Posted on 09/13/2019 8:01:38 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Briscoe County was a Californian
I suspect that the places that ban a 7.62mm are those who require a short-range firearm due to hunting areas being close to population areas. Don't want a .30 caliber over-shoot going for mile or so and possibly landing near human habitation.
I might name my next dog Briscoe.
I’ll get him a chew toy and call it Beto.
PT exempted.
Sounds like O’Rourke’s plan is to bait people until they say something he doesn’t like, and then use their response as an excuse to violate their rights.
“...The 5.56mm round was designed to wound and disable more than kill,...a 30 caliber bullet like a .308 or 7.62mm have more mass and pack a bigger punch.” [CA Conservative, post 29]
Not the case.
No official US military documentation requesting the development of a new cartridge has ever specified this. It cannot be done, not within the limits of physics, ballistics, physiology, and medicine.
Humans (and indeed any other living organism) vary too much in size, age, location of internal organs, state of health, state of nervous excitation, and other parameters. There is no method to predict what level of energy transfer will injure a living target but not kill it. And not even the finest marksman can be so sure of the position of an adversary’s vital organs that a hit can be assured every time.
According to some authorities, your final phrase is incorrect also, depending on range to target and the bullet in question.
Peter G Kokalis, veteran gunwriter and veteran of ground action in Southeast Asia, wrote (in the early 1990s) that the 55gr bullet of the M16’s original cartridge (5.56mm M193) was more effective at ranges of 100m or less than 7.62 NATO or US 30M2 (WW2 military loading of 30-06): inside that range, the 5.56mm bullet would tumble and fragment inside a human body, expending what energy it did have doing injury to the target. But inside that range the two 30 cal rounds (identical velocities, very similar bullets) would remain stable and punch right through, losing little velocity inside the target (thus doing less injury), and then they’d continue traveling downrange. Beyond 100m, the 5.56mm M193 bullet would have shed relatively more velocity due to air resistance than either 30 cal bullet, and the injury/lethality difference would reverse.
“...places that ban a 7.62mm are those who require a short-range firearm due to hunting areas being close to population areas. Don’t want a .30 caliber over-shoot going for mile or so and possibly landing near human habitation.” [CommerceComet, post 42]
You are partly correct. Several densely populated states have framed hunting regulations accordingly. Massachusetts and Iowa used to ban all modern rifles for big game hunting. Shotguns firing slug loads were allowed.
New York used to go county by county: in 1971, hunters could use rifles in some 11 counties (rural ones in the Adirondacks and Catskills), but in the rest hunters were limited to shotgun slugs. There were no lower limits on rifle caliber - the only requirement was centerfire. Many hunters successfully used 222 Remington on deer.
MIL STD loads for 7.62mm NATO have an effective range of over 3,800 yards when fired from a fixed mounting (as with certain machine guns). Extreme range is farther still. Many 22 rimfire rounds will send their bullets in excess of 1760 yds (one statute mile).
Thanks BenLurkin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.