Would a 9mm carbine done as much damage as that NZ shooter did?

Would a 9mm carbine done as much damage as that NZ shooter did?
I've never shot one, or an AR-15.

Attached: sig938inhand.jpg (650x517, 53K)

Other urls found in this thread:

loadoutroom.com/44122/44122/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Mostly depends on shot placement, but no on average pistol calibers are shit compared to rifle calibers.

No, nor with .45ACP before you ask. An AR is more than twice more powerful, and above all fires bullets at a much higher velocity which translates in a bigger, and significant, cavitation effect. Even more so at very close range. The temporary cavity made by pistol calibers doesn't really injure a lot, as the bullet velocity is too low - you almost only get damage with the permanent cavity. In real life conditions I guess it would mean that you have to put a bit more lead down range to get a somewhat similar effect. So yes, less effective.

if you put multiple rounds into people and triple tapped them in the skull, then yes 9mm carbine would have worked

Don't forget that 5.56 tumbles and is made to wound

The virigina tech shooter killed 32 people with a g19 9mm and a walther .22lr

If you honestly believe that 1300 ft/lbs of muzzle energy are only going to “wound” then you are a fucking idiot

Ask the columbine shooters, they seemed to do pretty well

Relax, I'm memeing.

yes, with good shot placement

guy could've done the same carnage with an AK in 7.62x39, shot placement shot placement

based

let's try this again
>Would a 9mm carbine done as much damage as that NZ shooter did?
now, is what you wrote an answer to that question or are you fucking retarded?

That's such a stupid analogy. A .308 short (7.62x39) does more "damage" than a .22 XtraLR (5.56x45)

That's such a stupid analogy. With common bulk ammo out of a 16" bbl a 7.62x39 will just icepick or at best yaw one time while 5.56 will frequently fragment producing massively more trauma.

Considering the ranges the shooting occurred at, he could definitely have made similar impact with a 9mm AR that takes 33 round Glock mags or even a CZ Scorpion EVO. However, he'd need better shot placement than with the AR. There is quite a bit of difference between rifle and pistol ammo, and pistols need shot placement much more than rifles do. But a 9mm PCC with good hollow points and good shot placement could have had similar results.

Attached: 92FSGF.png (1024x768, 210K)

Yeah he could have killed more. he would have had more space for magazines

probably.
shooting at unarmed is shooting fish in a barrel

this, itll ice pick pretty often and doesnt offer the nice close range fragmenting

Wasted 8 lbs of carrying weight with the shotgun which he just ganked two dudes with, fired 9 shotshells and never reloaded.

that assumes 5.56 is reliably fragmenting out of the barrel length, and maybe twist you're using

but muh 45 got 1200ft/lb of energy loadoutroom.com/44122/44122/

I don't think he would have has many kills had he used that.

nope. pistol cartridges pretty much just poke holes in stuff. rifle cartridges are far more destructive.

The barrel twist has nothing to do with fragmentation. A 1:7 or 1:9 twist rate does nothing to the velocity of the round fired. Different rates of twist affect the stability of the bullet in flight. What works well for a 55 grain is generally different that what works well for a 78 grain projectile

Not sure if retarded boomer or bait

33 round stick in a PCC with HST rounds or something like the old black talons would have been equally effective, yes. Columbine was carried out with a hi point carbine and jamomatic piece of shit using ball ammunition.