As most probably caught, Amouranth had a home invasion in an attempt to rob her crypto. Husband shot one robber and the rest fled.
Colion does a half hour rundown with them both, at their house and using security camera footage as well.
If nothing else this is the kind of stuff that can help mainstream 2A and self defense going forward. Also is an excellent illustration of how shit a defensive situation is, cause almost nothing went "right", but the outcome ended well.
Then how come the military promotional pamphlets and instruction material for the troops released with the M16 rifle in Viet Nam included information on the tumbling round of M193, and explained why the round was deadlier than it normally would be given the small caliber size? How come the vets that actually shot people with their M16, and were able to inspect the bodies after the conflict, never had anything bad to say about the round?
Here ya go, I did a basic internet search for you:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pHuZJbyzFb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DamerZHdoY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x72JOi74Xwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm-KamGe3VM
Well gee, no shit. Center mass hits are more deadly than limb hits. That's true for all rounds.
In the 1920s, the U.S. military tested some new rifles and rounds. They did some tests against pigs, titled the "Pig Board" tests. The military (just like you're arguing now) were worried that the smaller calibers wouldn't be lethal. However, even in competition with larger calibers, the smallest caliber they tested (.256) produced the most lethal wounds at 300 yards and closer, even compared to the larger calibers, and even performed comparably to the larger caliber rounds at longer ranges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_rifle
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/us-semi-auto-rifle-program-in-the-1920s-yields-intermediate-or-schv-cartridge.466029/
Do you think this knowledge about wound characteristics of smaller calibers just disappeared into the ether after the tests were done? Kinda weird how Stoner designed his rifle around such a small caliber, if, according to you, no one knew about the characteristics of the small caliber round. I mean, according to your own logic, the military would never have approved use of the weapon, and Stoner never would've designed his rifle around such a round, if no one knew about the characteristics and lethality of the round.
The restrictions on military use (like the Hague and Geneva conventions) play a small role in affecting how our military designs stuff. "Officially", the U.S. doesn't "want" our rifle ammo to tumble in target. It's just a happy "accident", and every change they make to rounds, purely by coincidence, happens to exacerbate that characteristic. Designing rounds to do that is purely by mistake, and not by intention (wink wink nudge nudge).
Furthermore, do you know one of the reasons why self defense ammo is designed to expand in target? It's not just to create a larger wound. It's also to impart as much of the round's inertia into the target as possible. If a bullet goes straight through the target and keeps going, a lot of the bullet's energy is lost and not transferred to the target. If the bullet expands and stops in target, it imparts more forces on that target, almost invariably producing more harmful wounds because of it. Expansion isn't the only way to achieve this. Tumbling and fragmentation of the round achieves the exact same thing, while also producing larger wounds, as all of the above videos I linked demonstrate.
You're half right and half wrong. Lost velocity of 5.56 (at least with regards to the ammo that is designed to tumble) can drastically lower lethality of the round, if the velocity drops below what's necessary for the round to tumble. Lower velocity doesn't affect accuracy much, at least in most engagement distances. With how fast most 5.56 ammo travels, the loss in velocity attributing to loss in accuracy is negligible. You'd have to be firing well past 500 yards to see any appreciable accuracy loss due purely to loss in velocity, and that would mostly be due to wind having more time to move the bullet in flight, and in comparison to how fast 5.56 travels, it's still miniscule.
If lost velocity did affect accuracy, then the longest barrels would be the most accurate, and short barrels would be incredibly inaccurate. That's not the case. Short barrel ARs are just as accurate as long barrel ARs, all other things being equal.
Have you even shot a rifle before? Have you researched AR15s and 5.56 ammo, at all?
I shoot regularly, with friends and family, and have for decades. Given how many blatant ignorances you're proudly defending on here, it's you that's probably inexperienced.
Tumbling in flight, yes, that's undesirable. You can actually see that in action, and negatively affect accuracy, in the Paul Harrell video I linked above, where he compared M855 to M193, where the M855 was being fired out of a rifle with a bad twist rate for the round, causing it to tumble in flight and negatively affect accuracy.
However, the 5.56 was designed to tumble in target, not in flight. With how fast the round is moving, and with how back heavy it is, when it impacts the target, the heavy back end starts to yaw and flip around to the front, causing it to tumble in target.
That's not the only thing that can cause keyholing. If you're firing a round through a barrel with an improper twist rate (dependent on bullet weight and caliber), it might not be able to properly stabilize the bullet in flight, causing it to tumble in flight and "keyhole". It can also be caused by a dirty barrel. That doesn't make the barrel "bad".
Your "research" into 5.56 and AR15s is sorely lacking. You're espousing opinions completely contradictory to every single gun person I've talked to, contrary to every forum I've visited, contrary to every study performed, contrary to every ballistic gel and target tests done, in video and on paper.
What are your sources for your claims? I've not heard one single gun hobbyist, gun manufacturer, gun tester, or military member make the claims you have, not in decades I've been shooting and researching shooting, in person or online. Where are you getting your info?
The m4 loses 200 meters off it's effective range compared to the m16. Afghanistan average engagement ranges were 800m, and the m4's effective range is 300m. You are full of fuddlore, velocity is hugely important for long range accuracy.
You're claiming some obscure .276 is proof that .223 is comparable to heavier rounds because of a long range lethality test of a much heavier and faster round. That's retarded. That round had weight comparable to a .308, and a smaller diameter. The inch caliber is not a measurement of mass or velocity, just bullet diameter.
5.56 does a lot of not killing what you shoot at. One round of buckshot to the gut or a hollow point slug if not stopped by armor, is a threat ending shot. One .308 or 30-06 to the torso is a threat ending shot. 5.56 does not provide enough shock to do that, and relies on vital hits for quick stops or multiple shots in quick succession, which most civs will not manage. Fragmentation is also significantly worse than expansion - hollow points are much better against unarmored targets. Tumbling is completely negligible in consideration. And no, the military wouldn't pursue either - because the military is actually concerned with armor penetration. They want rifle rounds going through kevlar or other armor materials, not fragmenting or tumbling. 5.56 is operationally garbage for civilian use because it's primary strength is controllability in rapid fire for suppression. Suppression is a tactic that is both useless without a group, and usually illegal. It's only other use for civilians is the negligible recoil, so weak people can shoot it. There are much better self defense rounds for close range, and much better rifle calibers for medium-long.
And tumbling doesn't make it stop in drywall either. 5.56 will punch through walls fine. Tumbling is nonsense. Go actually look at ballistics gel tests of the modern 5.56 rounds.
You must be trolling. No one is this obtuse and stupid with regard to guns. The only people I know of that act this abrasively and hubristic on subjects they know nothing about are teenagers, morons, and trolls.