The 5.56 NATO/.223 is okay at short-medium range (roughly 600M). Eugene Stoner and the whiz kids in the 60’s found out that most engagements with small arms are well under 300M. A soldier can carry a lot more rounds of 5.56 than he can for the 7.62 M14 they were rolling out in Vietnam. It’s also cheaper per round (whiz kids strike again).
In Afghanistan they’ve captured enemy combatants with multiple scars from 5.56 hits at ranges over 500M. They would get hit and just run to cover. Hell they even dug up WW2 vintage Mausers and Enfields to take pot shots at patrols from beyond the 5.56’s effective range. Until the US soldiers and Marines got wise and started rolling out the 7.62 for mountain patrols at least.
To your article. Rifles are nearly always more deadly than a pistol. To quote Rex Applegate: “A pistol is just a way to fight back to the rifle you never should have put down on the first place.”
It’s my understanding (study only - no real world experience here) that a 5.56 round, when fired inside it’s effective ballistic range (for simplicity’s sake let’s say 100 yd), creates a cavitation wound that is much larger and more devastating than the actual bullet diameter. Outside of that range, it just punches .22 caliber sized holes, which are usually not enough to make someone break stride, much less put them out of the fight.
It’s also my understanding (see caveat above) that all pistol rounds essentially just punch holes; there is little to no cavitation regardless of bullet size.
Lol, I’m gonna have to clarify this statement like 50x’s, lol.
I was really thinking in terms of lethality than anything else. There are certain advantages, like you mention, to the 5.56 that’s why it’s used to widely in the US military.
It’s an effective round without questions (5.56). I personally think the 7.62/.308 is a better more lethal round.
Ok, but how is that supposed to work in a school environment? Honestly, I have a hard time visualizing how such a scenario would unfold.
The poorly-paid civilian teachers would be under immense social and cultural pressure to do something. Would everybody be ok with an armed teacher locking himself up in the classroom with his students while other kids were dying outside?
What happens with the hypothetical teacher Mrs. Lopez who’s armed, let’s say under some federally mandated program? During class, she hears gunshots and screams coming from the hallway and barricades herself in the classroom with her students, drawing her weapon? Is she supposed to stay there, hoping or dreading the shooter tries to force his way into her classroom?
So do all teachers have to do that, waiting for the shooter to cross paths with one of them? Those who happened to end up in the cafeteria, well, tough luck?
Is everything depending on the “hero” teacher who decides to actively pursue the shooter?
And again, what a nightmare would that be for LEOs arriving at the scene, seeing dozens of people with drawn guns everywhere…
There is no perfect solution. I think the underlying question we should be asking is, will having armed teachers save more children in the event of a school shooting? A consensus on the answer to that question should be what drives the policy here, imo.
My personal opinion is that having a few voluntarily armed teachers gives more students a better chance at survival.
I’ll put it to you this way, at 100 yards a standard 55gr 5.56 projectile punches neat holes through 1/4 inch diamond plate. 1/2 inch will stop about 50% of the rounds fired at it depending on the angle. 7.62 x 51 goes through 1/2 inch easily. These are from my own redneck science experiments.
I can tell, when I see, “poorly-paid civilian teachers,” in a conversation that has nothing to do with what teachers are paid, that the conversation is going places. Nevertheless, I will give my opinions in response to your questions.
I never mentioned “federally mandated program.” I would prefer that teachers/staff merely be permitted to arm themselves. I, personally, would be fine with an armed teacher locking himself in a classroom with his students. Get them into a place of concealment(cover, if possible), and be prepared to defend the one(I know some classrooms have more than one door. Get over it.) entry/exit point. Don’t become part of the problem, if possible. If the teacher is confident seeking out and engaging the shooter, go for it.
A cafeteria usually has teachers/staff in it.
What do you mean, “Is everything depending on the ‘hero’ teacher who decides to actively pursue the shooter?” I truly have no idea.
I’m not sure why you feel that law enforcement would be arriving to find dozens of people with guns drawn. Hopefully, there would be SOME communication. The worst case I can think of would be a teacher who is actually exchanging gunfire with the shooter when the police arrive; it would likely be difficult to determine which is the shooter when running towards that gunfire. I think I would prefer to hope the police don’t shoot me rather than hope the shooter doesn’t shoot me, if I were that teacher.
*There is one more point I’d like to add: A submissive society is encouraged. A classroom full of unarmed teens could physically attack a shooter and almost certainly come out with fewer deaths than have occurred in many of these school shootings. Edit: The idea that evil can be appeased by submission needs to be seen for the bullshit it is.
It can be. I try to look at things from positive points of view. For example, a few hundred years ago these same kids wouldn’t have been students. Many would not have even been free. Human beings/society has come pretty far, imo.
I work with a former Marine. I asked him why they used small caliber in combat situation. He said they were taught that a dead soldier takes one man off the field, an injured soldier takes 2 or more out of combat.
I have bought a few guns there in the past, but prefer the small gun shops for most purchases. I do buy mags, ammo and a ton of fishing tackle there (FieldandStream). I wholeheartedly disagree with their decision and will choose to go elsewhere.
I believe they have the right to sell to whomever they choose. I am however curious to see if there will be any lawsuits. I mean 18-21 yr olds have 2nd amendment rights. Can you legally refuse to sell a legal product to them based on age? Isn’t this a better example than the gay wedding cake stuff? (Again, I think they should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just a goose and gander legal question).
I think this is going to be the key here. I’m thinking dicks is going to regret this move. Seems indefensible to me especially considering the recent cake ruling