Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

52
awshoot wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:19 am But whatever -- you keep criticizing and essentially arguing that we should accept the propaganda term "weapon of war". Alright fine -- suggest a pro-gun position while accepting that term.
If you truly believe that I in ANY way think that we should accept the term "weapon of war" then one or both of us has failed. For my part, let me make this clear: No fucking way.

See how well leading with the facts works?

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

53
Facts notwithstanding, I think the two best arguments against banning ARs that gun grabbers might be somewhat appeased with are:

1) banning (inset firearm of choice here) disadvantages minorities, LGBT people and women in response to threats from big ugly republican men intent on doing them grave bodily harm. Don't we want those groups to have access to the best possible means of defense, as distasteful as it may be?

2) focusing on ARs over handguns and their use in poor communities of color is feeding into the anti-BLM/police brutality movements and continues to put priority on white lives (current focus on mass shootings) over minority lives (continued problems with handgun violence that far exceed mass shootings).

As much as I hate to admit it, facts don't matter to emotionally charged people when white kid's lives are (theoretically) on the line. Just look at the pro lifers.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

54
A few have already pointed this out, but if we use the terms the opposition wants to load on us we have already accepted their argument. I agree that certain phrases and words should be avoided and rejected. I've used a few of those but generally have set them off with quotes. Perhaps I should just avoid the terms all together and just express my though clearer.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

55
rolandson wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:20 am
AndyH wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:54 am ...We're gonna have to craft a better argument...and it needs to be factual.
Indeed.

There are words and phrases that I don't use. I avoid referring to firearms as 'guns' as much as possible, opting instead for 'pistol,' 'revolver,' 'shotgun,' and 'rifle', or simply 'firearms'...

and I never use the word "weapon."

From a rather simplistic perspective, anything can be used as a weapon and nothing is a weapon until it's used as such.

And it is that rather simple perspective that directly addresses the one element upon which I have found that the 'discussion' hinges: Fear.

Using the word 'weapon' plays directly to the emotional trigger that the anti-firearm element very effectively exploits. I am convinced that every time, and in every context in which the word 'weapon' is used, our message is instantly invalidated, that the discussion is, for all intents and purposes, over. And we have lost another opportunity. Those on the other side are so blinded by their fear of the images that the word invokes, that their ability to listen and think gives way to panic followed by anger.

I genuinely believe that using that word makes the opposition's argument for them. They need do nothing but sit back and watch us implode as we fuss over nomenclature regarding cosmetics and mechanics and then deliver the death blow to ourselves by calling the instruments of our hobby, weapons.

Even, shit no, especially amongst ourselves. We present ourselves as a bunch of blood thirsty morons who can't wait to shoot living things.

To soccer moms holding up signs expressing the mantra "...We're afraid you'll take our children...' The word "weapon" says everything they want. And since it is, statistically, extremely unlikely that any of us will find ourselves in a position to use a firearm as a weapon, why would we want to do that?
I very much disagree with this. All of our firearms are weapons, and denying it is just as useless as trying to argue that AR-15's are not "weapons of war". Instead we need to embrace the label of "weapons of war" and subvert it into something that is acceptable to people rather than reprehensible, much the way "gay" and "nigga" have been appropriated by the very communities against which those words used to be slurs. Only by taking the tactics of the antis and using it against them - by controlling the language of the debate - can we hope to make headway, or even simply stand our ground.

I am quite happy to say that my guns are "weapons of war". I hope that I never have to use them as such, but i have them explicitly because I might need to, and my natural and constitutional rights authorize me to posses them. Drive that point home again and again in conversations: all living being have a natural right to self defense, and humans - creatures that use weapons in offense - therefore have a right to use weapons in defense, otherwise the right of self defense becomes meaningless because without weapons it is not possible to exercise the right of self defense in any effective way.

My answer to the "weapons of war" argument is to say "yes, they are weapons of war, and that's good and that is what the Constitution protects". Trying to strip people of these weapons is simply a violation of human rights, and it must be resisted.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

56
The point is anything is a "weapon" when it's used with intent to kill or harm. Ice pick, hammer, anything, and even a pencil. I'm not saying deny what it can be, but not allowing the frame of the discussion to be set by others. To me it's about the credibility of their argument. If we start responding and repeating terms like "weapons of war" they have set the terms of the discussion.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

59
So don't defend. Make them expend themselves in useless attacks. If someone calls your rifle a "weapon of war" you respond by saying "so what?" They may want to use the phrase as a perjorative, but we don't have to react like it is. This isn't about definitions, it's about connotations. Yes, an AR-15 is a weapon of war. So what? There's nothing wrong with that, because it doesn't have to be - and almost never is - used for war or killing. Don't let the negative connotation be the only one.

Look at my signature. It was inspired by YankeeTarheel stating that the primary purpose of firearms is to kill. None of my firearms have ever been used to kill, but they have been used frequently for recreation, and once for defense of life (during which incident no one ended up being injured). Does that sound like the primary purpose of my guns is for killing? Of course not! Their primary purpose is recreation. They can kill, and that is certainly a consideration I had in choosing 3 of them, but it's not their primary purpose.

Just because a gun can be called a weapon of war that doesn't mean it isn't also other things, and it doesn't mean the gun should be reviled.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

60
rolandson wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:20 am
AndyH wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:54 am ...We're gonna have to craft a better argument...and it needs to be factual.
Indeed.

There are words and phrases that I don't use. I avoid referring to firearms as 'guns' as much as possible, opting instead for 'pistol,' 'revolver,' 'shotgun,' and 'rifle', or simply 'firearms'...

and I never use the word "weapon."

From a rather simplistic perspective, anything can be used as a weapon and nothing is a weapon until it's used as such.

And it is that rather simple perspective that directly addresses the one element upon which I have found that the 'discussion' hinges: Fear.

Using the word 'weapon' plays directly to the emotional trigger that the anti-firearm element very effectively exploits. I am convinced that every time, and in every context in which the word 'weapon' is used, our message is instantly invalidated, that the discussion is, for all intents and purposes, over. And we have lost another opportunity. Those on the other side are so blinded by their fear of the images that the word invokes, that their ability to listen and think gives way to panic followed by anger.

I genuinely believe that using that word makes the opposition's argument for them. They need do nothing but sit back and watch us implode as we fuss over nomenclature regarding cosmetics and mechanics and then deliver the death blow to ourselves by calling the instruments of our hobby, weapons.

Even, shit no, especially amongst ourselves. We present ourselves as a bunch of blood thirsty morons who can't wait to shoot living things.

To soccer moms holding up signs expressing the mantra "...We're afraid you'll take our children...' The word "weapon" says everything they want. And since it is, statistically, extremely unlikely that any of us will find ourselves in a position to use a firearm as a weapon, why would we want to do that?
I understand this point, and it probably explains part of the use of scare phrases like "assault weapons" and "weapons of war". And I'm not trying to sound bloodthirsty by using "weapon" (I'm about 95% leaf-eater), but it can be difficult to shake the term after even just a few years of being formally trained and then training others in the use of different weapons, firearm and non-firearm. It's hard to beat "weapon" for a universal range safety scolding, too. I concede it might be worth adjusting to how we use the word "weapon" in persuasive discussions, but I hesitate to do so based on the opposition's terminological squeamishness with the 2A's core purpose of self-defense against unlawful violence.

Moreover, I think the opposition's argument hangs on a lot more emotion and deception than just what they do with the word "weapon". The shift toward the phrase "weapons of war" is new way of tricking people into thinking that fully automatic or unusually dangerous firearms are still available over the counter and widely used in crime. That was the main purpose of "assault weapons" as a gun control marketing term - look at the stock phrase used along side it: "We need to get these weapons off our streets!" What streets? The fictional streets of 1980s Miami Vice and Lethal Weapon 3: real criminals rarely have or use long guns, especially rifles. I strongly think the '94 AWB was sold with the implication that urban (black) crack gangs of superpredators, armed with fully-automatic AK-47s and SPAS-12s, were going to be expanding into safe (white) suburbia. Currently, the propaganda bad guy is a suicidal, murderous white dude armed with an AR-15, but he is just as useful as all the others for the purposes of terrifying white suburbanites so they will act/vote blindly based on fear.
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

61
featureless wrote:
sikacz wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:00 pm A few have already pointed this out
Yes, nothing new. I'm just looking for emotion-based arguments since facts only matter to us.
You need an emotional argument? Try this.."Yes, my AR is a "weapon of war". It's a "weapon of war" against those who would declare war on me and my family, my property or my livestock. (Yes, in Georgia I'm allowed to defend my property and livestock.). But unless and until that happens it's a recreational rifle. It has about 1400 rounds through it so far, but hasn't killed a single living creature. It's killed a heck of a lot of paper, though...

Oh, and my caliber (6.8mm SPC) has never been used by our military.

Is that emotional enough..?

"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

62
rascally wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:57 pm
featureless wrote:
sikacz wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:00 pm A few have already pointed this out
Yes, nothing new. I'm just looking for emotion-based arguments since facts only matter to us.
You need an emotional argument? Try this.."Yes, my AR is a "weapon of war". It's a "weapon of war" against those who would declare war on me and my family, my property or my livestock. (Yes, in Georgia I'm allowed to defend my property and livestock.). But unless and until that happens it's a recreational rifle. It has about 1400 rounds through it so far, but hasn't killed a single living creature. It's killed a heck of a lot of paper, though...

Oh, and my caliber (6.8mm SPC) has never been used by our military.

Is that emotional enough..?
:hmm: Needs more vitriol. :lol:
(I agree entirely with the sentiment, by the way)

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

63
featureless wrote:
rascally wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:57 pm
featureless wrote:
sikacz wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:00 pm A few have already pointed this out
Yes, nothing new. I'm just looking for emotion-based arguments since facts only matter to us.
You need an emotional argument? Try this.."Yes, my AR is a "weapon of war". It's a "weapon of war" against those who would declare war on me and my family, my property or my livestock. (Yes, in Georgia I'm allowed to defend my property and livestock.). But unless and until that happens it's a recreational rifle. It has about 1400 rounds through it so far, but hasn't killed a single living creature. It's killed a heck of a lot of paper, though...

Oh, and my caliber (6.8mm SPC) has never been used by our military.

Is that emotional enough..?
:hmm: Needs more vitriol.
Image

(I agree entirely with the sentiment, by the way)
Feel free to insert the adjective "fucking" where you see fit...

"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

64
AndyH wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:16 pm
Evo1 wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:51 pm
AndyH wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:32 pm
Evo1 wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:49 pm The problem I have with allowing the 'weapons of war' BS (and it is BS) to go unchallenged is that the terminology is specifically being used as a dishonest attempt to vilify a group of firearms so that they can be more easily targeted for restriction. It isn't just an innocent mistake by ignorant people, though that is the case with most people who use it. It is, instead, an intentional attempt to make a false claim about these firearms so that the ignorant masses can be indoctrinated into believing they are something that they are not that justifies banning them. And now we're seeing how these kinds of claims are intended to be expanded to ban an ever widening array of firearms. Yes, it sounds like just playing semantic games. But words have meaning, which is precisely why the other side misuses them. To simply allow them to continue to do so unchallenged is exactly how you lose political battles, which are as much (or even more) about perception than about fact.
YES! The words have meanings - and we know the antis are twisting things. However, some of what they're saying is the correct word in the correct context. Sometimes they're using the correct word in an incorrect way (yes, we have clips but that isn't one). And other words are incorrect on both counts. The problem with this specific report - and the reason it stopped me in my tracks when I was searching for something else - is because when we say that military forces have 'never' been issued AR-15s, we are not stating a fact - and they will call us on it. And they should. And we have to have a response.
Actually, we are stating a fact, in that the 'AR-15' that was issued to the military was not the same thing as the 'AR-15' that you can go down to your gun shop and buy today. The Armalite AR-15 was a selective-fire weapon, which the modern AR-15 is not. Saying that they are the same thing is, in fact, not a fact, but, if said out of ignorance, a mistake, and if said knowingly, a lie. That's my response. The modern firearms that they are trying to ban are not, and have never been, military weapons - they just share the same name and appearance with one that was. Saying they are military weapons, or 'weapons of war' is like saying that the V-6 Ford Mustang you can buy at your local car dealer is a race car just because it shares the name 'Ford Mustang' and the same general body styling with the GT4. The internals that determine how the two function are different, and that's what makes one a race car (or military weapon/assault rifle) and the other one not.
I get that some here really like facts a lot. I do as well. I'm a retired analyst and Meyers-Briggs INTP and can do 'paralysis through analysis' standing on my head. :lol:

Here's the thing: Propaganda, and the stuff that's killing us when social media uses kids to push legislation not grounded in fact - it's a fabrication. It's fiction. But because it's propaganda, there are enough pieces of fact woven in - and there has to be in order to win support from people that aren't educated in guns or the history of guns. In that sphere (not this one which really likes facty things) it IS a fact that a gun called an AR-15 was issued to two militaries during a war and when those guns were fired at 5' tall 95 lb people, it ripped big holes in them. And those holes look just like the horrific damage done to the kids in that NE grade school. We are NOT going to influence those people if we try to tell them that 'that' AR-15 isn't the same as 'this' AR-15 - until we're well into the education process. And in my opinion, the general public isn't able to hear that yet - and the antis likely won't be able to hear it at all.

TL;DR - you're correct. DM and others are correct. But it doesn't matter. We need a counter story that is factually correct - and that the public can take in. Because they're winning, and our cool meme with M1s and AR-15s isn't working.
I agree, it is propaganda. But as anyone who has studied propaganda or how is used knows, you don't win against propaganda by allowing it to redefine the narrative. That's precisely how you lose to it. You can't ever educate the public if you don't use facts, and you can't first let the opposition define your side and then later come back and say, "well, that was actually wrong, but you weren't ready to hear that back then." Once you allow them to define the terminology of the debate, you're stuck with it. If you allow their narrative to become commonly accepted "fact", you can never correct it, because it becomes internalized "common knowledge" that people will believe even when eventually confronted by facts that they can intellectually accept. Maybe we've allowed their narrative to go unchallenged a little too long so that this is already happening, but the solution is not to let that continue to happen.

And I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people we're discussing, even those who know that their claims are fiction, actually know that there was once a rifle called an AR-15 that was issued to the military. A few do, but most don't. The reason they believe that the modern AR-15 is a 'weapon of war' is precisely because they don't bother to educate themselves about that level of factual detail on the issue, even when those facts are given out by their own side. Instead, they know that there are similarities between the modern AR-15 and the M-16, especially that they look alike, and will simply accept that they are the same because they don't understand the difference. The way to correct that is to present them with facts. If instead you let it stand, you just let it become unquestionable 'fact'. Not everyone can be swayed by facts, but those who can't won't be swayed by opposing propaganda either.

But I agree that the first step isn't necessarily a lecture on history or mechanics. In many cases it's simply creating an alternative terminology, such as 'modern sporting rifle'. But the only way to make that stick is to back it up with facts, otherwise no one on the other side will see it as anything but propaganda of no more validity than the other side's. I'd also argue that we're not losing this. The media is backing off using some of their incorrect terminology lately, with a lot of use of the terms "military style" and "assault style" recently, which I think is a win for us. Not only does it indicate that our factual arguments are getting through, but it also means they're now basically admitting that these guns only look like "military" or "assault" rifles, rather than actually being such.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

65
Evo1 wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:30 pm
AndyH wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:16 pm I get that some here really like facts a lot. I do as well. I'm a retired analyst and Meyers-Briggs INTP and can do 'paralysis through analysis' standing on my head. :lol:

Here's the thing: Propaganda, and the stuff that's killing us when social media uses kids to push legislation not grounded in fact - it's a fabrication. It's fiction. But because it's propaganda, there are enough pieces of fact woven in - and there has to be in order to win support from people that aren't educated in guns or the history of guns. In that sphere (not this one which really likes facty things) it IS a fact that a gun called an AR-15 was issued to two militaries during a war and when those guns were fired at 5' tall 95 lb people, it ripped big holes in them. And those holes look just like the horrific damage done to the kids in that NE grade school. We are NOT going to influence those people if we try to tell them that 'that' AR-15 isn't the same as 'this' AR-15 - until we're well into the education process. And in my opinion, the general public isn't able to hear that yet - and the antis likely won't be able to hear it at all.

TL;DR - you're correct. DM and others are correct. But it doesn't matter. We need a counter story that is factually correct - and that the public can take in. Because they're winning, and our cool meme with M1s and AR-15s isn't working.
I agree, it is propaganda. But as anyone who has studied propaganda or how is used knows, you don't win against propaganda by allowing it to redefine the narrative. That's precisely how you lose to it.
Absolutely! If two groups begin their interactions at day one, the one that is able to control the narrative wins. The problem for us is that we're well into the 'interaction'. While the mostly right-wing pro-gun side has been repeating facts (with a heavy side of fear and derision), the left has completely redefined the story while also using fear and derision.
Evo1 wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:30 pm You can't ever educate the public if you don't use facts, and you can't first let the opposition define your side and then later come back and say, "well, that was actually wrong, but you weren't ready to hear that back then." Once you allow them to define the terminology of the debate, you're stuck with it. If you allow their narrative to become commonly accepted "fact", you can never correct it, because it becomes internalized "common knowledge" that people will believe even when eventually confronted by facts that they can intellectually accept. Maybe we've allowed their narrative to go unchallenged a little too long so that this is already happening, but the solution is not to let that continue to happen.
I agree completely! We must challenge the anti's progress and restore balance. With the goal set, we get to "how". We hopefully already know that simply pushing facts (or attacking the anti's use of alternative fact...) isn't a solution. Talking 'at' or 'past' each other doesn't work, either. While admitting that I'm probably the limiting factor in this part of the process, I don't know of a way to reverse the process without fielding a LOT of people, and without a bunch of one-on-one interactions. People have to be ready to listen, and coming at them just shuts them down and deepens the divide. Problem is, the anti's Gish Gallop requires less energy and time to reach 'critical mass' with their version of the story - and the one-on-one process of reversing the anti-gun damage is a slow and muddy slog. We need another way to 'hack' the process so we can get control of our own message again.
Evo1 wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:30 pmAnd I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people we're discussing, even those who know that their claims are fiction, actually know that there was once a rifle called an AR-15 that was issued to the military. A few do, but most don't.
That's the thing about propaganda - the vast majority of the antis don't have to know that a select-fire version of the AR-15 was used by military forces. They don't have to be able to fact-check back to source - they just have to accept the message, internalize it, and repeat it. The chain reaction does the rest.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ar ... 6daf45ab2d
Renowned firearms engineer Eugene Stoner developed the first AR-15, or ArmaLite Rifle (hence the “AR”), in the late 1950s, using advances in technology and materials to revolutionize battlefield weaponry. Stoner’s rifle was marketed to national militaries interested in a lightweight firearm with precision accuracy and high lethality at long range.
http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shootin ... an-family/
AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b47b97c36e
These weapons designed for combat, accompanied by multiple ammunition magazines, have become the weapons of choice for mass shooters.
Evo1 wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:30 pm The reason they believe that the modern AR-15 is a 'weapon of war' is precisely because they don't bother to educate themselves about that level of factual detail on the issue, even when those facts are given out by their own side. Instead, they know that there are similarities between the modern AR-15 and the M-16, especially that they look alike, and will simply accept that they are the same because they don't understand the difference. The way to correct that is to present them with facts. If instead you let it stand, you just let it become unquestionable 'fact'. Not everyone can be swayed by facts, but those who can't won't be swayed by opposing propaganda either.
Sorry, here's where we must disagree. The AR-15 IS a military firearm - that's the point - and when we lie we lose all credibility. This is really important. We need to fact-check our own work or even our best "shooting stuff is fun" operations plan cannot succeed.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-gun-owners ... e-military
Why do gun owners constantly insist the AR-15 is not a military style gun when the AR-15 was invented for the military?

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

66
Anti-gunners (and most of the public) believe that police and military are the 'gun experts'. Here are two examples of what police use in their AR-15s and M4s.

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/pro ... 411555443/
Hornady 223 Rem 75Gr BTHP TAP Precision #80265

This match quality load is our heaviest TAP® offering in 223 Rem. It can be used in 14.5” barrel firearms that have either a 223 or 5.56 NATO chamber. The 75 gr. bullet offers deeper penetration than the 55 and 60 grain TAP bullets yet still penetrates less than most law enforcement pistol bullets. This bullet penetrates barriers with minimal deflection and breakup thus delivering more energy to the target. Whether fired through a barrier or not this bullet generates very large and consistent wound cavities. This round is an ideal choice for 223 Rem sniper applications.
https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/pro ... 411554820/
Hornady 308 Winchester 110Gr TAP Urban #80896

This cartridge provides the police marksman a unique bullet that demonstrates rapid expansion, fragmentation and low retained weight. The 110 gr. TAP Urban® bullet offers the least penetration in ballistic gelatin and lower felt recoil as compared to heavier TAP® loads. The 110 gr. bullet demonstrates similar penetration to the 223 Rem 75 gr. BTHP bullet, but with substantially more temporary and permanent cavity and fragmentation, proving itself an excellent choice for high collateral risk environments.
AR folks - how many of you run this sort of ammo? Military/former military - how many of you ran this sort of ammo?

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

67
I was always support or service support units, and retired in 1993. All I ever saw was 55gr FMJ.

That being said, these are what I mostly use now... leftmost is 5.56, next is 6.8 SPC 2, the right 2 are 6.8 SPC.

In the 2nd photo, the left is 5.56 77gr, the right is 6.8 SPC 2 110gr.
Image
Image
"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

68
AndyH wrote: Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:08 pm Anti-gunners (and most of the public) believe that police and military are the 'gun experts'. Here are two examples of what police use in their AR-15s and M4s.

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/pro ... 411555443/
Hornady 223 Rem 75Gr BTHP TAP Precision #80265

This match quality load is our heaviest TAP® offering in 223 Rem. It can be used in 14.5” barrel firearms that have either a 223 or 5.56 NATO chamber. The 75 gr. bullet offers deeper penetration than the 55 and 60 grain TAP bullets yet still penetrates less than most law enforcement pistol bullets. This bullet penetrates barriers with minimal deflection and breakup thus delivering more energy to the target. Whether fired through a barrier or not this bullet generates very large and consistent wound cavities. This round is an ideal choice for 223 Rem sniper applications.
https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/pro ... 411554820/
Hornady 308 Winchester 110Gr TAP Urban #80896

This cartridge provides the police marksman a unique bullet that demonstrates rapid expansion, fragmentation and low retained weight. The 110 gr. TAP Urban® bullet offers the least penetration in ballistic gelatin and lower felt recoil as compared to heavier TAP® loads. The 110 gr. bullet demonstrates similar penetration to the 223 Rem 75 gr. BTHP bullet, but with substantially more temporary and permanent cavity and fragmentation, proving itself an excellent choice for high collateral risk environments.
AR folks - how many of you run this sort of ammo? Military/former military - how many of you ran this sort of ammo?
I am not an expert (nor am I current/former military), but as I understand it, if any national guard units still use M16A1s they will be issued M193 (55Gr FMJ), Everyone else in the military will issues M855/M855A1, MK318 and MK262. HSLD types will be more likely to have gotten M855A1 first, and more likely to have been issued MK311 and MK262.

As for LE, I believe that this posting covers just about everything on it: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php ... 87f3349be3

As for me, I have a Saiga .223 (1/9 twist) and a parts-built AR with a medium weight 16" (1/7 twist) barrel. I run cheap 55gr steel case in the Saiga and whatever is the flavor of of the month for cheap brass cased 55gr in the AR. If I was doing more than ringing steel and punching paper at ~100 Meters (the longest range in the area), I would research ammunition choices more thoroughly.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

69
Just as an aside on the ammo question: Sac PD originally used Winchester white box M193 in our 224 M16A1's. Then we changed out the uppers to Colt 6340's with a 1:7 twist and went to Speer GDSP 64gr. For .308 we tried the TAP rounds for a while and no one liked them at all. We went back to Federal Gold Medal 168gr SP's and got back to normal. The 155gr TAP rounds just weren't that accurate for our SWAT shooters.

And, no, I'm retired now. Thank the gods.

Re: AR-15s in Vietnam

70
Does it matter that Stoner's AR-15 and Colt's M-16 are the same exact rifle and Colt's CAR-15 is the non-NFA version we all know and love today? I personally think it does.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests