1) Is there anything the Internets can’t do?
2) Yes. I know, it’s an annoying pet peeve I have. But AR-15s are not “high-powered.” It’s like calling a Honda Civic an SUV. (update: good discussion of this here.)
3) Two weeks of the red pill, now back to the blue pill. Murmur, murmur.
15 comments
It can’t spell check blogs…
For real – way to set the standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teh
I get tired-head from the term “assault rifle”, too, as a catch-all for scary looking guns, but c’mon.
An AR-15 IS high-powered. It shoots a .223 bullet that is plenty capable of killing humans, and it holds a lot of shells in the clip. 40-45 shell capacities are common, and you can get drum magazines holding up to 100 cartridges.
I agree, there are much higher powered hunting weapons out there, but just because something isn’t suitable for elephant hunting doesn’t mean it can’t be legitimately called high-powered.
Way to flush out the newbs, Trey! roflcopter.
Also, way to capitulate to the newbs, Trey. I want “teh” back.
To most journalists, “high-powered” means anything with greater muzzle velocity than this: http://tinyurl.com/yuvhvn .
“40-45 shell capacities are common”?
O RLY?
For the record I am not a newbie.
“40-45 shell capacities are common”?
O RLY?
+++
Um, yeah. Not predominant, but common. If you want to buy one at Cabela’s, here’s a link:
http://www.cabelas.com/link-12/product/0030241224700a.shtml
MM-
You are not a moron, but you are close. The caliber for an AR-15 is the .223 Remington, although some can handle the slightly more powerful 5.56 NATO load. To be clear, the .223 Remington is a moderate upgrade of the original .222 load, which was introduced in 1950 as a “varmint load”.
The .223 ranks on the low-end of the power scale, as it typically delivers a 69 grain bullet at approximately 1300 ft/lbs. of energy. For a real world application, most deer hunters prefer a load such as the .270 Winchester which delivers a larger projectile (usually 90 grains or more) with significantly more force (2600 ft/lbs. and higher).
As you should know, the military equivalent of the AR-15 is the M-16 and it is a preferred NATO SMALL ARMS weapon. It is lightweight and considered effective at engaging an enemy at ranges of 600 yards by a well-trained rifleman. Effective ranges for the standard user are SIGNIFICANTLY lower. Also, the lightweight rounds allow users to lug more ammunition into the field.
As for your capacity claims, the standard AR-magazine is either a 20 or 30 round clip. Larger capacity clips are available, but to imply they are common is incorrect. Many states only allow the sale of 5- or 10-round capacity clips.
Against a human foe, the AR-15 is highly dependent on the accuracy of its user to be effective, as any shot that neither hits a vital organ nor incapacitates the target’s ability to move is ineffective.
This is not the case with larger, more common hunting rifles. It can even be argued that, at close range, many large bore handguns are more effective at stopping a human than an AR-15. A .357 magnum revolver can deliver a 138 grain hollow-point bullet at 574 ft/lbs. In this case, the size and the structure of the handgun round might for outweigh the speed of the .223.
Still, when the media (and apparently you) hear the word “assault weapon” you conjure a mystical, yet completely inaccurate vision of exactly what some of these weapons are.
Any gun, even a Red Ryder bb gun, can be lethal, and yes, AR-15’s (and their variants) have been effectively used for decades to kill countless humans in combat. Still, anyone who labels them as “high-powered” is, at best, ignorant.
Shane, did you not even read my posts? It’s like you took a quick glance, and put up your standard defense.
Just about every point you made, I had already conceded. Yes, I get tired of the term “assault rifle”. Yes, there are plenty of rifles more powerful than a .223. Yes, I’m very familiar with calibers and ballistics, and am a lifelong hunter and guns enthusiast.
Finally, I don’t appreciate being called a moron, and ignorant. I thought these comments were monitored…
MM-
I read your posts in detail and I specifically challenged the inacccuracy of your comments.
In particular, your waffle on the high-power argument is problematic. You claim tired-head over the blanket classification, yet you support the reporter’s sensationalistic label of the AR-15 as a high-powered weapon. By definition it isn’t. Calling it anything other than that is irresponsible.
Your subsequent comment about clip configurations ignores the fact that the purchase and ownership of these accessories is illegal in many parts of the country.
My problem with your arguments is that you generalize for your own purposes. This is the same tactic used by the reporter in this story.
This is semantics, which is why I suspect Trey kinda sheepishly brought it up in the first place.
Trey’s initial point is that an AR-15 is not a high-powered weapon, and you seem to agree. You call that label sensationalistic, and dismissively say that the AR-15 is not a high-powered weapon “by definition”.
By whose definition? That’s the whole crux of the argument. I’m not waffling. I’m solidly in the camp that calling it a high-powered weapon is not that far-fetched. I don’t see how it’s ludicrous, or ignorant, or moronic, to call a gun “high powered” if it’s been used in combat for many years for the purpose of killing people, and is capable of being used with a clip containing many dozens of cartridges.
Is it a 30-06? No. Is it a 460 Weatherby Magnum? Definitely not. It’s not even as effective at close range as a .44 Magnum, I agree. And it’s not a mortar or a missile either. So on the scale of high-powered things that can kill people, it’s definitely on the low end of the scale. I just argue that it IS on the scale.
Good thing the Nebraska mall shooter only used an SKS rifle (essentially a .30 caliber carbine) with a high capacity clip.
If he had used something high-powered, we might have had a real tragedy on our hands.