There is truly no argument about it. Amongst the ignorati the gun banners like to cite the super speed and violent striking energy of the 100 pound weakling amongst rifle cartridges such as the four.45 NATO.
On balance, the five.56 NATO is far closer to a .22 brief than the .375 H&H magnum that would reside up to the gun banners describe it as getting. So why not set up a bigger magazine and rebarrel the action to take the 400 pound gorilla of a significant game cartridge:
There are 3 motives, really. two boxes, forty rounds, of .375 ammo tends to make a fairly respectable load for a man. Te military desires every single rifleman to carry a couple of days, 400 or so rounds, of ammunition for their “battle rifle.” Anything that the run of the mill recruit would have a trouble with.
Subsequent, in spite of the Democrat’s claims, battle rifles are not produced to kill, they are mde to wound. It requires quite a few occasions as substantially of an enemies sources to have a tendency a wounded man than to replace a dead soldier with a new recruit. The object is to do the most harm to an enemy doable by wounding the enemy, not killing them.
Third there are sensible limits to magazine capacity. For the .375 that size magazine would hold maybe a dozen rounds whilst the five.56 NATO magazine holds three=, placing soldiers in a position to respond to enemy fire a substantially higher percentage of the time.
And ultimately, there is the smaller matter of recoil. “Kick,” as some individuals describe it. A maximum load for a .375 or a “10 Guage goose gun” can be as breat as 50 pounds of recoil. With cartridges like that, the initially shot might be aimed at a target, but the second shot will be aimed at the sky and fall nicely beyond the line of battle.
Even the 30-06 that was our typical battle rifle cartridge that took us via WWII and the milder .308 Winchester proved to have much more recoil that a soldier could manage in much more than “one shot at a time” mode.
The NATO version of the .308 had about 10 foot pounds of recoil, nd at a moderate eight rounds per second would beat the rifleman’s shoulder up with 80 foot pouns of recoil a second, whilst the Ar lookalike, the M-16 hits the shoulder with four fppt [pimds pf recpo; [er sjpt amd os cpmtrp;;ab;e bu am prdomaru ji,am. a f
So the ARmalite Pattern 15 Sport Utility Rifle s strongly resembles the fully automatic M-16 Battle Rifle, but the AR-15 was designed for sporting and agricultural uses, while the M-16 is strictly a battle rifle. An “assault weapon,” to quote the gun banners.
What is the difference? It is easier to say what is the same. The barrel and and the “stock furniture are either the same or very similar. But the entire fire control system is different,. can one be converted to the other?
Strictly speaking, if you have the machine shop for it, you could reproduce the fire control system but drilled to fit the AR-19 “lower receiver”. But that would be more than a little spendy. $70,000 for the equipment in 1993, close to $200,000 now.
So why could not a civilian styled AR-15 be made? It could be, and molds for the plastic “stock and furniture” have gotten to the point a medium sized injection molding company could probably afford to do it if there was a demand for it.
But the military styling and hard to damage stock and fittings suit the youing men who learn to hit what they aim at on M=16;s. the AR-15 feels just like mama’s welcoming arms. Just like the one they trained on at Fort Whatsisname.
That creates a natural market for the AR, and an even larger mrket for the more powerful AK-47. One that goes deep enough on the need side that it wouild make some 30 million