Here we go again. The latest round in the eternal terminal ballistics argument.
"A former Special Operations doctor explains why he would rather be shot with an AK-47 than an M4."
Of course, the more pressing question if you are a member of the collectivist political elite currently seeking civil war in this country is, "Am I more or less likely to get shot in the brain pan with a thirty caliber projectile through the window of my living quarters in a "safe" green zone from a garden-variety deer rifle at five hundred meters range?" Arguments about the varying effects of 5.56 NATO versus 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 are likely to matter only to the grunts they send to do their tyrannical dirty work. The elites could care less about those who do their bidding.
I believe the important part of the equation, KE = ½ M (V1-V2)2, is the difference in velocity due to CONTACT with the target.
AIM SMALL, MISS SMALL.
The elites could care less about those who do their bidding.
The elites COULDN'T care less...
I made it as far as the part about how you want a round to not exit the target because it spends all its energy inside that way, before realizing this is really dumb.
Im all for hearing about ballistic physics. However his is all wrong.
Not only that he compared a round that hit bone with a round that did not and of course the round that hit bone was far worse.
Funny!! An argument about "ballistics"! Well I myself don't want to be shot with ether one. The 7.62X39 closely mimics the 30:30 Winchester of the late 1890's. The 5.56X45 closely mimics the .22-250 of the 1920s and any of the four will kill ya graveyard dead. Myself I prefer the 7.62X63, and if you don't know what that is....
We who hunt big game know that the same round will perform very differently depending on what it hits inside the animal, and the distance of the shot as it determines the impact velocity. Making generalizations about my chosen hunting load, for example, is very difficult. I've seen the same load go through cleanly, leaving relatively little damage, and I've seen it blow things to hell. I've seen it stop within ten inches and penetrate 25 inches. So basically; shut up, use enough gun, and place your shots well. No really; shut up. And by the way; people and animals are not made of gelatin. So shut up. -- Lyle
Good battle tactic. For better terminal effects, aim for a spot where there is an underlying bone structure.
I'd rather be missed by an M4 than hit by an AK. And that's the real issue.
If you are comfortable putting rounds into the target with an AR platform, then by all means consider choosing one. If you're more comfortable firing an AK, then go with that. The AK has real usability advantages in close quarters situations. It is (hilariously) simple enough for a chimp to master, and in a real-life situation that matters.
It isn't the only consideration. For most people who've been through intense training and combat with 5.56 rifles, it isn't a large consideration. But it isn't an invalid concern.
I wouldn't impose my own weapon preference on anyone not able to use it effectively.
The whole point is to NOT get shot by either, but I suppose that is over the heads of people who claim to have common sense, these days. Otherwise its all blah blah blah by people who will never actually use their guns in 2nd Amendment required fashion.
Sign Me, Neal Jensen
Post a Comment