Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM!
I have no idea what that is. Reverse image search is failing me. It doesn't match any anti-materiel rifle I am familiar with... Is that a vehicle mount on the side? Maybe it came out of an aircraft or APC, something like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 13:56:51
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I have no idea what that is. Reverse image search is failing me. It doesn't match any anti-materiel rifle I am familiar with... Is that a vehicle mount on the side? Maybe it came out of an aircraft or APC, something like that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The latest Q and A video from Inrange TV was an interesting and insightful watch. Very enjoyable.
Love me some InRange/Forgotten Weapons
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ted Nugent is claiming that a 5.56 caliber AR15 is:
1) not designed to kill people (but is designed for self defense...he says...huh?)
2) would be less effective at killing unarmed people than a "standard issue goose shotgun"
Ted Nugent is claiming that a 5.56 caliber AR15 is:
1) not designed to kill people (but is designed for self defense...he says...huh?)
2) would be less effective at killing unarmed people than a "standard issue goose shotgun"
Do you think he is actually correct?
1: no, it is designed for hunting, if i'm gonna have a big unweilding weapon like that would rather have a shotgun since it ends arguments faster.
2: a 12 gauge shotgun can do more damage shot for shot then an AR-15 could.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/16 21:02:27
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
TheMeanDM wrote: Even considering ammo capability, reloading speed, and projectile FPS...?
For actual home defense? It's considered the best... as, you just point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Plus, there's less chance that the ammo penetrates multiple walls.
But for property defense? Like varmint shoot? AR is a decent platform for that.*
*note, I don't own an AR, but I do have a shotgun for skeet/traps that I use for home defense.
TheMeanDM wrote: Even considering ammo capability, reloading speed, and projectile FPS...?
even considering that, each round from an AR-15 can hit one person, each round from a 12 gauge can hit more then one person, in fact you have a better chance of survive a shot from an AR-15 then you do from a shotgun with double ought in it. because an AR-15 round is a single projectile while a 00 shotgun shell has 9 projectiles in it and even that can be altered so you have 9 projectiles coming at you compared to 1, which one would you want shooting at you?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
In a home defense situation you do indeed have to aim a shotgun. The spread pattern is roughly only a few inches at those distances. Unless you have a SBR shotgun.
TheMeanDM wrote: Even considering ammo capability, reloading speed, and projectile FPS...?
.223 rounds aren't very big and depending on range and where it hits the round can pass through doing little damage. For instance 55 grains is a common size for .223 bullets and that's not much bigger in terms of weight than .22lr. Of course .223 does a lot more damage than .22lr because .223 rounds have a tendency to tumble inside somebody and create some pretty big exist wounds and since they travel at high velocity they can impact a lot of kinetic energy and hydrostatic shock. It's relatively easy to get good shot placement with .223 becacuse it shoots very flat and has low recoil so you can put rounds where they'll do the most damage.
A 12 gauge is going to dump a massive amount of kinetic energy into whatever you hit because the shot or slug has greater mass than a single .223 bullet. Even with body armor on a hit from a 12 gauge is going to knock somebody down, they'll just get back up. Rifle rounds and shotgun slugs are going through most vests unless additional armor plates have been added.
In regards to home defense there is very little in a typical home that will actually stop a bullet. Any gun that you can shoot well and with confidence is a good home defense gun. I hope I never get in a gunfight in my house because like I said there's very little in a home that will reliably stop a bullet. Try to find a chokepoint with a safe backstop, like a stairway so that you know you can shoot down the stairs at bad guys and if you miss you only hit the floor. You want to avoid shooting at anyone or anything that is standing in front of a door or wall that has people like your wife and kids on the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: In a home defense situation you do indeed have to aim a shotgun. The spread pattern is roughly only a few inches at those distances. Unless you have a SBR shotgun.
True, even with 00 buck you're only going to get a spread the size of a teacup saucer if you're standing in the same room of a house as your target. Unless you live in a palatial mansion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 21:51:12
yellowfever wrote: In a home defense situation you do indeed have to aim a shotgun. The spread pattern is roughly only a few inches at those distances. Unless you have a SBR shotgun.
,
beg to differ after 10' the spread on a shotgun is like 6 inches, at 20 feet it is like a foot or so, while a rifle round does not get bigger you fire a .223 bullet, the spread is still .223. measure out 20' its not that big. hell my game room i'm in right now is longer then 20'
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I undersrand auto vs semi auto, length and weight..but...thats about all the functional difference...yes?
trust me from auto to semi auto(as fast as you can pull the trigger) is a big difference in rate of fire and such and its a big enough difference the AR-15 also known as the CAR-15 or Civilian Armalite Rifle is just that a rifle, pretty much many rifles also are like the AR-15 the only reason the AR-15 is used more by certain mass shooters is because it looks cool, much better options and weapons available to civilians that could do the job better.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I undersrand auto vs semi auto, length and weight..but...thats about all the functional difference...yes?
Ballistics wise it's all the same unless you get into significant differences in barrel lenght. There's really no performance difference in a round of .223 fired from an M4 or an AR15 or a .223 bolt action rifle.
d-usa wrote: So just to be clear, the military designed a weapon for hunting and not killing people?
the AR-15 is not a military weapon, it never has been and never will be. an AR-15 is a rifle nothing more, nothing less.
So who designed the AR-15, what's the history, how did it come to be?
I was under the impression that ArmaLite took the AR-10, redesigned it for a 5.56 round rather than a 7.62 round, and then sold the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. Colt then did some redesigning of the AR-15 with the US military which resulted in the M-16. Then Colt took the M-16 and started to marked the semi-automatic version of it as the AR-15, selling it to civilian markets and law enforcement agencies.
Then there is the whole thing that the 5.56 round was designed by ArmaLite and other manufacturers specifically to meet the ballistic specifications of the US military.
But I admit that I might be mistaken, and if so I look forward to being educated on who designed the 5.56 caliber AR-15 for hunting.
EDIT: Just to be clear:
1) I don't have an issue with the concept of the AR-15 2) I think Ted Nugent is a fething idiot (not just because of this, but because of a great many things) 3) I think the argument that the 5.56 caliber AR-15 was designed for hunting is wrong 4) I do think the AR-15 people usually think of when they hear AR-15 is fugly as hell and I am absolutely not a fan of it, but I do like the versions with the "traditional" look of the stock and stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 22:14:24
d-usa wrote: So just to be clear, the military designed a weapon for hunting and not killing people?
the AR-15 is not a military weapon, it never has been and never will be. an AR-15 is a rifle nothing more, nothing less.
So who designed the AR-15, what's the history, how did it come to be?
I was under the impression that ArmaLite took the AR-10, redesigned it for a 5.56 round rather than a 7.62 round, and then sold the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. Colt then did some redesigning of the AR-15 with the US military which resulted in the M-16. Then Colt took the M-16 and started to marked the semi-automatic version of it as the AR-15, selling it to civilian markets and law enforcement agencies.
Then there is the whole thing that the 5.56 round was designed by ArmaLite and other manufacturers specifically to meet the ballistic specifications of the US military.
But I admit that I might be mistaken, and if so I look forward to being educated on who designed the 5.56 caliber AR-15 for hunting.
and you just answered your own question, the AR-15 was designed for the civilian market, it may have been based off of the military version but it was designed for civilian use, not military use, since the military uses a fully auto M-16.
or let me ask you this, how many AR-15's are being used by our military? let me answer for you, none.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 22:11:57
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
d-usa wrote: So are you going to explain who designed the 5.56 AR-15 for hunting or not?
you do realize that 5.56 is just the NATO specification for the .223 bullet? right?
You know, it's fine for you to be wrong about everything in threads that deal with "opinions" and such.
But people come into this thread for actual advise and knowledge. People here can get hurt if they mistakenly think that you know what you are talking about, only to walk away from this thread thinking that 5.56 is just a different name for the .223. Not only are you wrong, but you are also dangerous.
The 5.56 and .223 have different case dimensions, chamber shapes, and pressures. They are not two different names for the same round, and 5.56 is NOT the NATO specification for the .223 bullet. In some cases a .223 round can be used in a gun chambered for a 5.56 round, but doing the opposite
The 5.56 was designed from the ground up for the military to meet their specifications, and was not designed as a hunting round.
More information regarding the mistaken belief that they are the same round:
Again, just to clarify, I have no problem with the AR-15. I just have an issue with incorrect information in a thread that is very technical and that people might rely on for accurate information.
d-usa wrote: So are you going to explain who designed the 5.56 AR-15 for hunting or not?
you do realize that 5.56 is just the NATO specification for the .223 bullet? right?
You know, it's fine for you to be wrong about everything in threads that deal with "opinions" and such.
But people come into this thread for actual advise and knowledge. People here can get hurt if they mistakenly think that you know what you are talking about, only to walk away from this thread thinking that 5.56 is just a different name for the .223. Not only are you wrong, but you are also dangerous.
The 5.56 and .223 have different case dimensions, chamber shapes, and pressures. They are not two different names for the same round, and 5.56 is NOT the NATO specification for the .223 bullet. In some cases a .223 round can be used in a gun chambered for a 5.56 round, but doing the opposite
The 5.56 was designed from the ground up for the military to meet their specifications, and was not designed as a hunting round.
More information regarding the mistaken belief that they are the same round:
Again, just to clarify, I have no problem with the AR-15. I just have an issue with incorrect information in a thread that is very technical and that people might rely on for accurate information.
of which .223 ammo can be fired from 5.56 rifles because the 5.56 rifle is made of sturdier stock which is also why AR-15's say .223/5.56 on them, oh and the ammo it is even sold as such: http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product1827.html, but then those are not the only rounds they can fire either: Most AR15s fire 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO ammo, although AR15s have been chambered with a number of other ammunition types, including 22 long rifle, 204 Ruger, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 AAC Blackout, and 458 SOCOM. AR15s can also shoot pistol ammo, such as 9 mm, 40 Smith & Wesson, and 45 ACP.
all you are doing is misleading people into thinking the AR-15 only fires a military spec 5.56 round and there you are wrong.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I'm just sitting here waiting on any kind of actual documentation of the hunting designed 5.56 AR-15.
Edit:
Why are people so afraid of admitting that a round and a rifle was designed for military specification with the round being available to civilians and the rifle firing mechanism altered to be legal for civilian use? Does something HAVE to be designed for hunting to be a good/legal/safe rifle? Does being designed to meet mil-spec make something bad or dangerous? Are people afraid that the military heritage of things will get stuff legislated away?
There is no problem with a 5.56 AR-15 being what it is, stop hiding from it. The Nug is an idiot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 22:52:53
d-usa wrote: I'm just sitting here waiting on any kind of actual documentation of the hunting designed 5.56 AR-15.
Edit:
Why are people so afraid of admitting that a round and a rifle was designed for military specification with the round being available to civilians and the rifle firing mechanism altered to be legal for civilian use? Does something HAVE to be designed for hunting to be a good/legal/safe rifle? Does being designed to meet mil-spec make something bad or dangerous? Are people afraid that the military heritage of things will get stuff legislated away?
There is no problem with a 5.56 AR-15 being what it is, stop hiding from it. The Nug is an idiot.
I've heard almost the exact same line- "the AR-15 was marketed and refitted for Civilian use, not military use." about 3 or 4 times now, which is blatant redirection.
Simple question to those who might know or know where to find out:
Was the 5.56 designed for hunting? Yes or no. If no, what was it designed for?
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
If yer an Ork, why dont ya WAAAGH!!
M.A.V.- if you liked ChromeHounds, drop by the site and give it a go. Or check out my M.A.V. Oneshots videos on YouTube!
I've heard almost the exact same line- "the AR-15 was marketed and refitted for Civilian use, not military use." about 3 or 4 times now, which is blatant redirection.
Simple question to those who might know or know where to find out:
Was the 5.56 designed for hunting? Yes or no. If no, what was it designed for?
actually the M193 which was a 5.56mm round was designed for the military, which was found to be ineffective and therefore the M855 which was also a 5.56mm round was created for the military, which has the same capacity as a .308 Winchester (a popular hunting round) as is the 30-06 another popular hunting round, so trying to say because the 5.56mm round was used in the military is redundant, it is not the most powerful hunting rounds out there, nor even close to some of them. especially since it failed to meet the required specs the military wanted. not too mention pistols that use 5.56mm rounds. just because a weapon uses a bullet that was designed for the military does not make the weapon a military weapon which is the point, the AR-15 was marketed/designed for civilian use, not military use.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/16 23:13:51
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
