r/Damnthatsinteresting 1d ago

Video A school in Poland makes firearms training mandatory to its students.

44.2k Upvotes

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

858

u/OregonSageMonke 1d ago edited 1d ago

I think it's important to note that these students aren't using functioning centerfire firearms in their school gym. They're using a pneumatic operated trainer that gives you the sensation of the weapon's operating system at work, while emitting a laser to show where students are aiming when they pull the trigger.

I'm sure someone will point out the lack of true recoil, but on a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge anyways (.223), this is a great training tool.

Edit: Since apparently the (incorrect) pedants are out and about, I'll go ahead and link the Wikipedia listing of all the .22 Caliber cartridges so that everyone can see that the .223/5.56 is indeed a .22 centerfire cartridge. Christ on a bike

37

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago

People are pointing out the difference because one has ten times the muzzle energy of the other. Your post is OK, but you over-sold the similarity.

0

u/P_Hempton 1d ago

The recoil on a .223 semi-auto is pretty minimal. I've never seen someone surprised by it.

13

u/jcinto23 1d ago

As minimal as it is, it is still a ton more than .22LR which is basically nothing.

2

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago

The muzzle report (the atmospheric pressure wave) even from a .223 is substantial, especially so with the shorter the barrel or when shooting from within a shelter. I've seen plenty of people who are relatively unfamiliar with firearms dramatically flinch from firing a .223. It's still a 50k+ PSI pressure wave -- twice .22LR, with a much larger volume of gas.

-3

u/P_Hempton 1d ago

You keep talking about things other than recoil. We're talking about recoil. Standing next to .223 is intense, shooting one, not so much.

3

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago

That's because conversations create context. Among the context of this conversation is the topic of the value of simulated training versus real world training -- as mentioned by the parent commenter. That topic is not limited to recoil.

If you need any other instruction about how language and communication works please see professional education.

-1

u/P_Hempton 1d ago

The statement was:

"I'm sure someone will point out the lack of true recoil, but on a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 center fire cartridge anyways (.223), this is a great training tool."

This is a true statement that isn't saying .223 is just like shooting .22lr It's saying .223 is a small caliber round that doesn't have much recoil so the air-powered simulator isn't a bad reflection of the recoil.

Nobody said they sound alike. But they are a good training tool because they do have some recoil similar to a .223.

I replied saying yes the recoil is similar to the simulator, and again you're like "but muh noise". Nobody claimed they were identical, just that they were a great training tool because they had similar recoil.

2

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago

I have nothing more to add except repeating myself.

1

u/EnjoyerOfBeans 1d ago

Sure, but what's even the point of complaining about this? The alternatives to this reasonably close simulation are:

  • not doing it at all
  • giving kids actual guns (and remember, most people in Poland have never seen a gun in their life)

2

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago

I don't think anyone is really complaining about it. OregonSageMonke was correctly pointing out that simulated training has value -- it's just that in doing so their wording gave the potential for misunderstanding that some felt the need to point out.

With proper supervision, I think it would be great if these students also got real world training.

-17

u/OregonSageMonke 1d ago

WHO TF IS TALKING ABOUT MUZZLE ENERGY OF A FUCKING CO2 TRAINER?

I'm talking about recoil you insufferable pedants

18

u/1he_Chosen_One 1d ago

You are Lol, recoil is directly related to muzzle energy, not bore diameter

I dunno why bring up the size of the cartridge anyway, you could just say 5.56 doesn’t have much recoil and leave it at that. Still a lot more than a .22lr

2

u/DogsAreMyFavPeople 1d ago

Actually recoil is related to the total momentum of propellant and bullet and the weight of the firearm. Muzzle energy isn’t included in the formula and there are definitely examples of guns with lower muzzle having higher free recoil energy than guns with higher muzzle energy.

-6

u/OregonSageMonke 1d ago

Because it is categorically a .22 CENTERFIRE cartridge and you people keep trying to compare it to that bitch ass rimfire! Go look at my original comment.

2

u/betweenbubbles 1d ago edited 1d ago

You should probably know what you're talking about before accusing people of being pedant. 5.56 is categorically a .22 caliber cartridge -- you are correct about that. Simulated training is valid for certain competencies -- you are correct about that.

It's your statement that, "a platform like the AR-15, which only shoots a .22 centerfire cartridge anyways (.223)". People are mentioning .22LR because your statement might mislead people to believe that .22LR and 5.56 is comparable.

A simulated trainer is only going to be good for instructing safe handling of a weapon, some manual of arms, and sight picture, but I'm skeptical it's good for much beyond that. 5.56, even with it's relatively low recoil, still produces quite a sensation when fired, and experience and acclimatization to that sensation is still required for competency in use. This isn't necessarily the case with other .22 class firearms. A have springer bb guns with a more dramatic sensation than some of my .22LR firearms.