Could you take out an active shooter?

[Rich2018]

That you do not reply in relevant terms denotes your the true unknower here. Stick with your kindergarten insults since it is all you have.

Is that like an "unbeliever" in the religion section ?

 

[Dannytoro1]

To the contrary, it is particularly "conducive" to attack. The shooter does not have 360 degree vision and the muzzle blasts of his AR are highly distracting and disorienting to the shooter - nor can see around corners and thru walls. But you know exactly where the shooter is. The odds are nearly 100% on your side, not the shooter's side. Generally in any gun fight whoever sees the other first wins. The scenario is in a school with hallways and doorways everywhere, not an open field.

What would be stupid is the Hollywood thing of shouting out from behind "drop your gun!" pointing yours at him from behind. Shelter first, then shoot from a sheltered position, ideally from around a corner. The first thing the shooter should know about you is when the first bullet is ripping thru in body and the loud blast - followed quickly by another and another and another...

However, other than during this, do not be displaying a firearm or you could be who is shot. The OP situation is to generalized to address specifics.

Muzzle blast of an AR-15!!!.....:lamo...ok, you really do not know what your talking about. .223 Remington is on the weak end as rifle cartridges go. Part of the reason the military adopted it because too many folks were gun shy of the .308 Winchester.

 

[zsu2357]

Once the ball drops, they're all dead anyway. So is the gunman. So are you. Everybody. Whoever gets out at the end... well, that's a bonus. That's the mindset you need to have.

Hmm other than the gunman being dead, I'm glad I don't share your mindset.

 

[Rich2018]

Hmm other than the gunman being dead, I'm glad I don't share your mindset.

I would agree.

But I'm not willing to risk my life to achieve it.

 

[zsu2357]

It's only irrelevant to the extent on whether the shooter is a hardened killer or not. Obviously Myrick felt it was pretty relevant to the situation he found himself in.

How about psychotic murderer? Since the school murderers/killers aren't hardened in that manner. I mean you don't just wake up and decide "I'm a hardened killer today".

 

[zsu2357]

Obviously.

How about psychotic? Or probably a Sociopath.

 

[zsu2357]

I don't honor a guy who threw away his medals and lied and slandered fellow servicemen as engaging in warcrimes to make a political point.

I believe he was all up for the anti war protestors vote and ended up in the Brown Water Navy doing stuff that wouldn't look good back home.

 

[zsu2357]

That was the year before I came the the USA but I remember who Kerry was/is.

I don't suppose you cam offer a link to any of those testimonies ?

For what it's worth. and it's fairly long.What John Kerry Really Did in Vietnam - CounterPunch.org

 

[zsu2357]

You don't have any freaking idea what goes on out in the field. I know this is going to offend your sensibilities, but "war crimes" are SOP. You can use whatever synonyms you want.... you can call it "unintended consequences" or "collateral damage" or just chalk it up to the cost of doing business, but it all amounts to the same thing. Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts to his name. He's still walking around out there today with a chunk of RPG shrapnel embedded in his thigh. I would say he pretty much earned the right to say his piece, don't you?

Question? SOP? Was The My Lai massacre SOP? That happened out in the field ,yeah.

 

[vegas giants]

I believe he was all up for the anti war protestors vote and ended up in the Brown Water Navy doing stuff that wouldn't look good back home.

I think trump was getting a bowling trophy at that time. Lol

 

[zsu2357]

I can't determine if you're serious or not.

Not everyone runs away.

 

[Rich2018]

For what it's worth. and it's fairly long.What John Kerry Really Did in Vietnam - CounterPunch.org

Sounds like a vain and very aggressive officer, not some cry baby who wanted out the moment he thought it was dangerous.

The navy probably thought he was too much of a loose cannon and transferred him out of there.

Not everyone runs away.

I've come across tall tales from this poster before

All talk and no walk.

 

[zsu2357]

Muzzle blast of an AR-15!!!.....:lamo...ok, you really do not know what your talking about. .223 Remington is on the weak end as rifle cartridges go. Part of the reason the military adopted it because too many folks were gun shy of the .308 Winchester.

The AR-15 has plenty of muzzle blast to go around. I guess unless their subsonic. In which case they may as well be .22lr.

How about it was lighter and had less recoil (which did appeal) and cheaper to make?

 

[Rich2018]

The AR-15 has plenty of muzzle blast to go around. I guess unless their subsonic. In which case they may as well be .22lr.

How about it was lighter and had less recoil (which did appeal) and cheaper to make?

I'm not sure the US military adopted the M-16 on cost grounds though.

 

[joko104]

Not necessarily.

1989 eight FBI agents got in a shootout with 2 determined criminals. 2 of the FBI agents dies and 5 were wounded. The shooter had a mini 14 which is kindof like an AR15, while his buddy had a shotgun. The guy with the mini 14 did 95% of the damage.

Distances were like 11 feet.

The point of failure for the FBI was accuracy. Hitting the target is where it's at. Under combat conditions, that's a lot harder than you'd think.

A rifle is more accurate, especially as the distance increases.

I have a Mini 14 and numerous AR15s. I fully agree shooting accurately with a rifle is vastly easier than with a handgun - particularly a small pocket pistol. But that was a completely different situation.

That is an entirely different scenario as it would not be a shootout situation. In that instance the FBI had no element of surprise. Also there is a reason I keep mentioning a grip laser sight (Crimson trace). Most people are bad shots with a pistol particularly if moving and under stress - particularly if being shot at. None of this would apply in the OP scenario - circumstantially. In most such situations you would have the full element of surprise against the shooter and could fire from a sheltered position.

It has been learned that it is critical to FIRST shelter, then shoot.

 

[joko104]

I'm not sure the US military adopted the M-16 on cost grounds though.

For many reasons - foremost the weight of ammo and less recoil. The military learned that in a firefight MOST average troops and certainly national guard and draftees rarely ammo. Rather, they just sling out bullets. Ammo is heavy and 30.06 and .308 ammo gets really heavy real quick if also carrying other gear too. The military learned the theory of one-shot-one-kill (bolt action) isn't reality. In addition, the more powerful ammo required a heavy rifle to at least somewhat deal with the recoil of repetitious firing, the higher recoil delays sighting repetitious shots and the fatigue factor is higher. The military wanted troops in Vietnam to be able to carry a lot of ammo and sling it out very fast. Nothing is more a desperate situation for a military force than running out of ammo.

It wasn't about costs. It was about weight of ammo, weight of the rifle and recoil of the rifle. Next, they learned that even the little 5.56 has too much recoil to fire in full auto except for suppression fire - converting to a choice between single shot and 3 round burst only.

 

[swing_voter]

For many reasons - foremost the weight of ammo and less recoil. The military learned that in a firefight MOST average troops and certainly national guard and draftees rarely ammo. Rather, they just sling out bullets. Ammo is heavy and 30.06 and .308 ammo gets really heavy real quick if also carrying other gear too. The military learned the theory of one-shot-one-kill (bolt action) isn't reality. In addition, the more powerful ammo required a heavy rifle to at least somewhat deal with the recoil of repetitious firing, the higher recoil delays sighting repetitious shots and the fatigue factor is higher. The military wanted troops in Vietnam to be able to carry a lot of ammo and sling it out very fast. Nothing is more a desperate situation for a military force than running out of ammo.

It wasn't about costs. It was about weight of ammo, weight of the rifle and recoil of the rifle. Next, they learned that even the little 5.56 has too much recoil to fire in full auto except for suppression fire - converting to a choice between single shot and 3 round burst only.

M16s I've shot were full auto, firing as long as you pulled the trigger. Or one shot at a time in semi.

They did tell us to fire in bursts though.

The recoil in full auto wasn't bad though, you just had to be ready for it.

 

[TurtleDude]

M16s I've shot were full auto, firing as long as you pulled the trigger. Or one shot at a time in semi.

They did tell us to fire in bursts though.

The recoil in full auto wasn't bad though, you just had to be ready for it.

I saw a video-years ago, of someone shooting a M16 (the original version) in full auto with the buttstock on either their chin or nose. It was 40 years ago.

 

[TurtleDude]

For many reasons - foremost the weight of ammo and less recoil. The military learned that in a firefight MOST average troops and certainly national guard and draftees rarely ammo. Rather, they just sling out bullets. Ammo is heavy and 30.06 and .308 ammo gets really heavy real quick if also carrying other gear too. The military learned the theory of one-shot-one-kill (bolt action) isn't reality. In addition, the more powerful ammo required a heavy rifle to at least somewhat deal with the recoil of repetitious firing, the higher recoil delays sighting repetitious shots and the fatigue factor is higher. The military wanted troops in Vietnam to be able to carry a lot of ammo and sling it out very fast. Nothing is more a desperate situation for a military force than running out of ammo.

It wasn't about costs. It was about weight of ammo, weight of the rifle and recoil of the rifle. Next, they learned that even the little 5.56 has too much recoil to fire in full auto except for suppression fire - converting to a choice between single shot and 3 round burst only.

military rifles are issued to inflict casualties. a typical load for an M16 bearing soldier was 270 rounds. For a M14 guy, 160 rounds.

 

[joko104]

military rifles are issued to inflict casualties. a typical load for an M16 bearing soldier was 270 rounds. For a M14 guy, 160 rounds.

EVERYONE WANTS 7.62… UNTIL THEY HAVE TO CARRY IT
Everyone wants 7.62... Until They Have to Carry It - Mountain Tactical Institute

Ammo and rifle are not the only weight infantry has to carry, run with, stand with for hours. An extra 20 pounds for rifle and ammo isn't viable in most situations. Not 1 in 1000 infantry and certainly national guard approach your shooting ability and there is so much technical training now very little time is devoted to marksmanship.

Other than the reasons I gave already, there actually are advantages to severely wounding the enemy rather than killing them - something Russian snipers pioneered in WW2. German snipers aimed to kill. Russian snipers came to aim for the pelvis bone. Shatter that and you've eliminated the enemy as a fighting force. Ideally, other Germans would try to rescue their comrade screaming in pain so then could pick them off and/or divert them to that focus. Even if they could rescue the severely wounded German, that person is out of the war and treating and transporting that wounded German expended personnel and resources than 1 dead German would.

Kill an enemy and you eliminated 1 enemy. Wound an enemy to the point of being unable to fight anymore and you will have consumed far more of their personnel time and resources - while also still having eliminated the 1 you shot.

5.56 kills in a combat situation, though might not kill as quickly. Sometimes, killing more slowly is a superior tactic as it can consume more enemy resources and personally trying to rescue, treat and transport the wounded.

 

[joko104]

M16s I've shot were full auto, firing as long as you pulled the trigger. Or one shot at a time in semi.

They did tell us to fire in bursts though.

The recoil in full auto wasn't bad though, you just had to be ready for it.

The problem is accuracy. A Marine squad leader we know who was in the Heldman District in Afghanistan at the height of the fighting - the squad either clearing small villages or on seek-and-destroy missions, said they never used 3 round burst. However, it was a very well selected squad and they all had been hunters before signing up. He had literally joined to hunt the greatest game of all - other humans who also were armed. Once a person becomes a marksman, shooting game poises no challenge whatsoever.

They had 1 full auto solely for suppression fire if needed (I think a SAW), but said they never used it. They literally HUNTED the enemy like hunting any other game, other than the tactics could be more complex, locating the prey more of a challenge, and drawing them out sometimes took risks. His squad killed many enemy (no prisoners) and suffered no casualties.

 

[joko104]

And thanks for posting those links. On the first one - the Florida Auto Repair shop, the employee who stopped the shooter had the right idea... he hunkered down until the initiative swung in his favor. It was the manager who went charging off into the parking lot who was over his head.

On the Pearl High School shooting, I like what the Vice Principal - Joel Myrick - had to say:



I've got no idea what Myrick's background was... but I guarantee you that man has a good head on his shoulders.

No one "needs" freedom of speech. No one "needs" democracy. No one "needs" the right to vote. Rights are not about needs.

In fact, no one needs any firearm - unless a person does. If if that happens, that person would trade everything they have for one.

 

[joko104]

Muzzle blast of an AR-15!!!.....:lamo...ok, you really do not know what your talking about. .223 Remington is on the weak end as rifle cartridges go. Part of the reason the military adopted it because too many folks were gun shy of the .308 Winchester.

No, it primarily was due to the weight. Considering the difference in ammo weight, infantry would have to give up approximately 61% of their ammo to have the larger, heavier cartridge.

Rounding it out, 30 rounds in a magazine of 5.56 weighs approximately 16 ounces (1 pound). 30 rounds and magazine weight (1.5 magazines) weighs 36 ounces (2 and 3/4ths pounds).
Which would you pick if you faced the potential of being in a heavily outnumbers static defense fire fight? 200 rounds of 5.56 OR about 70 .308s?

I don't like the 5.56/.223 and am a huge fan of the even larger 30.06 and heavier M1 Garrand. But I would pick the 5.56 rather than the heavier cartridges for such a scenario.

 

[swing_voter]

The problem is accuracy. A Marine squad leader we know who was in the Heldman District in Afghanistan at the height of the fighting - the squad either clearing small villages or on seek-and-destroy missions, said they never used 3 round burst. However, it was a very well selected squad and they all had been hunters before signing up. He had literally joined to hunt the greatest game of all - other humans who also were armed. Once a person becomes a marksman, shooting game poises no challenge whatsoever.

They had 1 full auto solely for suppression fire if needed (I think a SAW), but said they never used it. They literally HUNTED the enemy like hunting any other game, other than the tactics could be more complex, locating the prey more of a challenge, and drawing them out sometimes took risks. His squad killed many enemy (no prisoners) and suffered no casualties.

I see. M16A2s shoot in 3 round bursts.

 

[Cordelier]

in some areas yes, in many areas no. Just like those of us who are professional shooters or shooting instructors carry more weight in our opinions than those who don't understand firearms or civilian self defense when it comes to threads such as this.

Yes, we're all aware you're a legend in your own mind, Turtle. Everybody's the hero of their own story.