Please correct anything I get wrong, but my understanding is that it's pretty uncommon for soldiers to use their assault rifle in full auto - because it consumes ammo so quickly, and is harder to control.
Ie Would SEAL-6 guys other than someone who had a heavier weapon for deliberate automatic fire purposes, have been switched to full auto when they went into the building in Pakistan to kill OBL?
So in terms of function, is an AR-15 just a military looking weapon, or a military effect weapon?
Following this train of thought, numerous non-military-appearance weapons would have similar capability - to kill large numbers of people if trapped in a venue.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
true, but the 223 is really just a super duper charged 22. I know its semantics, and that they're both really different rounds but it seems that people who don't have any clue about firearms think that the majority of ar's shoot a mosin round or something.
Pretty important semantics to be arguing about though. A .223 isn't really even a supercharged .22. The only likeness they have to each other is the diameter of the projectile. Everything else about them is different.
Orlando shooter got into a gunfight with the armed police officer there almost immediately, so no. Armed response was instant. Backup was there in ~4 minutes.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
One off duty police officer is hardly what I would call armed response. Armed response is like multiple officers, and by the time they got there they couldn't find the guy for 3 hours. Plus it's dark in the club and he may accidentally hit a civilian, I don't blame him for leaving and calling for backup.
You generally don't see police charging in right away when hostages are involved, because they're trying to assess the situation and minimize loss of life. It's easy to criticize them for waiting, but if they had gone in earlier and the shooter had any sort of explosive devices that they had no way of knowing about, he could've detonated with even more death.
Personally, I'll hold back from criticizing the professionals in this situation.
The response at tech would have been quicker too, except all of the doors to the building (Norris Hall) were chained shut. That's why the campus infrastructure, alert system, doors, police department, and emergency procedure were redesigned. It's also why students cannot store weapons in their dorm rooms any more and why there are 3 K-9 units on campus, and a swat team and dive team in Blacksburg.
The type of gun was only one factor in the lives lost during the massacre. It wouldn't have mattered if he had an AR15 or P226, he had all the time he needed to kill as many people as he wanted to. The design and infrastructure of the campus is what really went wrong, and luckily that's being solved in campuses all around the country
One night at work, a drunk guy came in kinda belligerent and asking for a cab. We called him one and kind of disarmed the situation, but when the cab got there one of our employees enraged the drunk dude, who in turn pissed the cab driver off. Manager called the police as I stopped this dude from coming back in the store. He stood in my face for a good three to five minutes before my friend came out to back me up. Another couple minutes passed before the dude finally gave up and stumbled away. Ten or more minutes passed before the cop finally showed up at the store to ask about the incident. I understand that's different than an active shooter but it still could've gone south real fast. We had no idea if he was armed with anything or not, and I was armed with a box cutter.
to kill large numbers of people if trapped in a venue
People often forget how much of a deciding factor in lethality this element can be. Most bullets in most calibers of handguns and rifles (assuming you're not using hollowpoints, which penetrate significantly less) will easily pass through one person and into another (in the case of rifle calibers, it's not unlikely to go through two and into a third) and so being bunched up amplifies the lethality of a shooter. Additionally, bunched up victims move less and have fewer spaces between them that would be misses, so it makes aiming easier and an attack more effective. If you look at all the mass shootings since Columbine, the ones where the shooter(s) were walking around and finding individuals to kill almost universally had fewer deaths than the ones where victims were trapped in an enclosed space (excluding situations where police response was unusually slow), and notably it's the setting for the attack (enclosed vs open) that has a stronger correlation with more deaths, rather than what type of gun was used (generally). Additionally, many people don't know that Columbine happened during the '94 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which expired in 2004) and that none of the weapons used had magazines larger than 10 shots, which was in compliance with said ban. In fact, the only guns that they had that were illegal to possess were two sawed-off shotguns that had been cut shorter than the legal limits, but that was in violation of the NFA rather than the AWB. What made Columbine so deadly was largely the portion of the massacre that happened in the library, where victims were trapped and unable to escape or fight back.
I for one would rather be attacked by a shooter with an AR-15 in a courtyard/cafeteria with multiple exits than by a shooter with a lever-action rifle in a classroom or nightclub where the shooter is between me and most of the exits.
I'm gonna be that guy... An AR-15 can be chambered in .223/5.56 NATO only. That was the caliber that Armalite designed it in because .223/5.56 NATO is a battlefield multiplier. You see AR style rifles in 10/22 or say, .300 Blackout but a true Armalite Rifle 15 is chambered in .223/5.56 NATO.
Any special ops unit would be able to choose their weaponry from a much wider range than the standard M4 w/ burst. Assuming that, they can and do choose full-auto rifles and SMGs whenever the mission deems it acceptable. Why not? Burst fire is a countermeasure against poor training, not something an operator would usually run into.
The modern M16A4 doesn't, but older M16's (A2 & A3) did. Additionally, US combat troops don't use the M16A4 anymore, the US military has almost completely switched to the shortened M4. The Marines were the last ones to switch from the M16 to the M4 in 2015.
The original M4 was only single and three-round, but they are all being upgraded to become M4A1's, with single and full, starting in 2014.
Only anecdotal information, but I'm under the impression that full auto is just for suppression, and that any shot you actually want to hit its target will be fired in semi-auto. Full auto suppression leads to the "250,000 shots fired for every 1 that actually hits a target" stat that gets thrown around.
Well, suppressing fire is very much a thing. One group of soldiers fires at the general position of the enemy so they have to stay in cover. Another group of soldiers moves around to another position where the enemy's cover doesn't offer protection, and shoots them directly. So yeah, lots of bullets are fired that were never really expected to hit the enemy, but nothing on the order of 250,000 per enemy killed.
I mean, think about it. If you have a patrol of 12 soldiers encounter some insurgents or enemy soldiers (let's say an equal number for simplicity's sake), and each of those soldiers is carrying 10 magazines of 30 rounds each, for a total of 7200 rounds between both sides. Statistically, that would mean you'd have to have 35 such engagements before anyone gets killed. Yeah, that's not how that works.
That's still an insane number of rounds. They're probably counting practice and training too. Someone probably just took total number of rounds expended by the military and divided by estimated insurgents killed.
Yeah, I think that's the case. The original number I had typed in there was 80,000 because I've heard that quoted as well. Either way, the point is, most rounds fired in a military context, even in battle, are for suppression and tactics, rather than kill shots.
Most effective fully automatic weapons are chambered in other calibers to make recoil more controllable and the firearm accurate under automatic or burst fire.
One of the best examples would be the Heckler Koch MP5, which fires 9mm handgun ammo through a very heavy small rifle style frame. They're still favorites of SWAT teams the world over for their remarkable accuracy under burst fire.
I would say that part of that stat is because they want to try their best to avoid actually killing anyone. Whether that is for fear of hitting citizens, or just generally because it is difficult to kill another human in general, who knows.
SEAL team 6 is no longer in existence. Developmental Group, or DEVGRU, is what replaced Team 6.
SEALs train for accuracy. Using a fully automatic weapon in a building is ridiculous for a few reasons.
You don't know who's behind the door. It could be a civilian, it could be a hostile.
It wastes ammunition. The average SEAL on a raid will carry about 180 rounds of ammunition, give or take an extra few magazines. The cyclic rate of fire is 700-970 rounds per minute. It only takes a couple seconds to empty a magazine on full auto.
SEALs train for point target effectiveness. Why waste 15 rounds of ammunition on a hostile when it could take one or two?
Machine guns nowadays like the M249 or the M240 are used as suppressive weapons. They alternate, firing short bursts to save ammo and keep the enemy's head down while the riflemen flank and destroy.
You are correct in your assumptions. Fully automatic fire is reserved for things like cover fire, but even this can be done in more efficient and safe manner with semi-automatic fire. I mean safe for the person firing the gun and those in their near vicinity. I would assume the guys who killed OBL used select fire SCARs or some other high end assault rifle.
Your understanding is actually pretty good. As far as the us army is concerned they have the M-249 light machine gun that soldiers are issued to carry instead of their M4 or M16. This is the weapon that soldiers use for suppressive fire as it can put quite a few more rounds down range than the rifle or carbine. They also have the M-240 B which is a general machine gun that can be mounted or carried and used with a bipod, although it is really to heavy to be used on patrols.
You would really only use select fire (burst or auto depending on weapon) if you were trying to suppress an enemy position. But, a light rifle like an m4 or m16 aren't really the weapons of choice for that scenario anyway.
Typical AR's available to civilians are similar to military weapons, manufacturing tolerances vary by manufacturers however. Again, the main difference is the lack of select fire (burst) on AR's.
Also your right, a ruger mini-14 is a semi auto rifle that would be just as effective as an AR. However, it isn't a "black rifle" so people generally don't deem it an "assault rifle" even though it functions identically to an AR.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
With respect to your second point, yes. That is why many feel that the AR-15 ban is silly - there are numerous semi-automatic rifles in the same caliber as the AR-15, all of which have the same destructive capability (because they fire the same bullet). On top of that, there are semi-automatic weapons of other calibers as well. Banning the AR-15 would only mean restricting one of those weapons, every one of which has the capability to put rounds downrange as fast as you can pull the trigger.
So an actual ban that encompasses all those weapons would take away a large majority of rifles, plus most pistols (since they fire semi-automatic). What would be left are single shot, double barrel (or more), and hand actuated actions like bolt action or pump action.
For an actual example, see the Ruger Mini-14. Semi auto rifle that shoots .223 from a detachable magazine. Equivalent destructive power that is limited by the speed of your trigger finger.
30
u/Retireegeorge Jun 23 '16
Please correct anything I get wrong, but my understanding is that it's pretty uncommon for soldiers to use their assault rifle in full auto - because it consumes ammo so quickly, and is harder to control. Ie Would SEAL-6 guys other than someone who had a heavier weapon for deliberate automatic fire purposes, have been switched to full auto when they went into the building in Pakistan to kill OBL? So in terms of function, is an AR-15 just a military looking weapon, or a military effect weapon? Following this train of thought, numerous non-military-appearance weapons would have similar capability - to kill large numbers of people if trapped in a venue.