The AR platform is no longer lethal enough for the Military.

[AndyS]

Meet the NGSW, Next Generation Squad Weapon. The contract has been awarded and delivery is slowly beginning. If you want one the civilian version is already available to the public. In excess of $2000 a copy sales are slow but once the military contract pays for the tooling and R&D it should drop to AR levels.

The bullet is ~20% larger and the powder charge is increased to produce the same muzzle velocity of the smaller 5.56 NATO, 3000 feet per second. Improvements are an increased range (the smaller lighter 5.56 tends to bounce off some surfaces after ~100m) and the ability to penetrate the highest level ceramic body armor. Weight and portability match that of the AR platform.



I'm posting this with a simple question for the gun rightists here. Given the lethality of the AR15 and it's ascension to the gun of choice for mass shooters is there some level of lethality that should be with held from the public at large? At what point does the ability do destroy human life need to be restricted?

[MiHale]

1. Should not even be a wisp of a thought to release a civilian version...

Oh I forgot PROFITS OVER MURDER.

How stupid could I be?

[2naSalit]

4. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[keithbvadu2]

5. To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry profits and political

To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry profits and political donations.

[mitch96]

6. The military industrial complex and their lobby need Need NEED their profits. Got to pay the share holders, right?

Follow the money. People don't need an AR..
m

[hack89]

19. ARs in this caliber have been available for civilian sales for decades

When the military looks for a new bullet, they don't just invent one. They look at the civilian market and determine which one will work best for them. Them may make minor modifications but it is a myth that military ammunition is fundamentally different or more lethal then civilian ammunition.

[KPN]

2. Extremely troubling to me and I'm sure the vast majority

both here at DU and nationwide that this question even occurs or has to be asked.

Alas, it’s a legitimate question.

[The Polack MSgt]

3. The increased power cartridge is an answer to the proliferation of body armor in conflict zones

Against regular civilians, there is no real difference between the calibers used in these rifles.

The 5.56 is still super effective at mangling unarmored humans.

A new battle rifle is no reason to let up on the push to limit access to what we are facing now - Crazies with rifles that have high-capacity magazines of any caliber.

[TomSlick]

7. True but the new round would be helpful in killing police wearing body armor.

You know, for those law abiding citizens that need to kill cops.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. Most police body armor already get shredded by rifles

Only SWAT units typically wear rifle resistant body armor. The soft armor used by most police officers are only rated for handgun rounds. Rifles require plates.

[brush]

8. Bring back the assault weapons ban. Australia's has been very effective.

The text below is from WAPO.

Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting since the gun buyback in 1996.
The analysis, by Simon Chapman at the University of Sydney and colleagues, found that there were 13 mass shootings in the 17 years prior to the passage of the National Firearms Agreement. Since then, there hasn't been a single one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/22/what-happened-when-australia-actually-did-something-to-stop-gun-violence/


The text below here is from Science Alert.

There's been a 22-year-long absence of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 gun reforms were put in place. Now a study has shown that the odds this absence is purely due to chance are one in 200,000.
https://www.sciencealert.com/20-year-review-of-australia-s-gun-laws-has-one-clear-finding-they-work.

We somehow have to get republicans off the NRA's payroll so they will no longer have incentives to stop sensible gun control and red flag laws to pass.

[TexasDem69]

13. Need to get the public behind this

There’s not enough support to make it happen

[hack89]

10. Bullets like that have been availablefor decades for AR rifles

6.8mm and 6.5mm rifles have been popular for a very long time for hunting and target shooting.

In some states it is illegal to hunt deer with 5.56mm because they lack the power needed to cleanly bring down large game.

[Fla_Democrat]

11. 30 MM

The GAU-8 Avenger should not be available over the counter.

[ManiacJoe]

14. Well, physically it has never been available over the counter.

Mostly because you need a crane to move it.

[Fla_Democrat]

16. True, which is why it should be restricted....

True, which is why it should be restricted....

It was an honest answer, to the honest question.

At what point does the ability do destroy human life need to be restricted?

I still think it should be available, but no counter could support it. It would make a hell of a technical, but would have to use a 10 wheeler.

[Angleae]

17. You aren't kidding. That thing is bigger than my car.

[HAB911]

12. Isn't is amazing

that police forces across the land are anti gun legislation? Many aspects of our culture revolve around a suicide cult, IMO.

[yagotme]

15. Hmmm. Lethal, military-type weapons from the military:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_model_1873
1873 trapdoor rifle. 45-70 black powder. If it doesn't penetrate your vest, you will wish it would have. .45 ca, 405 gr bullet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krag%E2%80%93J%C3%B8rgensen
1892 Krag bolt rifle. .30-40 Krag. .308 220 gr FMJ bullet. It will penetrate your soft vest, the vest of the guy behind you, and give a real thump to the 3rd guy in line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield
1903 Springfield bolt rifle. .30-06. .308 150gr FMJ spitzer bullet. See penetration results for Krag. (Also the go-to hunting round in this country since the early 1900's, still used as a "yardstick" of performance today.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
1936 M-1 Garand semi-auto rifle. .30-06. See 1903 for other info.
(During same time, 1941 Johnson semi-auto. 10 rds .30-06.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
1959 M-14 select fire rifle. 7.62 NATO/.308. 147 gr FMJ spitzer bullet. Near same as .30-06 ballistically. Here's where things start splitting: The M-14 was designed as a select fire weapon. The civilian M1A is not. Same profile, same cartridge, but no fun switch. 20 round magazine is STANDARD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
1964 M-16 select fire rifle. 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem. Initially, 55 gr FMJ spitzer bullet. Penetrates first layer soft armor easily. M-16 designed as select fire weapon, later AR-15's, not. Same split as M-14/M1A. 20 rd magazine and 30 rd magazine are STANDARD.

All these weapon systems, except the last 2, have been surplused to civilian sales throughout history. You can still buy an M-1 through the CMP program today. ALL of them defeat soft armor readily (perhaps excepting the trapdoor, but you would wish it would have. We're talking sledgehammer effects, here.) The US has always had ready availability of weapons, mail order even, until 1968. Why is it we're only having real problems the last 20 years or so? Perhaps it's another problem, one not related directly to weapons. Maybe the DESIRE/WILL to kill has changed. Mind altering drugs, psychotropics, etc., well, alter the mind. I bet a LOT of the mass shooters have/had been taking pshyco's for awhile. Change my mind???

[SYFROYH]

18. The 5.56 AR design is no longer a weapon of war.

To answer your question we have drawn lines regarding restrictions at rifles over .50 caliber and machine guns (and a few other novelty designs).

[pwb]

20. The M-16 was made for spraying the jungle.

I would not want to be hit by one at 100 meters. Any size round bounces off things. Even 50 Cal.

This new weapon resembles the AK-47 IMO. Not bad.

[yagotme]

22. No, the Air Force pushed the M-16.

The slightly flatter shooting cartridge was deemed better for airfield defense. It was going through it's trial paces before we were fully committed in Viet Nam.

[pwb]

23. You must know eh?

You're in the gun forum. Any link? It replaced theM 14 which was too big and rose up too much on full auto. M-16 was made for the jungle and I will stick with that.

[yagotme]

24. Google, much?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#:~:text=The%20original%20M16%20rifle%20was%20a%205.56%C3%9745mm%20automatic,to%20become%20the%20US%20military%27s%20standard%20service%20rifle.

In 1958, the Army's Combat Developments Experimentation Command ran experiments with small squads in combat situations using the M14, AR-15, and another rifle designed by Winchester. The resulting study recommended adopting a lightweight rifle like the AR-15. In response, the Army declared that all rifles and machine guns should use the same ammunition, and ordered full production of the M14.[23] However, advocates for the AR-15 gained the attention of Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay. After testing the AR-15 with the ammunition manufactured by Remington that Armalite and Colt recommended, the Air Force declared that the AR-15 was its 'standard model' and ordered 8,500 rifles and 8.5 million rounds.

Yes, the M-14 was difficult to control in full auto. Yes, it was heavy, and the ammo was heavy. Above excerpt proves my point, though.

[pwb]

25. So the Air Force ordered some?

My M 16 in the Jungle was much better than the M 14. We never called our weapon An AR. It was the M 16 back then. The M 16 Assault weapon. You go ahead and feel right. Even after the Army did the study?

[yagotme]

26. They ordered the first ones, yes.

And the initial designation was AR (there are examples out there marked AR-15 that were in military inventory). When it was fully adopted, it became the M-16. And I have heard several vets claim when they were offered the choice to switch over, they kept the 14. They preferred well aimed, more powerful rounds to "spray and pray".

And, if you had actually read the article excerpt, YES, AFTER THE ARMY DID THE STUDY!

You go ahead and feel right.

Thanks. I will, since I am.

[pwb]

27. Well you corrected me.

But only in your head. I said the M 16 was Made for spraying in the jungle? That is it.. I did not say who made it. It was good for that purpose... You came up with all this other shit. No, is not a good word to lead off with it sounds pukey. I carried a M 16 24-7 for a full year. Maybe you can find an article telling me how to clean it?

[yagotme]

28. "No, is not a good word to lead off with it sounds pukey."

Better than this comment: "You go ahead and feel right." Snark much? I posted a link, which you asked for, even pulled an excerpt that answered pretty much all your questions, yet you still disbelieve me. Not in my head, but online, which is where you were perfectly capable of looking, also.

I said the M 16 was Made for spraying in the jungle? That is it.

The M-16 was developed/made/accepted by the Air Force BEFORE we were in the jungle. Not "made for it". Therefore, your premise is not correct. (Didn't use "No" that time, hope it helped.)

Maybe you can find an article telling me how to clean it?

Here ya go. Google, again, is your friend:

https://www.military.com/history/original-m16-manual-was-vietnam-war-comic-book.html

Order one now so you can clean yours:
https://www.amazon.com/M16A1-Rifle-Operation-Preventive-Maintenance/dp/1616088648

[pwb]

29. O K

You are a good Googler. You are the winner. See ya.

[yagotme]

30. You're welcome.

[pwb]

31. I will read your Journal for more enlightenment.

?

[yagotme]

33. Well, that won't take long... nt

[pwb]

34. No

Hmm, I was so disappointed. I will look for your guidance though on other posts. Peace to you.

[yagotme]

35. Sorry to disappoint, as I don't use the Journal feature.

Have any other questions re: firearms, I'll be happy to answer.

[pwb]

36. Maybe I should ask questions

because I haven't learned anything from you yet.

[yagotme]

37. You have asked questions.

I have answered them. You don't like the answers, so you put your fingers in your ears. I can't help that. It is becoming apparent that you DON'T want to learn anything from me, for whatever reason. Because I lean pro-gun? Therefore, I don't have anything meaningful or useful to say, or just not worth listening to??? Only you can answer that.

[pwb]

38. My reply to the O P was a statement not a question.

You brought up all the questions? I am sorry that you feel that I need to learn anything from you. If you think everybody should think like you then you are in the wrong party.

[yagotme]

39. You made a statement. I refuted it. The following are questions you asked me:

You must know eh?
Any link?
So the Air Force ordered some?
Even after the Army did the study?
I said the M 16 was Made for spraying in the jungle?
Maybe you can find an article telling me how to clean it?

I count 6 questions right there directed to me, which I answered or refuted.. Therefore, you are incorrect.

I am sorry that you feel that I need to learn anything from you.

Well, you snarkily challenged me, so I did:

Maybe I should ask questions...because I haven't learned anything from you yet.

If you think everybody should think like you then you are in the wrong party.

Where on earth did I say that? I was posting historical, factual information. If you think I was wrong, take it up with Wiki, and prove it to them so they can change it.

If you're trying to tick me off, and get an alert, you're going to have to try harder than this.

[pwb]

40. Nobody has come to either of our aid so

best to end it. PWB out. Merry Holidays to you!!!

[yagotme]

41. And to you!!!

[The Mouth]

21. Absolutely should be on sale anywhere and everywhere

As with any other firearm that has ever been manufactured, it belongs in my gun closet and on sale at Walmart.

[Turbineguy]

32. That will come in handy for Trump's

Right-wing death squads.