You have to remember that my core argument all along has been that describing a round as .22 calibre in a sporting rifle will for a British viewer suggest .22LR rather than .223/5.56mm, and so that is my primary comparison. If you look at the way this thread unfolded it was put to me that the murder rifle was in fact a .22LR,, even though the expert concerned does not seem to realise that Bushmaster don't currently make a version of the M4 Patrolman (the murder weapon) in .22LR. In fact there is a small difference in calibre, so that a .22LR (actual diameter .223 and not .224) fired in a 5.56mm with conversion kit (e.g. SA80) is slightly less accurate.
To take the 2nd last comment, my point that the 5.56mm/.223 cartridge is said to be quite a destructive round is countered with the question about 7.62mm. I wouldn't want to be shot with either round thank you, but at the time when most of the modern armies shifted to the smaller calibre ammunition decision makers did look at some evidence that the smaller round might inflict severe wounds. I think myself that there is evidence pointing both ways, but here is an example of a widely-cited study.
Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1982;508:211-21.
Wounding effects of two types of bullets on soft tissue of dogs.
Liu YQ, Wu BJ, Xie GP, Chen ZC, Tang CG, Wang ZG.
Abstract
'The wounding effects of 5.56 and 7.62 mm calibre bullets, hitting on soft tissues of 130 dogs at various velocities ranging from 513 to 933 m/s have been studied. The injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was more severe than that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. This is due to the difference in ballistic behavior between the two types of bullets. The wound caused by 5.56 mm bullet was characterized by a trumpet-shaped channel with large defect. The skin around the exit was torn away and its shape was irregular, which, however, occurred only when the tumbling and the breaking of the bullet existed. High-speed X-ray photograph demonstrated that in 5.56 mm bullet group, temporary cavity was much larger and lasted longer. Splashing phenomenon could be seen at the exit and the fragments of the bullet could be found somewhere. Based on the comparisons the amount of absorbed energy, the volume of wound channel, the frequency of developing complex wound and the ratio of dimensions between the entrance and the exit, it proved that the injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was several to dozens of time as severe as that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. Nevertheless, wound extents by both types of bullet would be similar if the inflicting bullet did not show any significant tumbling, breaking or deformation.'
Please don't rehash the point about recent reports from the Middle East of rounds passing right through targets without incapacitating them: I know that already and it is not critical to the argument that the civilian AR-15 with NATO 5.56 ammunition fired on semi behaves similarly to a military M4/M16 on semi (and yes of course the M4 carbine has less range than the longer barrelled version).
Right through this discussion members have conveniently forgotten that many of the points I have responded to were raised in the first instance by them. For example, the counter to my point that military M4s only have semi and burst modes, are not full auto, and so aren't as different from civilian versions as the officer in a cited Youtube video says, was to mention the GUU-5/P. But when I point out that this is an exotic hybrid beast made of re-cycled parts I am accused of going off topic. The source of the info on the selector is the webpage link (why I said 'seems') - I don't think the last poster read it properly.
The argument that in the past AR-15s were modified by non-professionals at home is again a supporting rather than central part of my case, meant to illustrate that the military and civilian AR-15s are from the same 'family' and not just cosmetically similar though in fact completely different beasts. In other words the argument is not that criminals will actually accomplish a conversion or be more successful in their killing sprees if they do, but that they are using a weapon similar to a military weapon (and which some have converted to remove the claimed point of difference in the past). I'm not sure if my critics ever did look at the instruction sheet for the early Colt. And, yes, I know that current models would need milling/drilling etcetera of the lower receiver and bolt carrier and that the penalties that apply make this a crazy thing to do.
http://www.quarterbore.com/images/link_instructions.jpg
I really must say 'bye bye' now. I fully understand your interest in a hobby that we share (though in my case at a more modest level compatible with UK law): I suppose we don't see eye-to-eye because I do accept that a limited amount of control has to be at least discussed.
