AR-15 v. Handgun

Many of you, especially my American friends, will have polarised views on the subject of gun control.

You will have mentioned the systems for gun control in other Nations – Japan, Australia, UK, for example, and noted the effect that this type of control has had on deaths caused by firearms.

We could also mention that Canadians also have a multitude of guns per person and yet they seem to keep their murderous frenzies in check.

Perhaps a closer look at the difference between the Canadian ethos and the American psyche might be in order.

Sadly, I do not have sufficient information or statistics to be able to adequately comment on either of these.

What I do know is that the US media, including films and television appear to have scant regard for the value of human life. People, especially ‘henchmen’, seem to be killed in a cavalier fashion in almost every film that we see.

That is the thing here – “every film that we see”. Note ‘we’. These films are seen by everyone else. Canadians, British, Malaysians, Nepalese – everyone else. But nobody else has these murderous attacks carried out by youths on their peers. (South Africa notwithstanding)

Perhaps you will allow me to inject one small observation into this argument.

I understand that the Second Amendment does not actually say that every American is entitled to carry/use a firearm but, be that as it may, we shall press on with my primary case.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]

In many cases, if not all, of shootings in the US a gun called an AR-15 is quoted as being the instrument of death. Apart from the fact that it is easy to fit what is termed a ‘Bump Stock’ to these weapons, which will facilitate a more rapid fire from this semi-automatic gun, they can also carry a large capacity magazine (HCM: High Capacity Magazine).

'Bumpstock'

'Surefire' HCM Magazine

In tandem these additions to the standard assault rifle make it even more lethal than it was in the first place.

More lethal? Well, yes. Sorry about that. Perhaps we should do a small comparison.

A ‘handgun’ has a short barrel and a limited muzzle velocity. The Browning 9mm (roughly .38” for those unfamiliar with guns) has a relatively high muzzle velocity for a semi-automatic pistol.

Browning 9mm Semi-Automatic Pistol

Note that the muzzle velocity is the speed at which the bullet leaves the gun and is not the same as the speed with which the projectile hits its victim(s). The striking velocity will depend upon weather conditions, range and bullet shape. Do not expect a ‘Remington’ Sabre .45” or ‘Hornady’ 9mm bullet, both hollow point, to reach their targets at the same speed compared with a ‘normal’ bullet.

 Remington Sabre Bullet

Hornady 9mm Bullet

A standard round from a Browning 9mm at reasonably close range will pass straight through a human target without inflicting lethal damage unless it strikes the brain, heart or aorta. Most organs will be relatively unscathed. Considerable pain exists, no doubt, but the victim is likely to survive.

During the ‘Confrontation’ between Indonesia and Malaysia, back in the sixties (1963-1966), an Indonesian was shot repeatedly with a Browning pistol but still managed to inflict serious damage with a parang (machete). The Indonesian died but he did have nine rounds pass straight through his body – one of which nicked his heart and killed him. The slashed person required a multitude of stitches from which he earned the soubriquet ‘Quilt’, but he survived.

If we turn our attention to the AR-15, or any other assault rifle or carbine we should find that the muzzle velocity is very much higher. 

This velocity will maintain for a considerable distance – indeed the IA weapons have a relatively flat trajectory for the first 600 yards. The International Accuracy AX-50 ejects a standard M33 bullet at around 2700 feet/second. Compare this with the Browning pistol at 1100 fps. Almost three times the velocity.

Colt AR-15 (Civil Version of the M16)

International Accuracy (IA) Rifles

It is almost the difference between being punched by me and being smacked in the face by Mike Tyson!!

A round from an assault rifle, like an AR-15, will not pass cleanly through the victim, especially at close range.

The shock wave generated by the bullet will punch through the body and rip everything around it to shreds. A liver will not have a nice clean, but painful, hole through it - the liver will cease to exist as a functioning organ.

The survival prospects of anyone hit by an assault rifle round are limited at the very best. The likelihood of dying from a wound is extremely high.

This is why we hear of children being rushed to hospital but ‘not making it’ even after considerable time on the operating table.

What can a Doctor or Surgeon do? The body has been ravaged so severely that he, or she, can only stand there in hopeless frustration and watch that person, that child, die.

I have no objection to anyone having a gun. I endorse the idea of having a gun for protection should I live somewhere where such a precaution is required.

An assault rifle is not an ideal weapon for home or personal protection.

My choice for home protection would be a Savage seven shot repeater 12 bore (12 gauge for Americans) shotgun (US: scatter gun).

Savage Pumpgun

Personal protection? Hard to beat a Glock 21. 9mm/.38” pistols just do not have the stopping power that a good .45” does. But even a Walther or Beretta .22” or a Browning ‘Five-seveN’ will make an attacker think twice.

Glock 21

'Five-seveN'

Summary? Keep guns but get rid of assault weapons that have no place in civilian life.

Just my two penn’orth.