Open Bar: We're going to build a bar, and make the drinks pay for it!

[Cain]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I thought the whole point of the M16 was to be non-lethal:  shoot em in the legs so you also take out a few more, to care for the one that got shot.

 Oh yeah. Guns are totally non-fucking-lethal and designed to just maim the other side a bit.
 

The logic was for Vietnam, against Guerilla warfare, two birds one stone.  I was surprised by how small the M16's calibre was, compared to say an AK.

 

I am saving this entire conversation. 

[minuspace]

I thought the whole point of the M16 was to be non-lethal:  shoot em in the legs so you also take out a few more, to care for the one that got shot.

 Oh yeah. Guns are totally non-fucking-lethal and designed to just maim the other side a bit.
 

The logic was for Vietnam, against Guerilla warfare, two birds one stone.  I was surprised by how small the M16's calibre was, compared to say an AK.

 

I am saving this entire conversation. 

LuciferX: Master Tactician.

[minuspace]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

[minuspace]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

[Don Coyote]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

[Suu]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

You've never actually fired a .22, have you? They bounce off of fucking kneecaps. M16 ammunition does not bounce off of kneecaps.

[Don Coyote]

It's almost as if none of this information is easily obtainable from the internet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

Yes, the tumble is the gory bit.  But the longer barrel of the M16 also means more of the propellant burns, meaning the round goes a hell of a lot faster, which drastically increases the maximum range of the bullet AND increases the tumble effect (gruesomely known as "putting some English on it").

And the tumble can kind of suck, because I've had rounds hit twigs and go spinning off into the blue.  But when it hits a human, the tumble makes it follow the bones, so you hit the guy in the leg, and it maybe comes out of his head.

[Cain]

I think I'm going to make a new policy that, when students try to convince me to let a guest of the opposite sex, late at night, come up to their room, to say to them "so the genital herpes cleared up?  Awesome" and give them two thumbs up.

[Cain]

I may be kind of a jerk.

[Suu]

I think I'm going to make a new policy that, when students try to convince me to let a guest of the opposite sex, late at night, come up to their room, to say to them "so the genital herpes cleared up?  Awesome" and give them two thumbs up.

 

Even better, to catch said partner in the hall or such, and go, "Tell so-and-so that the pharmacist called, his/her Valtrex (or insert UK version here) scrip is ready to be picked up tomorrow."

[The Wizard Joseph]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

Yes, the tumble is the gory bit.  But the longer barrel of the M16 also means more of the propellant burns, meaning the round goes a hell of a lot faster, which drastically increases the maximum range of the bullet AND increases the tumble effect (gruesomely known as "putting some English on it").

And the tumble can kind of suck, because I've had rounds hit twigs and go spinning off into the blue.  But when it hits a human, the tumble makes it follow the bones, so you hit the guy in the leg, and it maybe comes out of his head.

I think there's a similar term in pool for the kind of spin that can ride a rail or directly effect cue ball position after its first strike.

Your bone would be the rail and your flesh the "air" it's tearing through. Nice.

I always liked the term, "putting some English on it". Now there's something more!

[Don Coyote]

The M-16's calibre is the NATO standard, replacing the  7.62×51mm standard from the 1950s because with improvements to weapon rates of fire, they were responsible for too much recoil and not taking advantage of the improved automatic rate of fire.

At the expense of killing-capacity/range:

A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

An M4 is not an M16.  It has a shorter barrel.  Do I need to explain why that is important in a firearm?

You may gain some accuracy, however, the round being fired is still essentially the size of a .22.  What surprised me is how they explain most of the bullet's damage coming from how it "tumbles" through it's target.

Yes, the tumble is the gory bit.  But the longer barrel of the M16 also means more of the propellant burns, meaning the round goes a hell of a lot faster, which drastically increases the maximum range of the bullet AND increases the tumble effect (gruesomely known as "putting some English on it").

And the tumble can kind of suck, because I've had rounds hit twigs and go spinning off into the blue.  But when it hits a human, the tumble makes it follow the bones, so you hit the guy in the leg, and it maybe comes out of his head.

I think there's a similar term in pool for the kind of spin that can ride a rail or directly effect cue ball position after its first strike.

Your bone would be the rail and your flesh the "air" it's tearing through. Nice.

I always liked the term, "putting some English on it". Now there's something more!

Shit like this always makes me uncomfortable when civilians say it.