Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ALL semiautomatics fire one round for each trigger pull. As you can see that is not an unlimited rate of fire.
Even fully automatic firearms run up against a limit and the mechanics of the automatic firing mechanism and its cycle time is what limits a fully auto firearm.
A semiautomatic is limited to how fast a person can pull the trigger.
You might be able to pull the trigger faster than me you might not. But over time people tend to fatigue therefore the max rate of trigger pull is not maintained
And in general if you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can you will have little or no accuracy
Yes, and sand can only be loaded one scoop at the time. These pictures are loading sand at the exact same rate, right?
View attachment 178841
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
I'd have to see a link to show that. If it is true, the time difference is miniscule, and of no practical use.
In fact, since a tiny part of the force propelling the bullet down the barrel is bled off to work the action, it has until the bullet leaves the barrel to move the bolt completely to the rear (a spring pushing it back forward). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the force of the propellant will flow to the path of least resistance (the empty tube that is the barrel).
Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns
How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels
Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed
Are all semi-auto rifles capable of unlimited rate of fire, and only limited by how fast the trigger is pulled? Are all semi-auto rifles capable of accurate fire for extended periods of time?
ALL semiautomatics fire one round for each trigger pull. As you can see that is not an unlimited rate of fire.
Even fully automatic firearms run up against a limit and the mechanics of the automatic firing mechanism and its cycle time is what limits a fully auto firearm.
A semiautomatic is limited to how fast a person can pull the trigger.
You might be able to pull the trigger faster than me you might not. But over time people tend to fatigue therefore the max rate of trigger pull is not maintained
And in general if you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can you will have little or no accuracy
Yes, and sand can only be loaded one scoop at the time. These pictures are loading sand at the exact same rate, right?
View attachment 178841
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
Really?
You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.
How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?
I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.
There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.
And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.
And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Perhaps you care to give a few specs on that gun? I'm far from an expert, but I know there are lots more reasons than caliber for why a rifle might be effective for a particular purpose.
The reason the .223 has become the dominant caliber is because the ammo is lighter and in fact less lethal than previous military rifles. The idea being that by wounding rather than killing enemy soldiers you force them to use more resources.
The ability to carry more ammo is accurate. I'm not sure about the "it wounds the soldier so it takes more men out of combat" reason.
One of the biggest was that we were looking to have a common round with our allies.
Then why not the 7.62 NATO?
States can do as they wishIf they wanted the right nondependent, they just would have saidA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.....
Excellent. You found the dependent clause that provided one justification for the right to exist; but that doesn't change the fact that the right belongs to the PEOPLE, not just a militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......PERIOD
That IS the independent clause and exactly what it means.
The need for guns to support a well regulated militia is well established
And the ownership of firearms was NOT limited to a "well regulated militia."
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns
How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels
Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed
What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?
Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?
Yes, and sand can only be loaded one scoop at the time. These pictures are loading sand at the exact same rate, right?
View attachment 178841
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
I'd have to see a link to show that. If it is true, the time difference is miniscule, and of no practical use.
In fact, since a tiny part of the force propelling the bullet down the barrel is bled off to work the action, it has until the bullet leaves the barrel to move the bolt completely to the rear (a spring pushing it back forward). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the force of the propellant will flow to the path of least resistance (the empty tube that is the barrel).
Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.
I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.
I hate to tell you thos but that is a FACT and not something pulled out of thin air as what you post seems to be.ALL semiautomatics fire one round for each trigger pull. As you can see that is not an unlimited rate of fire.
Even fully automatic firearms run up against a limit and the mechanics of the automatic firing mechanism and its cycle time is what limits a fully auto firearm.
A semiautomatic is limited to how fast a person can pull the trigger.
You might be able to pull the trigger faster than me you might not. But over time people tend to fatigue therefore the max rate of trigger pull is not maintained
And in general if you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can you will have little or no accuracy
Yes, and sand can only be loaded one scoop at the time. These pictures are loading sand at the exact same rate, right?
View attachment 178841
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
Really?
You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.
How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?
I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.
There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.
And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.
And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?
See? You still spout about one trigger pull and one bullet as if that somehow proved your point. Good little gun nut, aren't you?
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns
How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels
Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed
What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?
Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?
If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate
We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
The anti gunners want them too....
Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns
How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels
Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed
What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?
Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?
If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate
We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast
States can do as they wishIf they wanted the right nondependent, they just would have saidExcellent. You found the dependent clause that provided one justification for the right to exist; but that doesn't change the fact that the right belongs to the PEOPLE, not just a militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......PERIOD
That IS the independent clause and exactly what it means.
The need for guns to support a well regulated militia is well established
And the ownership of firearms was NOT limited to a "well regulated militia."
States can do as they wishIf they wanted the right nondependent, they just would have saidExcellent. You found the dependent clause that provided one justification for the right to exist; but that doesn't change the fact that the right belongs to the PEOPLE, not just a militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......PERIOD
That IS the independent clause and exactly what it means.
The need for guns to support a well regulated militia is well established
And the ownership of firearms was NOT limited to a "well regulated militia."
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
I'd have to see a link to show that. If it is true, the time difference is miniscule, and of no practical use.
In fact, since a tiny part of the force propelling the bullet down the barrel is bled off to work the action, it has until the bullet leaves the barrel to move the bolt completely to the rear (a spring pushing it back forward). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the force of the propellant will flow to the path of least resistance (the empty tube that is the barrel).
Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.
I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.
OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?
I hate to tell you thos but that is a FACT and not something pulled out of thin air as what you post seems to be.Yes, and sand can only be loaded one scoop at the time. These pictures are loading sand at the exact same rate, right?
View attachment 178841
What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
Really?
You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.
How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?
I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.
There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.
And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.
And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?
See? You still spout about one trigger pull and one bullet as if that somehow proved your point. Good little gun nut, aren't you?
So tell me how much faster can an AR fire than any other .223 caliber semiauto on the market?
You tell me that the AR can fire faster than any other semiauto rifle of the same caliber so prove it
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
I'd have to see a link to show that. If it is true, the time difference is miniscule, and of no practical use.
In fact, since a tiny part of the force propelling the bullet down the barrel is bled off to work the action, it has until the bullet leaves the barrel to move the bolt completely to the rear (a spring pushing it back forward). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the force of the propellant will flow to the path of least resistance (the empty tube that is the barrel).
Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.
I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.
OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?
There are a number of reasons for the military picking the M16. The caliber was one factor. The ammo is much lighter, so the infantry soldier can carry more rounds. Also, the gun was much lighter than previous US military arms. The M14, that it replaced, weighs 9.3 lbs empty. The M16 weighs only 6.37 lbs empty. The smaller caliber made the lighter rifle work well.
The full auto capability was a critical part of the rifle being chosen. It would not even have been tested had it not been capable of that.
The .223/5.56mm cartridge was the result of a search by the US Continental Army Command to replace the 7.62x51mm cartridge.
The criteria were as follows:
- 22 Caliber
- Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]
- Rifle weight 6 lbs
- Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
- Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
- Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
- Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
- Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition
- Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine.
I hate to tell you thos but that is a FACT and not something pulled out of thin air as what you post seems to be.What's loading got to do with the fact that ALL semiautomatics only fire one round per trigger pull?
To use your sandbox analogy/
Say you pour sand into a funnel that only lets one grain of sand through every time you push a button
Would that sand move though the funnel at a faster rate if the funnel was being filled with a table spoon or a gallon jug?
Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.
Really?
You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.
How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?
I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.
There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.
And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.
And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?
See? You still spout about one trigger pull and one bullet as if that somehow proved your point. Good little gun nut, aren't you?
So tell me how much faster can an AR fire than any other .223 caliber semiauto on the market?
You tell me that the AR can fire faster than any other semiauto rifle of the same caliber so prove it
I asked for a link to back up that claim. Have yet to see one.
The military thinks it is.
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Very often that is the case.
In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.
The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....
Again with the " They're coming to get all our guns!!!!!!! " craziness. Grow up dummy.
Then tell me what is the reason for banning one particular semiautomatic rifle when all other semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber perform exactly the same as the banned rifle.
The only reason to start with one particular rifle is to expand the ban to all other semiautomatic rifles
SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does
and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16
Very often that is the case.
In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.
The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....
Again with the " They're coming to get all our guns!!!!!!! " craziness. Grow up dummy.
Then tell me what is the reason for banning one particular semiautomatic rifle when all other semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber perform exactly the same as the banned rifle.
The only reason to start with one particular rifle is to expand the ban to all other semiautomatic rifles
Yes. Answered honestly, this question reveals it. If you ban the AR-15, Are the kids safer in school? If you can't honestly answer yes, then banning the AR-15 Is just a measure designed to make some feel warm and fuzzy because they got one over on the gun owners.
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....
Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....
Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
Two reasons,
The recoil of the .30-06 round caused soldiers to tense up prior to firing, so they needed a far less powerful round. Secondly they wanted a "civilized" round that would pass through cleanly. This was due to the horror of WWII
I'm asking you.And you do not see the stupidity of banning a .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle for cosmetic reasons alone?
There is no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic .223 rifle other than cosmetics
Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?
The military model is a different gun.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.
Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun
any different from this gun
Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.
If you knew anything about the subject you would know this
You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.
AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire
That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.
If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded
Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.
I'd have to see a link to show that. If it is true, the time difference is miniscule, and of no practical use.
In fact, since a tiny part of the force propelling the bullet down the barrel is bled off to work the action, it has until the bullet leaves the barrel to move the bolt completely to the rear (a spring pushing it back forward). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the force of the propellant will flow to the path of least resistance (the empty tube that is the barrel).
Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.
I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.
OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?
There are a number of reasons for the military picking the M16. The caliber was one factor. The ammo is much lighter, so the infantry soldier can carry more rounds. Also, the gun was much lighter than previous US military arms. The M14, that it replaced, weighs 9.3 lbs empty. The M16 weighs only 6.37 lbs empty. The smaller caliber made the lighter rifle work well.
The full auto capability was a critical part of the rifle being chosen. It would not even have been tested had it not been capable of that.
The .223/5.56mm cartridge was the result of a search by the US Continental Army Command to replace the 7.62x51mm cartridge.
The criteria were as follows:
- 22 Caliber
- Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]
- Rifle weight 6 lbs
- Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
- Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
- Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
- Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
- Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition
- Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine.
So all the things listed were given, and a necessary requirement for which ever gun was chosen. Obviously there is something about that particular design that makes it a better human killing tool than all the other candidates. I don't think they flipped a coin to decide. Doesn't that prove the gun nut claim that all other guns of that caliber are just the same is bullshit? I trust the military's judgment that they chose the best gun for combat.
