of calibers is huge in fact, and runs from Pistol to High Power.

Again another case where specificity is important. And specificity relies on a consensus of terms.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

It was the M2Ball ammo and the M2AP ammo. NOT the m855 or the m109 ammo. Those are runts in comparison.

Last edited Wed Jun 28, 2017, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

EDIT: I see now what you were talking about.

You are still not paying attention though. My point was not about an argument you made, it was about someone else's argument. Someone else stated that "intermediate" rounds are not "high-powered". My point in referring to your post was that you backed up my argument that "intermediate" rounds could be considered "high-powered".

Depending on cartridge it may not be.

7.62 rounds go from pistol round to high power.
3 examples
7.62x25Tokarov Pistol
7.62x39 Intermediate
7.62x54r High Power.

More fun with facts... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_mm_caliber

a round "high-powered". That was my initial point.

...is between 2000 and 2500 Joules of muzzle energy. For further scientific data I suggest reading what's been written on the topic by Gary K Roberts, LCDR, USNR.

For an article on the topic of this OP: http://www.taurus45acp.com/files/BittingTheBullet.pdf

The article promotes the 7.62mm round as more effective, and also promotes a 7mm round. These are both described as "intermediate" rounds. Other posters on this topic have repeatedly tried to draw a distinction between "high-powered" and "intermediate" rounds, and this article actually contradicts their distinction. I would conclude that the larger rounds are in fact "high-powered", and thus there is little distinction between "High-powered" rounds and "intermediate" rounds.

Anyway, the article relates to the military applications of the 5.56 round, which is still plenty lethal in the civilian setting where people can be more easily shot at close range and hit multiple times. That said, the .223 is at least more survivable than the larger rounds, sure.

Edit: I still don't see any links to these supposed official definitions of "high-powered".

Edit: Also, the complaint in the article about the 5.56 round going right through a target without incapacitating it is not relevant when you can buy .223 rounds that are hollow point. Or the shooter could just hit a target multiple times.

1) The AR15?
2) The AR15 in .223?
3) The .223 round in general?
4) Semiautomatic, magazine loaded rifles in general?
5) All of the above?

1.) The OP stated that us whiny lib gun controllers are wetting our pants over a rifle that the US Military views as not-high-powered, and implied that gun controllers are wrong to assert that the civilian versions of that rifle are "high-powered".

2.) My point is that the rifle is capable of inflicting a lot of damage, and regardless of caliber, it can still be accurately portrayed as "high-powered".

My point is not limited to .223, 5.56, intermediate rounds, AR-15, etc. My point originally was about the language used by the gun-control movement.

Even at this late date, no one has pointed to any official definition of a "high-powered" rifle. Some have tried to argue that "intermediate" rounds are not "high-powered". However, the category of "intermediate" rounds includes 7.62 rounds, which seem to be considered adequate by the vets on this forum for military use (even the expert you cited, Gary K Roberts, argues for the military to use "intermediate" rounds (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf)).

I freely admit that larger caliber rifles tend to be MORE powerful than the AR-15, but that is not really the point at issue.

For military battlefield scenarios the correct functioning of infantry small arms are both safety and mission critical. These "power" differentiation would principally speak to the range at which the terminal ballistics of the round remain effective. In civilian applications higher powered rounds and rifles would be required mostly for hunting and target uses but not for self-defense. (Most civilians who would have credible need for counter-sniper tactics and capabilities probably have Secret Service protection or a private PSD.)

The range of the effective stopping power is what qualifies *power*. Effective stopping power is a combination of accuracy and terminal ballistics. Long range, accurate and effective terminal ballistics would qualify a round/rifle combination as "high powered".

Rounds such as the 5.56 NATO and .223 are not long range therefore cannot be accurately termed "high powered".
In the right hands a "high powered" rifle can neutralize an sniper who can inflict substantial casualties on a friendly force.



Speaking qualitatively on gun violence and crime I will say that there have incidents where people are shot and killed using .22 cal pistols. "Killing power" is not what is denoted by the term "high power" by those conversant in long range ballistics.

As an infantryman, I'm sure would know that the mass of bullet, the quantity of powder in the round and the length of the barrel from which it is fired would all be components determining the energy of the round/rifle combination.

"Rounds such as the 5.56 NATO and .223 are not long range therefore cannot be accurately termed "high powered". "

But I would suggest that something close to 99% of civilian shootings happen well within the effective range of an AR-15 or other .223 rifle.

Coin your own term; maybe: "high civilian kill power"
Develop your own criteria for comparison of various weapons (fingernails would be low, nukes would be high) and evaluate them.

what is high powered
7.62x51, aka .308
.30-06
7.62x54

Intermediate, legal to hunt deer and pronghorn in Wyoming, but still more powerful than .223
7x39
.30-30
.300 Blackout