Retaining our freedoms is possible, but it’s up to you.

Victory… in Illinois? This time not because of a court decision but because of the tireless efforts of the supporters of self defense. YOU.

On the first Sunday of 2013, after a surprise session of the Judiciary committee who sought to meet with only 24 hours notice, their plans of sneaking in a ban of virtually 50% of semiautomatic rifles and as high as 80% of semiautomatic handguns, not to mention “high capacity” magazines went up in smoke.

You can watch as the Chairwoman admits to the deluge of phone calls, emails and faxes:

Massive gun groups didn’t do that. YOU did that.

Gun rights groups like the NRA are massive behemoths, that if given time, can be very effective. They work on a different level however. Virtually no one person can sound the alarm on a Saturday afternoon, or even with a full days notice at the NRA. Smaller groups like the GOA or SAF, while amazingly powerful, especially at their victories in the courts, move faster but not at the speed of YOU.

Saturday the call went out on social media, like a trumpet blast. The ISRA (Illinois State Rifle Association), one of the first groups to give notice, blasted out to it’s members the news, a surprise session. From there, word spread via facebook and twitter, from person to person, email to email, text message to text message.

YOU stopped that. With barely 24 hours notice. Lobbyists from various gun groups had already gone home. YOU showed up, via phone, email and fax.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the fight for our Freedoms is something we must do ourselves. Each and every one of us. As often as it takes.

The road we have ahead of us could likely be a long one. We need to prepare ourselves and have the stamina to call, even though we have called a dozen times prior. To send that fiftieth fax, the one hundredth email. Every single time an assault on our freedoms and our liberty is on the line.

YOU can make a difference, YOU are the only one who can. I submit now, that if in a state like Illinois we can fight off those who would strip us of our freedoms, we can do it nationwide and without compromise… but not without YOU.

I will be keeping up on pending legislation and the fight for our rights as my priority for the time being, I invite you to join me at www.facebook.com/gunreviews as we fight, together, to preserve our remaining Rights.

Prometheus
www.facebook.com/GunReviews
©2013 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and the content is not altered, including this section.

The AWB of 2013

Dianne Feinstein holding an AR15 rifle

Dianne Feinstein recently released high level details of her new proposed "assault weapons ban" (AWB) on her website.  As expected, she has rewarmed the original 1994 law for which she was partially responsible but also made some critical changes.

Here are a few of the details.

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:  

• 120 specifically named firearms- Certain other semi-automatic rifle, handguns, shotguns that can accept detachable magazines and have one military characteristic 

• Semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

This is considerably more restrictive than the original ban of 1994.  She is banning the the sale of both semi-automatic handguns and rifles that accept detachable magazines and have one "military characteristic".  She hasn't defined the list of "military characteristics" yet, however it has changed from the list used in 1994.  The list will likely include a pistol grip, detachable magazine or calibers such as 9mm, 45 ACP, .223/5.56, 7.62x39, etc.  If that is the case pistols like the Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta M9, etc. would be banned as well as most modern semi-automatic rifles.

She's also gone the extra step of identifying firearms yet to be designed that might skirt the intent of the law.  She added firearms that have fixed magazines (aka non-removeable) that hold over 10 rounds to the bill.  For example, Glock could make a pistol with a non-removeable magazine that could be loaded through the top with stripper clips and held 19 rounds.  This would have been legal under the 1994 law, but not under the proposed 2013 law.

This law could in fact ban most modern handguns and rifles.

The law also makes the sale or transfer of banned firearms illegal.  You will never be able to sell or trade your banned firearms.  It has not specified yet, however we can assume that if you're unable to transfer your banned firearms they will likely be destroyed once you die.

But it gets worse:

• Moving from a 2 military characteristic test (1994 law) to a 1 military characteristic test 

• Eliminating "easy to remove" bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the military characteristics list 

• Bans firearms with thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons

By moving to a 1 characteristic test they can ban all rifles with a pistol grip.  There is no more need for using bayonet lugs or flash suppressors as characteristics since all it takes is one - the pistol grip or detachable magazine to ban a firearm.

She also specifically bans thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons as potential work-a-rounds to the law.  Under the 1994 law manufacturers could still make rifles that had many of the same features as a banned firearm by using a thumbhole stock.  This new law is designed to prevent any work-a-rounds.  AR15's, AK's, Mini-14's, M1A's, even the Remington 750 Woodmaster deer rifle and the Browning BAR deer rifle could be banned under this law because they have a detachable magazine.  Yes, they may be coming after your semi-automatic deer rifles this time.  The website claims "900 specifically named firearms" would be excluded from the law, but we've not see that list.  Heck, the Ruger 10/22 may be included in the ban for all we know.

But wait, we're not done yet.

• Grandfathering of legally owned firearms possessed on the day of enactment

That sounds good, right?  We're still not done yet.

• Requires that grandfathered firearms be registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA) 

• Background check through the FBI is required  

• Type and serial number of the firearm will be kept by the government 

• Positive identification of owners including pictures and finger prints will be required 

• Certification by your local law enforcement (signature) stating you may own the firearms in their jurisdiction 

• Dedicate funding to the ATF to implement registration

The new law would allow us to keep our banned firearms but we would have to register them under the NFA (National Firearms Act).  There are a few problems with this.

First - she's calling it what it is - REGISTRATION.  Registration is the first step to confiscation and may be argued is unconstitutional.  That will have to be decided by the courts should the law pass.

The NFA has 9 examiners and I believe they've been approved for a total of 12.  Right now there is a 8 month wait to get a firearm registered under the NFA and that's with only a few thousand registrations a month being processed. Under this law literally MILLIONS of registrations would hit within weeks.

Who's paying for this?  Are we going to borrow more money from China to register our guns or will Obama simply print more money to cover the expenses?  New databases will have to be built, the FBI will be SLAMMED with background checks and processing of finger prints, local LEO's will be inundated with requests for approvals/signatures.  Do they plan to pay the states to hire full time staff to process these millions of requests?

Some states do not allow citizens to own NFA firearms.  Will citizens of such states have to turn in their firearms?

If you want to take your NFA registered AR15 to a rifle class out of state, or if you want to take it on a hunting trip out of state, you won't be able to simply throw it in the trunk and go.  NFA firearms can not be legally moved across state lines without the owner filing a 5320.20 form with the ATF.  It can take 4 months or more to get approval to transport your NFA firearm across state lines.  Given there will be considerably more requests for 5320.20's, you can expect that 4 months to turn into 8 months or more.  The ATF might actually be required to start charging for processing to keep up with the incredible costs of doing all this paperwork.

In short, if this law passes most modern handguns and rifles will likely be banned.  You will have to register your Glock and M&P with the NFA if you want to keep it.  If you want to travel out of state with your handgun or rifle you will have to file a request with the ATF and wait months for approval or risk being in violation of the NFA and being arrested.  Such an arrest would cause you to lose your gun rights forever.  If you have a collection of firearms as an investment, your investment will be lost as you will not be able to transfer or sell any banned firearm.

Please, act now to protect your rights.  If you sit silent and allow this bill to pass, you will forever lose your rights to this new law.  Please follow this link which will take you to the Congressional website where you can send a letter to your representatives and the President quickly and easily.

Congress.org - Write your Representatives

Capitalizing on the Carnage

Tweet from Piers Morgan of CNN

I recently published a video that addressed the issue of gun control in the wake of the horrible events at Sandy Hook Elementary school.  In this video I mentioned how it disgusted me that advocates of gun control quickly moved to capitalize on the deaths of children to push their political agendas forward.

A recent CNN article confirms that this is in fact the strategy of anti-gun forces.  Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, made the following comments in an interview with CNN.

"Look, when this kind of thing happens, we have to make the case in that very short window -- what went wrong, why it went wrong, how you can fix it -- in a way that motivates Congress to do what it should.  With something as terrible as this is, involving children, the window is open a little wider than it has been before.  I think my back of the envelope is usually about a month.  But after the series of mass shootings and the gravity of this one, I think we may have a little more time."

Anti-gun forces know that they must strike while emotions are high to capitalize on irrational thought driven by these emotions.  They know that once the hysteria subsides and cooler heads prevail, people aren't as willing to surrender their Constitutional freedoms.  This is why you see people like Dianne Feinstein racing to the first camera she can find to promote her most recent gun grab proposal.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Those were the words of former Obama administration Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was alluding to using the nation’s economic crisis to justify huge expansion in the federal government.

It's this desire to quickly capitalize politically on the carnage that has motivated President Obama to tap Joe Biden for creating a proposal in the next 30 days, by January, that outlines what gun control measures he believes can be pushed through Congress.  It's no coincidence that President Obama has chosen such a short window, he too knows that to successfully pull off a gun grab he must act quickly while emotions are high.  It takes 30 days to get a light bulb replaced in the White House due to government inefficiency yet we're going to see a committee formed and a recommendation made in the next 2-4 weeks regarding our Constitutional rights.  I don't find that to be very comforting, do you?

Some criticized my comments that anti-gunners "almost look forward to such events".  Given the comments and subsequent actions of anti-gun forces in the last few days, I'm confident my comments hit the proverbial nail on the head.  They clearly look forward to these events and are set to capitalize on them by executing plans of action they've apparently given considerable thought to.

Write your Congressmen and Senators.  We must act swiftly to prevent our government from passing sweeping anti-gun laws.  Right now they feel they have the numbers on their side to go so far as confiscation of semi-auto rifles and magazines that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition.  We must remind them that if they pass another 1994 style anti-gun law, or worse, that we'll once again vote them out of office just as we did after the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban".  Act now or forever lose your Constitutional rights.

Guns and Crime

Take a Deep Breath, and Think This Through

In the wake of the horrible criminal act where so many precious lives were lost at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, several emotions immediately ran through my mind. The first and foremost was how much I love my family. When you are a parent you evolve to a point where your feelings, wants and concerns fail to exist in the same level of

previous priorities and your life revolves around the safety and well being of your children. Sadness for the parents that must endure the unthinkable pain of losing their children was the first thing to hit after hugging my own.

In the firearms community I saw posts, videos, comments, statements and request for prayers for the families immediately affected by this heinous criminal act. Out of respect for those involved, the normal chatter, banter and cheerfulness was essentially halted.

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated in the past, those hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment were up front and brazen in calling for bans on everything that has a trigger, suspending the Second Amendment, wishing for a painful death for those in the National Rifle Association and gun owners in general, and wishing harm towards them and their children. Real Classy.

In a time for families to reflect and grieve and for communities to heal, the rhetoric was flowing full speed ahead with no compassion for the victims or the million of innocents not involved in any way. Any defense of this foolishness was immediately met with more rhetoric asking how anyone could be so heartless to have the nerve to defend lawful firearms ownership “……at a time like this….”

So I ask; how long do those of us who wish to mourn properly and respectfully, allow everything we believe in to be torn to shreds around us before it is the right time to defend ourselves? After all, the “fight” is being brought to us, not the other way around. The fact that there is a heated debate on lawful firearms ownership falls at the feet of those heartless enough to believe the right time to have this debate is immediately following such an act.

I have been listening to one incorrect report after another being reported as breaking news and corrected later in the fine print. The factual details are still unknown but forward they move in their lust for “breaking news.” Being FIRST has become more important than being CORRECT in the media today. I have listened to “Experts” explain how certain firearms and ammunition function that is absolutely WRONG while no one corrects them. I have listened to political hacks beat the drums of war to ban the ownership of firearms that they do not understand but their hired security carries to allow them the defense and protection they are hungrily working to strip from everyone else. I have listened to the people who are supposed to be intellectuals and scholars try to make a case that the solution to an evil mad man victimizing innocent people is to further disarm the rest of the innocent people.

I can stand quiet no longer. While there is no “time limit” to heal and grieve for the gun grabbers before jumping at every tragedy like a school of sharks to blood soaked water, there is also no accepted “time limit” to defend what we know to be right. It is a fight they want and have chosen, and if a physical fight how many times would we allow ourselves to be punched in the throat before it is acceptable to raise our hands to defend ourselves?

We do not have a “Gun Problem” in this country. We have had guns in plentiful numbers in the United States for well over a Century and horrific events like we have all just experienced do not happen with any regularity. When they do, it is not a gun that creates the difference between intentions of a deranged lunatic following through or not. No guns were used in the bombing in Oklahoma City yet the objective to kill and injure innocents was no less tragic. No guns were used in the school bombing in Bath Township, Michigan where 45 people were killed and 58 more wounded but the maniac who perpetrated the event was successful in his will do harm and kill innocents. We have a problem with evil people committing evil acts against innocents. Disarming the innocents is NOT the way to deal with any problem.

Solutions that float from different communities include people taking more responsibility to defend themselves and their loved ones. Evil does not make an appointment and being prepared at all times is a common way of life for many people. Unfortunately it is lambasted by those opposed to firearms as being “too dangerous” or “Paranoid”. We are told that those who carry a firearm on a daily basis, and train with it are “…asking for trouble….” This is because those parroting the propaganda they hear are so far from their own comfort level in actually having to admit there are Evil people lurking among us it is easier to put their head in the sand and pretend they will never be subjected to such horrible acts. Since they wish to live in a fairytale world the only way to justify their blindness is to demand we all do the same.

If having a firearm and the ability to protect your family is asking for trouble and is “paranoid” because it seldom happens, is having a fire extinguisher in your home and running fire drills also “paranoid” and asking for a fire? I doubt most people have been burned out of their home yet it is good practice to be prepared. If having a firearm and training with it to protect your family is “paranoid” and asking for trouble, is having a spare tire in your vehicle and learning to use a tire-iron and jack being “paranoid” and asking for a flat tire? I bet most people have never had a flat, yet almost every vehicle has this security measure as standard equipment. This whole “paranoid” argument is a way for those who will not face reality to justify the simple fact that THEY are not prepared nor are they even comfortable understanding what so many of us already know to be fact. Be it a spare tire, a fire extinguisher or a firearm, it is just a tool to help in an emergency situation. A situation you hope to never have to deal with but will be better prepared to rise to the occasion should it occur. Taking the spare tire and fire extinguisher away only makes you far more vulnerable than having them available in the unlikely event you will need them and it is the same thing with a firearm.

When Evil rears its ugly head there are few warnings but there are also a few things we know for fact. They almost always perpetuate their acts in areas they are unlikely to meet resistance. Of all the horrible acts of violence in recent history the vast majority (if not all) are in places designated as “Gun Free Zones.” These should be redesignated as “Victim Disarmament Zones” because the only thing known is there will be no one who can stand up to this Evil and have no choice but to let the bad guy(s) run their course and determine who will live or die, when it will stop, and how. The Evil doers pay no attention to the laws (this should be obvious) and are allowed by our own laws to have their way with their intended victims at their discretion. As sick and twisted as it is to many of us, this is just further proof of those with their head in the sand pretending they are “safe” by placing a sign on a door and not having to confront Evil if and when it should rear its ugly head. When this argument is made the propaganda flows like a river with talk about “The Wild West” and “Untrained Individuals taking unsafe shots and possibly injuring an innocent.” The years of legal CCW records shows that EVERY community where CCW is allowed has a lower crime than their restrictive counterparts and there is absolutely no “Wild West” scenarios happening. The second part about someone accidently injuring an innocent is equally foolish. If I have a choice between an Evil person shooting women, children and honest men at will, until THEY decide they have a body-count they are satisfied with, or someone stepping up to stop the attack with equal force and accidently injuring someone in the process, I will happily take the ability for resistance. Anyone with a functioning brain in that situation surely would.

The real crux we have is not firearms, but the inability to be truthful and accept the responsibility to protect ourselves. We have become so afraid as a society to face the facts and replace them with fantasy it has become the norm. Until people educate themselves and accept the uncomfortable truth and learn to deal with it, nothing will change. Gun laws, restrictions and “gun free zones” only affect those who do not perpetuate the problems while the Evil men are allowed to create their own scenarios, at will. Firearms are firearms; there are no “good vs. bad” guns. A good guy with the largest firearm to protect and defend his or her family will be no problem while the Evil man or woman with any tool at their disposal is a threat. Taking away the firearms of a good man accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make the world a more dangerous place for the Evil men who do not follow any laws.

As long as Evil is allowed to roam the Earth the necessity for self defense will be of the utmost importance.

Article by Jeff Zimba

https://www.facebook.com/Guntestvids

http://www.youtube.com/user/Bigshooterist

Time for Silence

KRISS .45 ACP SBR with Defiance Suppressor

I've been shooting since I was around 12 years old.  Today I have what my doctor calls "serious hearing loss".  I technically need hearing aides but being only 44 years old I'm reluctant to do what my doctor suggests because of vanity.

There's no cure for hearing loss, the only remedy are devices that make hearing a bit easier.  That's why preventing hearing loss is critical.  In the case of sportsmen like me that means always being diligent to wear proper hearing protection and to always have several sets with me in the car, gear bag and on the reloading bench -- for easy access.

However, many sportsmen don't always wear hearing protection.  While hunting many, if not most, hunters don't wear hearing protection so they can hear whats going on around them.  They figure, as I once did, that a few shots from a shotgun, rifle or handgun won't be so bad.  Unfortunately for me and countless others we are very-very wrong.

Hearing loss can occur at 85db of sound.  A typical conversion takes place at around 60db.  Headphones on an iPod set to max volume can generate about 100db of sound, enough to cause permanent hearing loss.  A clap of thunder that's close by can generate 120db, more than enough to cause hearing loss.  A gun shot creates anywhere from 140-190db depending on the type of weapon.  Obviously exposure to firearm discharges can cause extreme hearing loss in short order if proper hearing protection isn't used.

How many times have you had "ears" on while shooting a rifle and the seal on the headphones was broken slightly by your face being pressed against the stock?  When you fired you probably noticed a ringing in your ear where the seal was slightly broken.  How many times have you had ear plugs in and fired a round only to realize the ear plug wasn't properly seated and the sound of the report was uncomfortable?  How many times have you gone to the range and your buddy was a little quick on the trigger and fired a round before you had your ears completely on?  Even with hearing protection you can still have incidents where you unintentionally ring your ears and cause permanent hearing loss.  These incidents add up over the years to where you wind up like me, with a constant ringing in my ears that I can hear over my cat purring, who is lying at my feet as I type this.

When the NFA was enacted it regulated short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, destructive devices, any other weapon and suppressors.  Despite the fact suppressors weren't commonly used by criminals, they were still added to the list of regulated items because the do-gooders in Congress didn't feel we should be trusted with such things.

To this day suppressors are rarely used in crime.  As a matter of fact, I can't recall the last time a national news story related to gun violence reported a suppressor being used.  Some may argue that's because the NFA laws are working.  People who hold this opinion obviously know nothing about how simple suppressors are to make.  If a criminal possesses an IQ above their own shoe size they would realize an illegal suppressor can be fashioned literally in minutes from a 2 liter bottle or with a little more effort a bicycle pump.  They are simple devices to make and despite such devices being very crude they are still effective at muting the report of a firearm.  That means there is little interest by criminals to use such devices so regulating them so heavily becomes even more asinine.

It's worth mentioning that using a suppressor in the commission of a crime carries a mandatory 30 year federal sentence, more than many people get for murder or rape.  There are only about 30 federal prosecutions related to illegal suppressor ownership per year and around 200 prosecutions by states each year.  These are typically possession charges and the people prosecuted aren't involved in other types of crimes, their only crime was being dumb enough to make a suppressor for fun not realizing they were breaking a very serious law.  Doing things like what you see in this video, which to you may seem harmless, can land you in federal prison for a minimum of 10 years or a maximum of 30 years.

It's also worth mention that many presumably less free countries in Europe that more heavily regulate private ownership of firearms have no restrictions what-so-ever on the use of suppressors.  In many places outside of the US it's considered rude to discharge a non-suppressed firearm.

There are efforts underway by the NRA and other organizations such as the American Silencer Association (ASA) to make suppressors easier to acquire for average shooters and also to make them legal for hunters.  Many states already allow suppressors to be legally used for hunting of all game animals.  To me such initiatives are derived from common sense and shooters across the country should get behind such movements.

Ignorance and Elitism: the root of gun control

Statue outside of U.N. building in NYC

On the evening of 10-16-2012 we saw a glimpse into the future of a potential second term for President Obama. One filled with ignorance and elitism. I don’t say that lightly so please allow me to explain, in detail.

Before I do, a brief review of the previous assault weapon ban is in order. The name is quiet misleading, and purposefully so. The intention of the initial bill, which was law from 1994-2004, was to confuse people with invented terms such as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘deadly features’. The hope was, by using evil sounding terminology and showing scary pictures, semi-automatic weapons and what were ‘standard capacity’ magazines (now referred to as high capacity magazines) could be banned.

The ruse worked and the bill became law. The result? Weapons were banned simply because of the way they looked. Magazines with over 10 rounds were banned. For the law abiding gun owner, it was a nightmare. For the criminals? Business as usual.

In 2004 the bill sunsetted, meaning it expired. Much contention about the sunset clause abounds. Would the bill have passed had the NRA not slipped it in? Probably not, but the NRA made a gamble with our Rights and gave them up, in the hopes the bill would sunset 10 years later. As it turned out, it did. At what cost? For those who won’t recall, at the height of the ban, a Glock 17 round magazine with 17 round capacity would sell for $125. That’s just one example.

Ten years of invented terminology has also permeated the landscape and phrases like “high capacity” and “assault weapon” are in common use. The mental impacts of that ten year period cannot be understated. Many people think the phrase assault weapon means a weapon that is fully automatic, which is simply not true. That leads us to where ignorance comes into play.

Ignorance. Make no mistake, the President has access to the data, he isn’t ignorant. He knows that ‘assault weapons’ aren’t the problem. Neither are inexpensive firearms. He is, however, counting on the general public and their ignorance to achieve his goals. Terms like “assault weapons” and AK-47 will be bantered about over and over, attempting to scare people and play on their ignorance.

YOU will need to take up the fight. Inform your friends, family and coworkers about what the ill termed ‘assault weapon’ really is. It’s simply a semi-automatic weapon that appears to be more ‘deadly’ than it’s hunting equivalent.

Elitism. This is where the meat and potatoes are found. We can clearly see it in comments like those from tonight’s debate. He tries to disparage inexpensive firearms as somehow being a “criminals choice”. Again, those who would disarm you are playing on the ignorance of the public.

Criminals don’t legally acquire guns. Generally they steal them. Why would a criminal steal a less expensive item, over the more expensive one? It’s absurd.

What they really don’t want are the Plebeians having a means of self defense. You see, when a person has it in their ability to defend themselves, it generally leads to an improved sense of self-worth, well-being and their becoming more independent. That doesn’t exactly square with a subservient and ignorant populace. It also doesn’t bode well for forms of government such as socialism or communism.

When someone says we need to get rid of “cheap guns”, as the President did tonight, what they really mean is “We don’t want poor people being able to defend themselves”. In todays age of technology, even the most inexpensive firearm is not dangerous. Sure it may not function with the reliability one may want, but it’s better than a pointy stick or baseball bat.

In the second Presidential debate of 2012 Barrack Obama may have just handed the election to Mitt Romney. It’s ironic really. Mitt Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, signed a permanent assault weapons ban. We can look back and know that Mitt Romney wasn’t ignorant when he signed that bill. In the eyes of gun owners, a few short years ago, Mitt Romney shared the same company as Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. Now, as a Presidential candidate, he opposes some of the very bills he signed off on.

While it is uncertain how Mitt Romney will actually deal with any firearms related bills should he win, we can now say with certainty what Barack Obama WILL do.

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. “ –Barack Obama 10-16-12

Keep in mind, Congress is needed for another assault weapons ban. No matter which of them wins, we need to make sure that PRO firearm Congressmen and Women are in office to prevent a bill from ever reaching the Presidents desk, no matter who it is. Given Mitt Romneys history and decades of being anti-gun, we can’t put all our faith in his recent change in positions:

“Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.” – Mitt Romney 10-16-2012

Our vigilance is needed, not just for the next month but for the next 4 years and beyond. Those who would wish to strip us of our Rights won’t rest. I also ask you to continue to remember we have a Right to self defense and Right to keep and bear arms, independent of the Second Amendment. Feel free to see my previous articles on Rights found in the article entitled “Enemies Within”.

Prometheus
www.facebook.com/GunReviews
©2012 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and the content is not altered, including this section.

The Poodle Killer Myth

No U.S. military service rifle caliber has been more controversial than the 5.56x45mm cartridge.  Since it's adoption in the 1960's, Soldiers and civilians have both circulated the myth that the 5.56 round was designed to wound the enemy and not kill them.  The logic behind this claim is that wounding the enemy puts a strain on their logistical systems with the added bonus that it requires other enemy soldiers to carry off their wounded brethren thus lessening the number of combatants on the field of battle.

The only problem with this myth is that it is just that, a myth.

The U.S. military has never published any documents, requirements or doctrines stating a desire to adopt a rifle cartridge designed to only wound the enemy.  Of course the military views wounding as better than no hit at all, and taking an enemy combatant out of the fight they view as a good thing.  But they have never built a doctrine around the concept of wounding being the desired result of a gunshot wound.

The 5.56mm cartridge was designed to kill not wound or maim.

I believe the root of the myth comes from countless horror stories told by both civilians and Soldiers about the 5.56mm's failure to neutralize a target.  In 2003 the U.S. Army conducted a study that found the 5.56mm was actually quite acceptable for combat duty.  This is a quote from the study that I think carries a lot of weight.

In the end, “footpounds of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection.  Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.

I agree with this statement.  Shot placement will be the largest deciding factor in how effective a gun shot would will be in terms of dispatching the enemy.  The horror stories about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm can be traced back to either unsubstantiated rumors and myths or to poor shot placement.

It's also worth noting how the 5.56mm stacked up against the .308 in the testing.  For CQB type combat the 5.56mm actually kept pace with the 7.62x51(.308) in terms of close range effectiveness.

It's interesting to note that when the U.S. military adopted the .308 to replace the 30-06, similar horror stories circulated.  The .308 was deemed to be inferior to the 30-06 by many Soliders.  Slowly these rumors faded, and their demise was hastened with the adoption of the 5.56x45mm only a few short years later.

The 5.56mm cartridge is a fine service rifle cartridge that excels at close to medium range combat.  It is not well suited to long distance engagements which is why the U.S. military has moved back to the .308 for DMR's (Designated Marksman Rifle) in the wide open spaces of the Middle East.  For a survival rifle you would be hard pressed to find a more suitable caliber than the 5.56x45mm.