The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was reverted with the reason Rv undiscussed addition of wound characteristics (which are totally irrelevant in a technical article about a specific type of weapon). Please note that content does not need to be discussed before being added. The source for this section is specifically about the wound characteristics of assault rifles, so I would consider this to be a relevant and constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the revert. This is an article about assault rifles in general not a specific make or model. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source is about assault rifles in general. –dlthewave ☎ 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, it is talking about a AR-15 and M16 rifle bullet which fires a 5.56 or .223. Not all rifles are the same. The wounds would not be the same as well. Reb1981 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most common assault rifle is not 5.56mm. Using a high velocity, small caliber round is not part of the meaning of "assault rifle" although it arguably is part of the evolution of them and should only be discussed in that context. Also information from Vietnam or derived from that (not sure if this applies) would not be accurate because the barrel twist and bullet weight are different and the wounding pattern (as I remember) was part of the reason the Swiss then the US & NATO went with a different design (perhaps for different reasons). If you want to add this information, put it in the right context (evolution of the assault rifle) and tell the whole story. Discussing 55gr slow twist in the same context as 62gr high twist is misleading and if the source doesn't make this distinction it's not an expert opinion on the topic IMO. Similarly the M4 will inflict different wounds than an AR-15 especially one with a M16 length barrel. The source has for example one obvious factual error "These weapons are meant to kill people" - the point of the switch to a heavier bullet with higher twist rate and part of the original intent of the M16 was to wound rather than kill because it inconveniences the enemy more. You can't lump all 5.56 rifles together and doing that means the source is bogus on the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the switch from the lighter 55-grain M193 to the heavier 62-grain M855 was that it had more energy and had a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. It wasn't intended to make the round less lethal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of it (maybe for the US) but as far as NATO I have seen this (creative commons licensed with sources) from a number of different sources:

"In 1977, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[10] Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56×45mm NATO was successful, but not the 55 gr M193 round used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[11] consider it to be inhumane.[12][13] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel core and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane.[14]"

I was mistaken that it was the Swiss who had developed this round instead of the Belgians but I do believe NATO's choice as driven by the wounding being more humane. I used to have a book that covered this but I can't find it at the moment. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: The link you provided above is a version of the Wikipedia article on the 5.56x45mm NATO round from 2016, but if you look at the state of the page today, the bit about the M193 wounds "were so devastating" is no longer in the article, and the bit about the M855 being "more humane" has a citation needed tag (see the 2nd to last paragraph of the History section). If you're interested, you might want to pursue as to why the current article has changed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is this is a factual addition from a credible source on the wounds created by assault rifles. We can certainly qualify it to say certain types of assault rifles, but to remove the addition is ridiculous. If you want to re-title the article to limit the content to a subset of the subject, go ahead, but while this is called "Assault Rifles" then the wounds they create are highly relevant.Farcaster (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are going to add information for SS-109 vs. original and the fact that it was actually chosen to lessen the wounding, short barrel vs. long barrel, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56, you are focusing on a specific subtopic of assault rifles from a politically tilted attack piece against something that is not even really an assault rifle, the AR-15, and non-specific information on what could be wounds from rifles with entirely different characteristics (like the M4). The information needs to be placed in the context of the evolution of assault rifles as a whole. Specific information on one round from a source that is non-specific about whether they mean wounds from M4 or M16, etc. is off topic here. Needs to be balanced with other rounds and more technical information to be about assault rifles in general. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to balance it with additional information, but not to remove factual, cited information. Way out of line.Farcaster (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is UNDUE if it is not balanced, and off topic as I have described. Put it in the AR-15 article if you want. I dispute that the non-technical anecdotes of doctors are even reliable sources on this. They don't make important distinctions or have the requisite knowledge about assault rifles. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wound characteristics belong in articles about specific calibers, if even there, since the effect in the target depends on bullet diameter, bullet length (a longer bullet causes a larger wound channel if it tumbles than a shorter bullet does), type of bullet and bullet velocity when entering the target, not on which type of weapon it was fired through. Assault rifles also come in multiple calibers (with 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm at one end of the scale and 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm at the other end) with widely varying effect in the target. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the editor is mistaken on his view of relevance. 72bikers (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Thomas.W you are correct. I only suggested the AR-15 article because the NY Times story was purportedly about them, and because I wanted to make Farcaster someone else's problem - I figured it would quickly be reverted there as well because it is a politically charged article. The individual cartridge articles are where this belongs if anywhere. One thing I will note is that it does matter whether it's an M4 or M16 but only for the reasons you spelled out. The 5.56x45 article already has this discussion actually, with better sources than the New York Times. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I'm not against an accurate and sourced section on wound ballistics. This was neither. Nor would I expect a populat newspaper to ever be an adequate source for this.

It seems to be comparing handgun vs. rifle mvs, except that this is a question for another article, and not even the one on assault weapons.

It then sees the AR-15 / M-16 as the only assault rifle/weapon, which is a common fallacy. It also then makes claims about ballistics which are only adequately true for the Stoner AR-15 concept of a reduced calibre with a moderate assault rifle cartidge, and the resultant ballistics and wound characteristics.

If this was relevant to all (or near) "assault rifles" in general, then it would be relevant. It isn't.

If this is true for a large proportion of such assault rifles (it is), then it could belong here, if it were better written and better sourced. As it is, it's just not good enough. This is only true for a narrow definition of assault rifles, and that needs to be made very clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE ADDITION...First...it's an opinion piece, sensationally written by one writer, interviewing a hand full doctors. Second...not all Assault Rifles are 5.56mm. It wasn't even the first Assault-Rifle caliber. Assault Rifles were around for about 15 years before the 5.56mm (then called .223) was developed. Third...not all 5.56mm weapons are Assault rifles. The military uses a wide range of 5.56mm weapons, including Assault Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Belt-Fed Light-Machineguns, etc. Fourth...not even all M16s type rifles fire 5.56mm ammo, some fire 6.8mm ammo. Because, it was felt that the 5.56mm ammo was not lethal enough. Fifth...not all AR-15s fire 5.56mm ammo. In fact, they fire so many different types of ammo that they cannot be listed here and have entire article devoted to them. Sixth...the 5.56mm cartridge is not exclusively used by AR-15s. It's used by a wide range of weapons, everything from semi-auto rifles, to bolt-action rifles, to pump-action rifles, to lever-action rifles, to single-shot rifles, to combo-guns, to pistols, and even bang-sticks.--RAF910 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm a bit confused by the edit summary "... ...wound characteristics (which are totally irrelevant in a technical article about a specific type of weapon)... - how are wound characteristics "irrelevant" to the function of the rifle? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't defend that edit summary for him, but the wound characteristics are about the cartridge, which is used in a number of different types of weapons other than assault rifle (including non-military weapons like hunting rifles). This topic is already discussed in the 5.56x45 NATO article. The NYT article is not a technical discussion and is not about assault rifles in a meaningful way, it only purports to be about the AR-15 (with poor evidence for that, reflecting inadequate knowledge of the topic). —DIYeditor (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the wound characteristics are about the cartridge" - so they have nothing to do with the weapon itself? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, the length of the barrel, the barrel twist, and whether it is semi-automatic, automatic, or bolt action make a difference. A bolt-action hunting rifle with .223 would actually inflict larger wounds AFAIK. My main objections to the NYT article are that it doesn't reflect adequate technical knowledge to be a RS on this topic, and including it here without balancing information about all different types of cartridges and weapons is UNDUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wounding effects of the 5.56mm is totally dependent on the velocity of the bullet when it hits the target. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of weapon it's fired from. A 55gr bullet fired from a 26" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3430fps, from a 20" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3300fps, from a 16" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3180fps, from a 10" it barrel has a muzzle velocity about 2760fps. The range to the target also effects the velocity at impact. Obviously, the closer you are to the target the higher the velocity. A 55gr bullet fired from a 20" barrel has a muzzle velocity of about 3300fps, at 100 yards the velocity is about 2800fps, at 300 yard it's about 1900fps, at 500 yards it's about 1300fps.--RAF910 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the type/model of weapon affects the velocity (and whether the bullet is spinning properly on impact). An M4 has a different wound pattern than an M16. So it does have to do with the weapon used. An AR-15 just happens to have no particular type of barrel or cartridge so in that case it is not accurate to characterize the wounds from it based on a narrow set of circumstances. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M16s have 20" barrels with a muzzle velocity of about 3150fps for 62gr ammo, M4s have 14.5" barrels with muzzle velocity of about 2970fps for 62gr ammo. The M4s have shorter barrels, therefore lower muzzle velocities. That's the only difference.--RAF910 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that is a difference between those two models of firearm. So the model does matter. Not worth arguing over really. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I can "defend" myself. They're totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE ADDITION per what I wrote in the section above. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose without DUE balance discussing other cartridges, and because this does not appear to be a reliable, technical secondary source on this topic, rather a politically motivated attack piece with anecdotes. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Do the comments apply for all or even most ammunition types? Are these generalized statements applicable to 7.62x39mm? I suspect it's the most common assault rifle round in the world. Springee (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your quite correct, the most common assault rifle in the world is the AK-47, with over 100 million rifles having been made. The 7.62x39mm round has much better penetration than the 5.56mm round. However, does not fragment on impact, even at point blank range or when striking bone. It just punches a neat hole in the target, maybe yawing (tumbling) once or twice before it exit out the other side.--RAF910 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not entirely relevant to this discussion, but while we are talking about it. The AK and its 7.62 round is credited as being the most used firearm in mass killings around the world. -72bikers (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For reasons stated above.72bikers (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion as discussed elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per my arguments on RSN, the source lacks the specificity to be included in this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose per my previous comments in discussion and elsewhere. Reb1981 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not particularly relevant to an article about assault rifles in general, because: A. Most assault rifles are not M-16s and B. The injury types discussed are not unique to assault rifles (they are typical of tumbling or hollow-point wound profiles inflicted by bolt-action and battle rifles, too, for example). VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Include, as answered at RSN. Clearly the NYT is a reliable source. Further, the article is about assault rifles and assault weapons as defined by Wikipedia, with both military (M-16) and civilian (AR-15) examples provided in the article. In terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." So we should proceed on the side of inclusion and improvement. The approach here should be to include the text and provide additional information from scientific studies as provided at the RfC. If there are concerns about undue weight, we can address those with sources that distinguish the impact of different cartridges or other rifles.Farcaster (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]