Replies

Point is that while "assault rifles" are blasted as being near-omnipotent death-machines, they are at the lower end of the rifle rounds...but I know that you know that.

Can't say I necessarily agree with you on this one, lepton. At 3,200 fps, I don't think you could call even a small caliber like a .223 "lower end" when it comes to the terminal results. Here's what Duncan Long has to say:

And the .308 does have a lot more energy than the .223. But there's more to effectiveness than kinetic energy. In terms of fight-stopping power, the .223 is usually equal or (with FMJ bullets) better. How can this be? The edge the .223 bullet has occurs with the 1-in-7 twist; the .223 bullet is torqued so much that it shatters on impact. The "pig tests" done by the US military proved the .223 (5.56mm) projectile so superior to the 7.62 in this respect that most segments of the Army lost all interest in the .308 for anything but sniper rifles. Thus the switch to the .223 for the SAW and the Marines adoption of the H-BAR version of the Colt. When a bullet shatters inside a human (or pig) target, it has greater wounding effect than a mushrooming bullet with each fragment creating a wound channel all its own. Sort of like a super-duper Glaser. The .223 fired from a modern (1-in-7 twist) rifle will make a tiny entry wound, but inside you have a mess that is greater than a .308 will produce (with human beings).

I concur that, with no obstructions, and within shorter ranges the round does more than would be expected, but the things that the anti-gunners fear are things they imagine. Stand a .223 next to a .243, 30-06 155gr, or a 30-06 300gr and see if they can figure out which is the "assault rifle" round. They automatically assume that it's the biggest baddest thing there. Look at how guns are outlawed, and note that it's cosmetic. These people are dealing in near-complete ignorance. Thumb-holes makes it an "assault weapon"? Plastic instead of wood?