HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » One Photograph, Two Bulle...

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:37 AM

One Photograph, Two Bullets, And 26 Reasons We Need To Take Action For Newtown, Connecticut

The ammunition on the right is a .233 bullet, the same used to destroy the young bodies of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This ammunition isnít meant for hunting, itís meant for warfare.


Found on MissR*EVOLutionairesí Facebook page/MoveOn.org

168 replies, 18357 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 168 replies Author Time Post
Reply One Photograph, Two Bullets, And 26 Reasons We Need To Take Action For Newtown, Connecticut (Original post)
Playinghardball Jan 2013 OP
Recursion Jan 2013 #1
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #8
jberryhill Jan 2013 #9
Recursion Jan 2013 #12
jberryhill Jan 2013 #20
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #10
Recursion Jan 2013 #16
jberryhill Jan 2013 #24
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #26
Hoyt Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #25
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #29
jberryhill Jan 2013 #33
Recursion Jan 2013 #36
krispos42 Jan 2013 #136
Recursion Jan 2013 #34
jberryhill Jan 2013 #45
sadbear Jan 2013 #2
Recursion Jan 2013 #3
sadbear Jan 2013 #5
Recursion Jan 2013 #6
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #14
Recursion Jan 2013 #17
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22
Heimer Jan 2013 #30
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #59
SQUEE Jan 2013 #106
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #113
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #39
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #62
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #69
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #74
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #41
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #63
sir pball Jan 2013 #77
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #80
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #90
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #97
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #112
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #128
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #144
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #151
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #158
sir pball Jan 2013 #91
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #101
sir pball Jan 2013 #82
wercal Jan 2013 #84
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #15
RetroGamer1971 Jan 2013 #4
Glassunion Jan 2013 #11
Scuba Jan 2013 #7
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #19
jberryhill Jan 2013 #28
Scuba Jan 2013 #37
jberryhill Jan 2013 #43
Scuba Jan 2013 #51
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #52
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #32
Playinghardball Jan 2013 #13
EOTE Jan 2013 #49
OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #18
Recursion Jan 2013 #21
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #35
Recursion Jan 2013 #42
JoeyT Jan 2013 #160
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #38
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #88
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #96
SQUEE Jan 2013 #108
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #124
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #114
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #120
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #145
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #150
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #159
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #79
UncleYoder Jan 2013 #27
JayhawkSD Jan 2013 #31
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #40
Hoyt Jan 2013 #44
hack89 Jan 2013 #60
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #78
hack89 Jan 2013 #86
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #94
hack89 Jan 2013 #100
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #107
hack89 Jan 2013 #109
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #115
hack89 Jan 2013 #116
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #130
hack89 Jan 2013 #133
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #138
hack89 Jan 2013 #141
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #148
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #95
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #92
hack89 Jan 2013 #93
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #98
hack89 Jan 2013 #103
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #104
hack89 Jan 2013 #105
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #118
hack89 Jan 2013 #119
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #121
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #122
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #125
hack89 Jan 2013 #123
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #126
hack89 Jan 2013 #127
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #132
hack89 Jan 2013 #135
spin Jan 2013 #142
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #146
spin Jan 2013 #156
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #157
spin Jan 2013 #162
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #163
spin Jan 2013 #164
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #165
spin Jan 2013 #166
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #167
spin Jan 2013 #168
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #50
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47
One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #48
Xithras Jan 2013 #54
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57
hack89 Jan 2013 #64
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #65
hack89 Jan 2013 #66
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #68
hack89 Jan 2013 #70
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72
hack89 Jan 2013 #73
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #75
hack89 Jan 2013 #83
hack89 Jan 2013 #89
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #117
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #131
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #139
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #143
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #147
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #149
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #153
DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #53
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #55
bunnies Jan 2013 #58
doc03 Jan 2013 #61
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67
doc03 Jan 2013 #134
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #140
doc03 Jan 2013 #152
jdadd Jan 2013 #71
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #76
jdadd Jan 2013 #99
doc03 Jan 2013 #129
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #81
Rex Jan 2013 #85
Glassunion Jan 2013 #87
MrYikes Jan 2013 #110
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #102
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #111
MichiganVote Jan 2013 #137
SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #154
SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #155
rrneck Jan 2013 #161

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:38 AM

1. EDIT: I was wrong

That on the left is a .223, and the one on the right is a 22LR.

It's still just about the smallest centerfire ammo made, but this is an accurate photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:47 AM

8. The round on the left looks like a .22 long

The one on the right sure looks like a .223 to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:47 AM

9. Really?







It's just fucking amazing that all of these people put "not .223" cartridges next to packages of .223 cartridges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:49 AM

12. Yes really. There's no round I can think of that much smaller than a .223 long

So it's either a 30-06 or 308. But then again that might be some sort of absurdly small curio ammo on the left. (Rifle ammo is pretty much all the same shape, so the question here is scale.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:55 AM

20. Looks right to me



Left to right: .22 LR hollow point, 9mm Parabellum hollow point, .45, .223 PMC bronze 55 grain FMG Boat Tail, 30-06 American Eagle Federal 150 g FMG Boat Tail, 12-gauge shotshell (00 Buckshot), and lip gloss for size comparison.

In fact, this is the source image for the OP. Note the highlights and reflections.

The 22 long and the .223 were clipped and copied next to each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:48 AM

10. isn't the important thing rim fire or center fire? and .220 is smaller than .223...


To understand why the .223 bullet was so easily able to pierce both sides of the metal pipe, and why the .22LR bullet failed to pierce even the front side of the pipe, a few other factors need to be looked at.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem/

***

these are all .223, no?


With such a wide variety of bullet weights available, selecting the right bullet for the intended purpose is critical in building good .223 Remington handloads. (From left to right) Hornady 40-gr. V-Max; Nosler 50-gr. Ballistic Tip; Nosler 55-gr. Ballistic Tip; Nosler 60-gr. Partition; Sierra 69-gr. MatchKing; Berger 73-gr. Match; Swift 75-gr. Scirocco; Hornady 80-gr. A-Max; Sierra 80-gr. MatchKing; Berger 90-gr. VLD.

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2006/12/06/handloading-223remington-for-the-ar15/#ixzz2I3l5BVeO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 AM

16. 40 grain? Well if we're going to bring in subsonic ammo, ok

But this is getting kind of silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:58 AM

24. You are completely wrong


The OP image was created by copying the .22 LR and the .223 round from this image on Wikipedia:



Left to right: .22 LR hollow point, 9mm Parabellum hollow point, .45, .223 PMC bronze 55 grain FMG Boat Tail, 30-06 American Eagle Federal 150 g FMG Boat Tail, 12-gauge shotshell (00 Buckshot), and lip gloss for size comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:00 AM

26. People buying the most destructive firearm possible will use

the most destructive ammunition possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:58 AM

23. Is this more to your liking?



From left to right: 45ACP, 9mm NATO, .22LR, .223, 7.62x39mm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:58 AM

25. Yes, thank you (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:02 AM

29. the .22lr seems exactly the same as the original photo

in proportion to the .223


Why do you like this one more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:05 AM

33. You are correct

Recursion is having a hard time dealing with not being able to recognize ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:06 AM

36. Yes, I was completely wrong. Not sure why this bothered me so much

The .223 in the OP just looks absurdly big

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:06 PM

136. The brass is much larger for the .223 than the .22

The .223 Rem will kick a bullet out over 3x faster and with 10x the energy of the .22 rimfire. And for that... you need more gunpowder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:06 AM

34. Maybe it's the penny? I'm not sure. I'm using the gimp and checking that it wasn't resized

and it wasn't. The .223 long in the OP just looks absurdly big to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:14 AM

45. You can eyeball it from the length of the reflection


If you look at the length of the reflection on the left side of the .223 round, it's pretty obvious that it was not resized from the original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:40 AM

2. Jesus Christ!

WTF? I just don't understand how anyone can defend this kind of ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:41 AM

3. Why do you want bigger ammo than that?

Ammo doesn't particularly get smaller than .223.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:43 AM

5. Yes, I am ignorant about these things.

The one on the right is not the ammo used at Sandy Hook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:45 AM

6. If it is, then the one on the left is absurdly small; it's hard to tell the scale

The whole point of the AR-15 is that it uses the smallest ammo that's generally produced, so it's cheap to fire and doesn't penetrate too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:50 AM

14. see post #10

doesn't penetrate too much???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 AM

17. Yes. It's a deliberately low-power rifle compared to a 30-06 or 308

That's the whole point of the design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:58 AM

22. going through a metal pipe is sufficient penetration in my book

so .223s are for hunters not good enough to hit their target with a .22?

you can easily kill a deer or coyote with a .22, if you understand the concept of sportsmanship.

how can it be 'deliberately low powered' if it is designed for the military?

that's literally impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:03 AM

30. Wth?

"you can easily kill a deer or coyote with a .22, if you understand the concept of sportsmanship"

That is likely the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

59. you heard me.

from 50 yards away, i don't really think the target gives a flying F what size chunk of lead is coming towards it at which supersonic speed.

the statement meaning, you can kill anything with a good shot from a .22LR.

like, a head shot.

meaning, hunting isn't really using a military rifle from 500 yards.

or, a .22 can be horribly messy.

yahoo answers-
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
That statement is mostly true but it is the .22 caliber that has killed more people than any other caliber. That includes .22 pistols, revolvers, carbines & rifles.

Look, .22s are deadly, period. Especially when fired from short-barreled handguns a .22 caliber bullet can wreak havoc inside the body. Man is fairly light-boned with thin skin. A .22 can have just enough energy to enter the torso then bounce around all over the place within. This is especially true when fired from a short-barrel handgun. One shooting scene I was personal at (in an official capacity as a Texas Peace Officer) a couple of years ago involved family-violence and the original 'Saturday Night Special,' the infamous RG-22 six-shot, one-inch barrel .22 Short only revolver. One bro-in-law gut-shot another in a domestic dispute. The bullet entered the belly button and an exit wound could not be found by EMS. The shooting victim complained of... A heaviness in his scrotum. Guess where that .22 Short bullet ended up!

***

The .22 LR is a very deadly round. Many emergency room doctors will tell you that a .22 caliber gunshot is one of the worst to come in, because, quite often, a .22 LR will ricochet inside the body causing many small, hard-to-find wound channels. The surgeries for these wounds can take hours and as often as not, the victims bleed out and die.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/why-not-any-caliber/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:19 PM

106. Many states actually ban .223/5.56mm ammo for hunting large game.

Minimum often being .30 cal or in the 7mm range. There is more to a cartridge than just the diameter or caliber of the round, the .223 is almost exactly the same in diameter as the .22 shown. The difference in case size and powder load being the difference between cartridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #106)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:56 PM

113. define many for starters- i think more allow it than not

ďI canít say Iíve seen or heard of any correlation between the use of the .223 and wounded or wasted game complaints,Ē said Mike Korn, assistant chief of law enforcement for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Keep in mind that, like Colorado, Montana has mule deer, and the Big Sky State permits the .223.
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:08 AM

39. Ummmm....had to edit :P

A .22 rimfire is so underpowered for deer hunting that it isn't legal ANYWHERE in the U.S. for hunting deer. It is more likely to make a painful wound and lingering death to the animal than it is to kill it outright. Even .223/ 5.56x45 ammunition, the type most commonly used in an AR-15, is not legal in most states for deer hunting because it too is of relatively low power when compared to most calibers used for big game hunting. Common calibers used in hunting deer are 2 to 3 times more powerful than .223 ammo, based on kinetic energy. They shoot much heavier bullets, and many of them at velocities equal to or greater than .223.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:09 PM

62. ummm, had to go to the nra site, thanks...

I then looked at different statesí firearm regulations for deer hunting and found no consistency in which rifle calibers hunters are allowed to use. Some states prohibit the .223 for deer hunting; others allow it and even other .22-caliber centerfire rifles.
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148

get it together, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:23 PM

69. Excuse me....

I said that the .22 rimfire isn't legal for deer hunting anywhere, and that's a fact. I also said that .223 is not permitted in most states for deer hunting. What, exactly, did I get wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:53 PM

74. the topic is whether .223 is a military round. the answer is yes.

Even .223/ 5.56x45 ammunition, the type most commonly used in an AR-15, is not legal in most states for deer hunting because it too is of relatively low power when compared to most calibers used for big game hunting. Common calibers used in hunting deer are 2 to 3 times more powerful than .223 ammo, based on kinetic energy.


A lot of deer hunters believe the .223 Rem. is not enough of a cartridge to be called deer ammo. There is some logic behind this. After all, deer are sometimes lost to hits from cartridges as large as the .30-06. Truth be told, those lost deer are more than likely due to bad shooting as opposed to bad or little bullets. Regardless of what cartridge you deer hunt with, your bullet needs to penetrate deep enough to pass through vital organs. It should also expand or deform in a way to maximize the destruction of those organs.

The .223 Rem. is legal for deer hunting in a lot of states,
and has proven to be effective when proper bullets are used. The down side to the .223 Rem. is not velocity or bullet diameter; a .243 Win. is no faster, and its bullet is only .02 inches wider in diameter. (That's a difference of less than the thickness of your credit card.) Bullet weight is the .223's weakness. Because most bullets shed weight as they expand and penetrate, bullet expansion combined with weight loss limits penetration. For .22 caliber bullets to be effective on deer, they need to expand wide so they can maximize tissue destruction, but they also need to maintain their weight so they can drive deep.
http://www.huntingclub.com/magazine/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/13457/is-the-223-rem-deadly-for-deer#.UPWW5WcYOTw

***

from an ar-15 site:


Not Colorado! 6mm / 243Win is minimum here.

NY- yes

Its leagal in Georgia.

It's legal in wisconsin. And I've heard people do it and I'm going to do it this year. I'll tell you how it works out if you're interested.

Oregon- yes

My son has killed four now here in PA with a bolt actioned .223. All were one shot kills with handloladed 55 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claws at 3100 fps. All shots were complete penetrations on broadside animals and none of them went more than 30 yards.

In NC it is legal but so is a .22 short rimfire. I wouldn't hunt deer with a .223 as bigger is better for deer. CRC

Texas is legal too. Any centerfire cartridge is legal. If you're a good shot, there's probably no reason you couldn't take a deer in Central Texas. The deer are plentiful as rats, but they don't get very big. Now a South Texas deer - different story.

Not legal in Ohio, but no center fire rifle is legal to hunt deer with here - all shotguns n the Buckeye state.

Your friend is mostly right. .223s can take deer with proper placement but they're a rotten choice IMO. That said, you can add LA to the list.

Scratch WA off any list, 6mm minimum. Thank Dog for 6X45.

New York is any centerfire cartridge, pistol or rifle. MIKE.

It is legal here in WVa any centerfire rifle.

Any centerfire cartridge rifle or pistol in California. Different areas, different rules, for fire arms and ammo. In one area if you use a handgun, the barrel must be at least 6 inches long and use only hollow point ammo. Safest bet is to talk with a knowedgeable game warden/park ranger (which can be hard to find, but there are good ones out there) in the area you intend to hunt. Can be very confusing, which is what you would expect in CA.

OK in ME, or at least it was last time I hunted (a few years ago). It may have been changed but I don't think so. FB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:10 AM

41. You *could* but it would be illegal.

In my state it is illegal to hunt deer with anything smaller than 6mm caliber (.24)

It is not sporting to use a weapon that allows the animal to suffer.

It is my understanding that .223's were invented to enable a soldier to shoot them controllably at automatic rates of fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:10 PM

63. not everywhere

http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148
I then looked at different statesí firearm regulations for deer hunting and found no consistency in which rifle calibers hunters are allowed to use. Some states prohibit the .223 for deer hunting; others allow it and even other .22-caliber centerfire rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:01 PM

77. .22 centerfire, not 22 Long Rifle

Is a whole different beast than a "22". "22" to most people, even non-gunners, implies the good old 22 Long Rifle, which you might possibly be able to take a deer with, at 5 yards, with an extraordinarily lucky shot. Realistically, you aren't going to get anything bigger than a rabbit or squirrel.

MOST states restrict all 22-caliber rifles for deer; yes, there are some that allow it, and I'll even confess to having taken a fat, tasty doe with a .223 once...at around 20 yards. Most yahoos have no business using a marginal round; it takes very careful aim which most hunting yahoos don't have (sorry, even the ones I know who use "traditional" guns aren't generally that good).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:08 PM

80. i have a .22LR- if i wanted to shoot a deer DEAD with it, i could. easily. i don't.

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

edit#1: by shoot i meant kill

and i know what the gun does, thanks.

maybe the yahoos are the problem- they shouldn't be allowed crutches?

Truth be told, those lost deer are more than likely due to bad shooting as opposed to bad or little bullets. Regardless of what cartridge you deer hunt with, your bullet needs to penetrate deep enough to pass through vital organs. It should also expand or deform in a way to maximize the destruction of those organs.

The .223 Rem. is legal for deer hunting in a lot of states, and has proven to be effective when proper bullets are used. The down side to the .223 Rem. is not velocity or bullet diameter; a .243 Win. is no faster, and its bullet is only .02 inches wider in diameter. (That's a difference of less than the thickness of your credit card.) Bullet weight is the .223's weakness. Because most bullets shed weight as they expand and penetrate, bullet expansion combined with weight loss limits penetration. For .22 caliber bullets to be effective on deer, they need to expand wide so they can maximize tissue destruction, but they also need to maintain their weight so they can drive deep.
http://www.huntingclub.com/magazine/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/13457/is-the-223-rem-deadly-for-deer#.UPWW5WcYOTw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #80)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:21 PM

90. You could shoot it easily. And it most likely would suffer. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #90)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:40 PM

97. not if i knew what i was doing.

obviously, if you don't have a good shot, you don't take it.

getting a bigger gun is a lame solution, i'd say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #97)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:51 PM

112. Total BS.

Even with the best shot there is still a good chance the animal does not die immediately. There is a reason why that round is illegal to hunt deer with. Getting a bigger round is not only smart and humane, it is the only legal option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #112)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:34 PM

128. not BS at all. why does it say dangerous up to 1.5 MILES on the ammo box?

getting a bigger gun doesn't make you a better hunter,

in fact probably makes you worse.

the state of ME allows .22 magnum for deer.

professional deer guys apparently like them, too- (from some hunting forum)

Elmbow, that is a good question. Varmint hunters are hired by the big cities to thin out deer herds. The guns of choice are 22lr's, sub sonic ammo. Lapua Scoremax features a 48-grain, Aguila's SSS (subsonic)a 60-grain projectile; the latter takes a 9.5" twist. The only shots are to the brainstem from the sides of the head and back of the head only. Never use light bullets or hollow points. The range that is best for thinning deer herds out is 60+ yards, range finder is a must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #128)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:51 PM

144. Yes, it is total BS, and it is clear you don't know what you are talking about.

You are obviously just googling trying to find any post to support your absurd idea that it is a good idea to hunt deer with a .22 and aim for the head. Hunters don't use .22 to shoot deer. Period. It's illegal, inhumane, and stupid. And it doesn't make you a better hunter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #144)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:20 PM

151. having too much gun is just as bad as not enough gun

people use crossbows.

it takes more skill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #151)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:34 PM

158. And a .22 isn't a big enough round

Unless you like to make the animal suffer, which it seems you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #80)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:25 PM

91. Shenanigans.

I've been hunting for 20 years and reloading/learning ballistics for six or seven and I would never EVER use a .22LR for a whitetail. Yeah, it's technically possible, but...well, the words "inhumane" and "grossly irresponsible" spring to mind. Even with a perfectly-placed shot, the only way I'd ever even TRY it (and this would only be after the zombie apocalypse) would be a headshot at less than 10-15 yards. There's a reason rimfire 22s are categorically illegal for deer.

You talk about penetration, a 22LR doesn't - I can't even find any reliable gelatin data. You talk about bullet weight, a 22LR is 30 grains to a .223s 60 (at 2-3 times the velocity) or a 243's 90 grains. Of course I wouldn't want to get shot with a .22LR any more than with anything else; I'm not saying it won't cause a serious wound - but it's utterly inconceivable for an ethical, humane, reasonable kill of a whitetail deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #91)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:48 PM

101. not at all. obviously, the size of the animal, the distance, etc. all matter

ß11454. Hunting deer with .22 caliber rimfire cartridge
1. Prohibition. A person may not hunt deer with any firearms using a .17 or .22 caliber rimfire cartridge, except that the use of the .22 caliber rimfire magnum cartridge is not prohibited.

from Maine^^^

which has a fairly established hunting tradition, i think.

also, i think there is a distance where is turns from hunting to sniping.

Many hunters feel that the long range shooters more often than not carelessly launch big high velocity projectiles cross country, in their pursuit of our treasured game animals, never caring about how many are only wounded to run off and die a slow painful death.

Similarly, many archery hunters feel the same way about the hunter who repeatedly takes shots at distances great than 50 yards, only because they themselves are not able to consistently hit the kill zone with their archery skills at ranges beyond that.
http://www.lazzeroni.com/ct_lrs.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:11 PM

82. It was designed BY the military to be underpowered!

Here's the four most common rifle rounds the military uses:



The one on the left is the .223/5.56mm. The next one in is the .308/7.62mm, which the 223 was implemented (not designed - the original concept was a civilian varmint round) to replace - the 308 was just too big, heavy, and kicked too hard for the average soldier to handle. It's widely considered to be one of the best medium-game rounds ever designed, packing over twice the power of the .223 - which should give pause to the idea of little guy being any use for hunting.

The other two are what the military considers "high-powered" rounds, used in long-range sniper rifles - .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua. The former is just as popular a sporting round as the .308; it was developed in the civilian market before ever being militarized.

So yeah. The .223 is, even by military standards, extraordinarily underpowered, and it was quite deliberately designed that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

84. Two Things

1. In most places, it is illegal to use a .22 for deer hunting. Its considered cruel and/or wasteful, since the deer will likely not die immediately. Rather, it will run off into the woods a die a very slow death, from bloodloss or infection.

2. I was in the military...and this is how the .223 was explained (its called 5.56 in the Army btw): The ammunition is not nearly as lethal as 7.62 mm. This is a calculated feature, such that instead of one dead enemy missing from the battlefield, there will be one wounded enemy and two carrying him, missing from the battlefield.

Yes, its deadly, for sure. But it is indeed considered 'low powered' in the military. I cannot think of anything smaller in the military other than a pistol. Its certainly not the 'top dog'.

Now, there is another weapon, which has got little attention: the AR-10. It comes in a .308 version, which makes the .223 look small by comparison. Whereas the .223 is not always legal for hunting, the .308 generally is (except some states that require shotgun slugs). Its bigger, and more 'high powered'. BTW it looks just like the AR-15.

Now all this discussion is moot...because these massacre shootings happen at close range, where even that little bitty .22 would be deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:50 AM

15. Neither can I, and yet you've seen, they still do

by trying to nitpick; claiming it's not a .223 although that clearly is a .223, albeit magnified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:41 AM

4. The big one looks like the 50 cal bullets they use for experiments on MythBusters.


Bulletproof Water
Myth: Water will protect you from being shot by bullets

They know that water will eventually stop a bullet, so they want to test to see how deep you have to dive to avoid being shot.

Gun selection
The various guns they tested during the myth were:

9mm pistol
M1 Garand/.30-06
Replica Civil War black powder rifle
Shotgun
.50 cal rifle
Regarding the .50 cal ammunition:

Adam: "That's what this thing fires?"
Jamie: "It's smaller than my head, it's alright"

Pool tests
A vertical rig was a worst-case scenario. In order to make it easier to test and also to make it correspond better with a real-world scenario, they decided to make their new rig be at a 30 degree angle. At a 30 degree angle with an 8 ft penetrating bullet, you would only have to be 4ft underwater.

Someone strangely agreed to allowing Adam and Jamie to shoot off guns in their pool. Adam made a new 20 ft railway for the ballistics gel target and they mounted it at a 23 degree angle.

For the first test they used a replica Civil War black powder rifle shooting Jamie's homemade bullets at 1000 ft/s.

Replica Civil War rifle @ 15 ft: The bullet veered way off target.
Replica Civil War rifle@ 5 ft: they couldn't find the bullet and the ballistics gel was still intact -- nonfatal
Replica Civil War rifle @ 3 ft: The bullet went through the gel -- fatal. At this distance, though, the gel was only 2 ft underwater because of the angle.
They switched to a .223 rifle, which shoots at 2500 ft/s

.223 rifle @ 10 ft: the full metal jacket bullet shattered into tiny bits upon hitting the water -- nonfatal
223 rifle@ 3 ft: once again the bullet broke up. The tip of the bullet was resting on the ballistics gel -- nonfatal (myth confirmed)
The next gun up was the M1, which shoots at 2800 ft/s. In their Bulletproof Glass mythbusting, the M1 was capable of penetrating 2.5" of bulletproof glass.

M1@ 10 ft: tiny bullet fragments once again
M1@ 2 ft: the bullet only pierced the gel 4", which would be enough to just pierce the skin.
They finally broke out the big gun, the .50 cal with armor-piercing rounds, which are shot at 3000 ft/s.

Adam: "Hopefully we'll be gone before the pool fully drains"

.50 cal @ 10 ft: even though the water exploded, the ballistics gel was intact. Water made it all the way up to the ceiling. As it was with the previous guns, the bullet round came apart on impact. It lost all of it's energy within the first 3 ft. You would be safe 14" underwater at a 23 angle from a .50 cal.
confirmed: you can protect yourself from a bullet by diving underwater. If the shooter were directly overhead, you would probably be safe from most guns at 8 ft. At a 30 degree angle, you would only have to be 3 ft underwater to be safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroGamer1971 (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:48 AM

11. That round is not a .50 cal.

The round on the right is just slightly taller than a double A battery.

A .50 cal round is roughly the length of your hand from your wrist to the tip of your middle finger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:46 AM

7. The big one looks like a 30-06 round, the smaller a 22 long rifle...

The 223 is actually a pretty good long-range hunting round.

While I continue to advocate strongly for much stiffer gun regulation, posting wildly inaccurate information is not helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 AM

19. no, it looks like post #10

nothing inaccurate at all, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:01 AM

28. Bullshit




Left to right: .22 LR hollow point, 9mm Parabellum hollow point, .45, .223 PMC bronze 55 grain FMG Boat Tail, 30-06 American Eagle Federal 150 g FMG Boat Tail, 12-gauge shotshell (00 Buckshot), and lip gloss for size comparison.

Notice that the .22 LR and the .223 in the OP are taken from this source image on Wikipedia. Also notice the difference between the .223 and the 30-06 and/or one's ass and a hole in the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:06 AM

37. Thanks, that pic makes the scalar difference more understandable. Are you also calling bullshit ...

.... on my claim that the .223 is a good hunting round, or just on my guess on caliber?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:11 AM

43. I am calling bullshit on two things


1. That the round was not a .223, and

2. That claiming it was a .223 round is "wildly inaccurate information".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:33 AM

51. The "wildly inaccurate" was regarding the claim that the 223 wasn't a good hunting round.

I qualified my guess on caliber with a "looks like" not a "definitely is".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:35 AM

52. .223

is a decent varmint/small game round, but not powerful enough to be a good choice for deer hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:05 AM

32. Yes, posting wildly inaccurate information is not helpful

we can agree on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:50 AM

13. The bullet on the left is a .22 caliber used for shooting beer cans...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:23 AM

49. A .22 can kill a person very well. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 AM

18. If by action you mean actually doing something beyond pounding a keyboard...

 

then sure.

What do you suggest we run out and do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:56 AM

21. Here, for an attempt at scale. The .223 is *on the LEFT* in this one



It's the smallest ammo rifles use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:06 AM

35. so a .22 cal rifle isn't a rifle?

How do you figure that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:10 AM

42. Fine. The smallest *centerfire* rifle ammunition sold

Does anybody even own a rimfire anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:42 PM

160. Tons of people.

The only gun I actually own ammo for is a .22 LR.

I don't hunt, so I don't need to bring down large game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:07 AM

38. why do you keep trying to pretend that .22s don't exist? .22s KILL things EASILY. also .17 cal=small

from yahoo answers-
Don Don

"Smallest" is a poor description. There are rounds that are smaller in diameter, but their higher velocities result in more energy. I don't like to refer to the .22 as "small", or diminutive. I took my first deer with a .22 long, (my dad wouldn't let me buy LR at Western Auto). The deer dropped in it's tracks, not a move. It is a very deadly round, and should never be taken lightly.
Source(s):
I know....I shot a doe out of season, inside the city limits, and with too small a caliber. I was 10 or 11, and there is a statute of limitations..I hope. It was almost 40 years ago. (I still have that rifle, and shoot it).

***
but there are smaller and faster still:

.17 HMR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Production history
Designer Hornady
Designed 2002
Manufacturer CCI, Federal, Hornady, PMC, Remington, Winchester
Produced 2002ĖPresent
Specifications
Parent case .22 WMR

Overall length 1.349 in (34.3 mm)
Primer type Rimfire


.17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire, commonly known as the .17 HMR, is a rimfire rifle cartridge developed by the ammunition company Hornady in 2002. It descended from the .22 Magnum by necking down the .22 Magnum case to take a .17 caliber (4.5 mm) bullet, and it is more costly to shoot than traditional .22 caliber rimfire cartridges. Commonly loaded with a 17 grain (1.1 g) bullet, it can deliver muzzle velocities in excess of 2550 ft/s (775 m/s).

(.17 on left)

The .17 HMR round is similar to rounds developed by dedicated rimfire wildcatters who worked to create a rimfire cartridge with an exceptionally flat trajectory. These wildcatters were seeking to match the ballistics of the obsolete 5mm Remington Magnum Rimfire, which was made from 1970 to 1974, and was to that point the fastest rimfire cartridge ever produced. With 5mm (.20 caliber) diameter barrels and bullets being virtually unavailable at the time (the 5mm RMR was the last commercial 5mm round until the 2004 release of the centerfire .204 Ruger), the commercially available .17 caliber became their bullet of choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:20 PM

88. Well if a guy on Yahoo Answers shot a deer with a .22lr

then obviously it is a great hunting round! Of course most deer shot with a .22lr will NOT die right away which is why it is illegal, but you seem to be ok with the whole animal cruelty thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #88)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:39 PM

96. there is supposed to be an element of skill involved in hunting. 50-100 yards, head shot, dead.

The .223 Rem. is legal for deer hunting in a lot of states, and has proven to be effective when proper bullets are used. The down side to the .223 Rem. is not velocity or bullet diameter; a .243 Win. is no faster, and its bullet is only .02 inches wider in diameter. (That's a difference of less than the thickness of your credit card.) Bullet weight is the .223's weakness. Because most bullets shed weight as they expand and penetrate, bullet expansion combined with weight loss limits penetration. For .22 caliber bullets to be effective on deer, they need to expand wide so they can maximize tissue destruction, but they also need to maintain their weight so they can drive deep.
http://www.huntingclub.com/magazine/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/13457/is-the-223-rem-deadly-for-deer#.UPWhyGcYOTx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #96)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:27 PM

108. You assume that all hunting is done for sport.

Here in my state people actually make it by on stored venison and also feral hogs.
No good hunter goes for headshots, lung and heart shots are proper placement for taking deer.
And almost nobody 'round here hunts hog with .223/5.56. prefering at least a .30 cal. Why? because angry hogs suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #108)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:27 PM

124. no, sport means 'only kill what you eat' -true for a lot of people- or at least give away to eat

i will definitely agree angry hogs suck. no doubt there!

venison is much tastier, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #96)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:02 PM

114. You think people should be hunting deer with a .22lr from 50-100 yards and aiming for the head?

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #114)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:16 PM

120. head sounds better than lungs to me, but i'm not a hooved herbivore. ask an expert, maybe

If heís only got a shot lower down on the neck, DeNicola will usually wait for a better option. In his business, body shots are way too risky.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2012/09/where-aim-kill-deer-one-shot

so the states of CT and ME are 'dumb' for allowing .22s for hunting? cool.

CT law

Can a centerfire rifle be used for hunting?
Yes. However, rifles using ammunition larger or heavier than .22 caliber rimfire long rifle are prohibited on state-owned land. Rifles of any caliber are prohibited on state-leased and Permit-Required Hunting Areas. It is prohibited to hunt on private land with ammunition larger than .22 caliber rimfire long rifle during the private land shotgun/rifle deer season. A centerfire rifle that fires 6mm (.243 caliber) or larger ammunition may be used for deer hunting on private land if the landholding is 10 or more acres and the landowner has authorized rifle use on the DEEP consent form. For coyote hunting, a centerfire rifle may be used, but the hunter must have verbal permission from the landowner. However, during the shotgun/rifle deer hunting season, coyote hunters are restricted to ammunition not larger than .22 caliber rimfire long rifle.

ME law
Deer may not be hunted with the use of dogs, artificial lights, snares, traps, set guns or any firearm using .22 caliber rimfire cartridges, except that .22 caliber rimfire magnum cartridges are permitted. Deer decoys are legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #120)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:52 PM

145. You're obviously not a hunter, and have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:18 PM

150. i guess i didn't post enough of this professional deer killer guy before

How do you guarantee a drop-it-where-it-stands shot? For Anthony DeNicola, owner of White Buffalo, a top deer-control operation, itís all about the brain.

ďDraw a line from tear duct to tear duct, then go 2.5 to 2.75 inches above that line, centered,Ē says DeNicola. ďThatís where you want to place your bulletófirst and best option.Ē

A bullet in the brain instantly incapacitates the animal; death follows in seconds. Of course, DeNicola and his team have an advantage over hunters: They shoot at night with infrared optics, from raised, mobile platforms, over bait, at known distances (usually 50 to 60 yards), and (where legal) with suppressed rifles.

DeNicola uses .223-caliber rifles, firing 50- to 55-grain frangible varmint projectiles that expend all their energy into the brainpan. In the urban and suburban environments in which he works, DeNicola canít afford to have a round exiting an animal.

Second option: A brain shot from the side. Third: A shot just below the back of the skull in the first four cervical vertebrae of the spine.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2012/09/where-aim-kill-deer-one-shot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #150)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:39 PM

159. no the first time was too much.

No one cares about some random guy on some forum that you found with Google. A .22 is not a round you use for hunting deer which is why it is illegal in almost every single state. All you are doing is proving that you know nothing about deer hunting and that you can use Google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:05 PM

79. Semantics

Doesn't matter, the gun and the ammo has one purpose - Destruction of whatever it strikes.

All this argument over the caliber and comparing it to larger bullets doesn't hide the fact that it is a device of destruction and killing!

No one has explained why anyone needs such a device except to cause destruction!

Semantics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:01 AM

27. You gun boys have all lost your

credibility. Please go sit in the corner and stay out of the discussion. I understand it's hard to keep quiet when your precious is being attacked but it is clear you don't know jack shit about ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:04 AM

31. In the interest of some small degree of sanity...

The cartridge on the left appears to be a .22 caliber, which is great for plinking and for hunting very small animals at short range. Using it for larger game or at any range longer than 100 feet creates great risk of wounding rather than making an instant and merciful kill.

The cartridge on the right appears to be a .223 or a 7mm magnum, and it certainly is meant for hunting. I have used many such rounds against prairie dogs, which are targeted at very long range, usually several hundred yards. To do that you need high velocity and stable flight, for which the small bullet is preferred. The large case permits you to use a slow burning powder which accelerates the bullet smoothly down the barrel and promotes the stability in flight. It also reduces the amount of erosion and leads to longer barrel life. A smaller case would require a faster burning powder, meaning somewhat less stability in flight and reducing the life of the rifle.

These are also cartridges, not bullets. The bullets are the parts that fly out of the barrel when the rifle is fired. The brass part is the case, and the whole assembly (bullet, case, powder and primer) is the cartridge.

The bullet on the right clearly has full metal jacket, making it one of the least lethal bullets in any caliber. An unjacketed bullet, partially jacketed one, or one with a scored jacket would be far more lethal.

A .50 caliber cartridge would dwarf a .22 cal cartridge almost to invisibility, so the person who said that it appeared to be that is saadly uninformed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:09 AM

40. It is meant for hunting humans. Your using it for prairie dogs does not change

the original intent of that ammunition.

It is of a military design and designed to kill other human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:14 AM

44. That's the point that the gun crowd just keep trying to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:09 PM

60. It did not start as a military round. Few actually do.

usually the military takes an existing civilian round and slightly modifies it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:03 PM

78. dead wrong.

History

The .223 Remington (5.56x45mm) is a cartridge that is ballistically in-between its predecessors, the .222 Remington, and the .222 Remington Magnum. The 223/5.56x45 was developed to fit the action length of the new M16 service rifle. The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber. Shortly after military acceptance of the M16, the semi-automatic version, the AR-15 became available, making the .223 cartridge even more popular. As of January 2013, after political discussion of a possible assault weapons bans, there is currently a shortage of .223 ammo in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

***

After seeing the ArmaLite AR-10, they discussed their desire for a
scaled-down model. ArmaLite engineers Jim Sullivan and Bob Fremont scaled down the
AR-10 to fit the hot varmint cartridge of the day, the .222 Remington. During some
preliminary military testing, it was decided that the .222 Rem wasn't quite powerful
enough. Though the .222 Remington Magnum existed and had the power they were
looking for, the severe shoulder angle would have prevented positive feeding in a semiauto,
and so it was decided that the best solution was to lengthen the .222 Rem case. The
result was the 5.56◊45mm cartridge, designed by G. A. Gustafson, which Remington
released commercially as the .223 Remington. This cartridge has virtually identical
ballistics as the .222 Mag and, over time, the wide availability of .223 guns and ammo
has lead to the demise of the .222 and .222 Mag cartridges.
The AR15 was initially adopted by the Air Force, but the need for rifles for soldiers
heading to Vietnam gave the "medium-power cartridge" supporters an opening and the
AR15 rifle was hastily procured, initially as a one-time purchase. Continued problems
with the M14 program lead to the official adoption of the AR15, which was given the US
military designation "M16."
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/AmmoOracle_061808.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:17 PM

86. It is damn near ballistically identical to the .222

.001 of an inch is not a significant difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:36 PM

94. i already posted this for you, but here it is again

During some
preliminary military testing, it was decided that the .222 Rem wasn't quite powerful
enough. Though the .222 Remington Magnum existed and had the power they were
looking for, the severe shoulder angle would have prevented positive feeding in a semiauto,
and so it was decided that the best solution was to lengthen the .222 Rem case. The
result was the 5.56◊45mm cartridge, designed by G. A. Gustafson, which Remington
released commercially as the .223 Remington.


they had to redesign it to make it semi-auto.

something a civilian has NO USE for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:47 PM

100. The .222 Remington is used in semi-automatics

Some early Mini-14 rifles were chambered in the .222 Remington cartridge. Since the .222 Remington is not completely dimensionally equivalent to the 5.56x45mm, Ruger chambered Mini-14s for both 5.56 and .222 Remington. Civilian firearms chambered in 5.56 are highly restricted in countries that restrict or prohibit firearms that chamber military cartridges (such as Mexico). By chambering the Mini-14 in the similar but not interchangeable .222 Remington caliber, the Mini-14 could be sold in those countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #100)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:24 PM

107. that is terrible news, something should be done about that. maybe a ban.

i think that mini-14 is on the new list.

you are saying that trickery is a good way to deal with guns? and basically just sell more of them?

so you agree with the OP, that .223 are military, but you think they are good and necessary?

and loopholes should allow anyone who wants them to get them?

why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #107)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:29 PM

109. I am saying that fixating on the bullets is stupid

the difference between military and civilian rounds nonexistent when you are talking lethality. Civilian rounds can kill you just as dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #109)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:06 PM

115. no, you are trying to change the subject- the .223 is designed to be fired semi-automatically

and it is a lot nastier than a .22LR, no matter how many fly.

of course, more bullets are usually worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #115)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:08 PM

116. Again, so what?

Damn near every bullet in the world is more powerful than a .22LR. How does this bear on the Newtown shooting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #116)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:55 PM

130. the "what" being that .223 ammo is both overkill and not civilian

and it was used in CT.

so maybe there should be less of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #130)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:57 PM

133. So what about other civilian rounds - are they ok?

you know - traditional deer hunting rounds like the 30-06 or .270? Can we still have those?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #133)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:35 PM

138. you can have whatever you want, as long as you are responsible about it, i'd say

bolt action is good enough for me.

but there are already millions of bushwhackers going around, so obviously you have to regulate the mags. less deadly types of .223 ammo would also be a good idea.

i mean, if you just shoot targets, would you have a problem with plastic bullets if they shot and cost the same?

the point of the OP is civilians don't need military weapons or ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #138)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:45 PM

141. I think a Mini-14 in .222 Remington would work fine for me

it is not a military gun and it is not military ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #141)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:01 PM

148. that's cool.

http://www.pcpammo.com/

so's that ^^^. you'd think they could do plastic bullets if they can do cartridges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:38 PM

95. the case is ~2mm longer also

overall length ~3mm longer than the .222


It is very similar but not identical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

92. The fact that you must make false statements to defend this ammunition

is simply more proof that it is part of the problem.

You are right that most do not start as a military round, the .223 did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

^snip^

The .223 Remington (5.56x45mm) is a cartridge that is ballistically in-between its predecessors, the .222 Remington, and the .222 Remington Magnum. The 223/5.56x45 was developed to fit the action length of the new M16 service rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #92)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:35 PM

93. A modification of .001 inches

the .222 stopped selling because its performance was the same as the .223

So tell me - would you have a problem if all AR-15s were converted to .222?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:41 PM

98. How about to .22 like the OP was comparing it to?


At least you don't dispute that you did make false statements about the origin of this round.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #98)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:59 PM

103. I was correct

the difference between the .222 and .223 is insignificant. There is a reason why the .222 is such a popular varmint round.


.223 = 63 gr GP 90 FMJBT Velocity =2,970 ft/s Energy = 1,679 J

.222 = 60 gr VMax Velocity =2,937 ft/s Energy = 1,560 J


So tell me - do you have a problem with a AR-15 cambered for .222 since it is not a military round?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #103)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:03 PM

104. The .222 was developed for a bolt action rifle, so how about

we convert all AR-15 s to bolt action?


You keep cherry picking details (besides presenting falsehoods).

I want you to realize something. At some point the pictures of the children killed in Sandy Hook will be released. When you see the photos of those children, riddled with .223 rounds, I want you to remember your over the top defense of those rounds.


Sleep well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #104)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

105. By that logic every round is bad.

shooters will use what ever caliber is available. You can't ban them all.

The over the top thing here is to focus on the bullet. Would a different caliber made a difference in Newtown? I don't get the point of the OP. If the 5.56 is a military round and should be banned, then tell me how using a civilian round like a .222 makes a whit of difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #105)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:07 PM

118. The OP is a comparison of the two bullets

how can any response not be within that context?


Besides that, you are cherry picking again.

I expect your next argument to be some tiny detail between what an assault rifle is and what it isn't. The truth is that if it similar to an assault rifle it should be banned and so should the ammunition it uses.


The difference is that the .222 was developed for a bolt action hunting rifle and the .223 was developed for an automatic military weapon.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #118)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:11 PM

119. Ok. So a 5.56 is more deadly then a smaller, less powerful round.

what are we to do with that information that will make us safer?

The .222 can be used in semi-automatic rifles.

Some early Mini-14 rifles were chambered in the .222 Remington cartridge. Since the .222 Remington is not completely dimensionally equivalent to the 5.56x45mm, Ruger chambered Mini-14s for both 5.56 and .222 Remington. Civilian firearms chambered in 5.56 are highly restricted in countries that restrict or prohibit firearms that chamber military cartridges (such as Mexico). By chambering the Mini-14 in the similar but not interchangeable .222 Remington caliber, the Mini-14 could be sold in those countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #119)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:17 PM

121. There is no arguing with a zealot


We need to take some first steps. No, they will not take us the entire distance we need to travel but that does not mean that those steps should not be taken.

You will never understand this.

I am tired of you, respond to this if you want but you are very close to becoming the only person on my ignore list (those still exist I hope).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #121)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:19 PM

122. What is....

...the "entire distance" we need to take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #122)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:30 PM

125. How about until mass shootings are a rarity instead of being common place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #121)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:22 PM

123. So what is that first step?

keeping in mind that doing nothing will still produce fewer gun deaths this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #123)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:33 PM

126. First of all, it is impossible for you to know that doing nothing will produce

fewer gun deaths this year.


Again, false statements presented as facts. This is pretty common with you and simply more evidence that you are a zealot on this issue.

Ask me again tomorrow what the first step is, or just listen to Pres. Obama's proposal because that will be the first step. (Duh!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #126)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:34 PM

127. 30 years of historical trends make it a pretty safe bet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #127)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:56 PM

132. More falsehoods. Can't you get anything right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #132)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:03 PM

135. I was talking about all gun violence - not a tiny piece of it.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Lets not forget that rifles and shotguns are responsible for 3% of all murders. Why aren't you concerned about the 97% that are not shot by 5.56mm bullets? Too mundane for you to worry about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #121)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:48 PM

142. So what you are suggesting are "some first steps" ....

Any journey begins with a few first steps. What is your final goal?

For some reason I suspect you hope to journey down a long road and arrive at a time where the civilian ownership of firearms is illegal and all firearms are confiscated. If so, I have no major problem with your goal as many other people in our nation have the same idea and all sides of any issue should be considered.

However I might be wrong so please explain where you hope these first steps will lead to.

If you don't reply I will understand. Many people who are strong gun control supporters will claim that our nation merely needs to ban the sales of weapons similar to the AR-15 and hi-cap magazines and they will be satisfied. Of course the next step will be to ban all semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols followed by banning all handguns.

I am merely asking for a little honesty in the debate but I realize that such honestly often hurts of the cause of those who wish to impose gun laws in our nation such as exist in many European nations.

I realize that I am not part of this little discussion you are having with another poster but I have found it interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #142)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:53 PM

146. read my response to this exact same question posted earlier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #146)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:26 PM

156. A quick link would have been helpful. ...

I did find one post in which you replied to the question, "122. What is.......the "entire distance" we need to take?"

You said in reply, "125. How about until mass shootings are a rarity instead of being common place?"

That is a noble goal but doesn't answer my question on how strong you feel future gun control should be. A person armed with several 6 shot revolvers and some speed loaders or one with a semi-auto or pump shotgun could easily use such weapons to commit a mass murder.

I doubt that there is any way that we could ever detect all the people who have severe mental issues before they run amok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #156)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:25 PM

157. Well God knows I am here for no reason other than to be helpful

to people who post rude comments to me, so here you go.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2197144



^snip^

Ask me again tomorrow what the first step is, or just listen to Pres. Obama's proposal because that will be the first step. (Duh!)





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #157)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 PM

162. Thanks for the link. ...

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

You side stepped my question nicely.

I asked you, "Any journey begins with a few first steps. What is your final goal?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2197629

I know what your first step is. Once again what is your final goal? I am truly curious and I promise that I will not flame you or be impolite if you honest hope to disarm American citizens by passing laws similar to those in the UK.
You have every right to hold that view if you wish. Many good people do.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #162)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:04 PM

163. You said you saw my answer to that

reducing the number of mass shootings.


Nobody said anything about UK style gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #163)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:25 AM

164. That's fair you didn't suggest that. ...

You also never said what the final destination of your first few steps was.

I doubt if you will. Honestly admitting your final goal could weaken your argument in future posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #164)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:54 PM

165. Stop being paranoid. Nobody wants to do what you think we want to do.

and here is a link to my answer to your question, it was posted well before you asked the question. If you took the time to read the posts in this subthread you would have already seen it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2197130


125. How about until mass shootings are a rarity instead of being common place?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #165)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:21 PM

166. I did see that post ...

and since mass shootings by definition involve firearms I was asking how far you wished to go to stop these events.

Largely due to all the media publicity rifles such as the AR-15 have been used to commit several of our most recent tragic mass murders.

But realistically banning and confiscating all the assault style rifles and their hi-cap magazines would not prevent future mass shootings. Seung-Hui Cho used two semi-auto pistols with 10 round magazines during the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Obviously to prevent all mass shootings we also have to ban and confiscate all semi-auto pistols. But semi-auto shotguns and pump shotguns are extremely dangerous and can be reloaded fairly quickly so they should also be banned.

Revolvers could also be used for mass murders. There are 10 shot .22 caliber revolvers and 8 shot .357 magnum revolvers on the market and even a 6 shot revolver can be reloaded very quickly with some practice and a couple of speed loaders. A shooter who intended to kill a large number of people could easily hide several revolvers in his pants and discard each as he emptied them.

Bolt action rifles have also been used for mass murder. In 1966 Charles Whitman the shooter in the Texas Tower Massacre used a Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle. Therefore in order to prevent all mass shootings, "sniper rifles" must also be banned.

Perhaps our citizen could be allowed to own single shot black powder rifles, single shot handguns and single shot shotguns. That would probably accomplish your goal of passing laws until mass shootings are a rarity.

Still it is possible that the ultimate goal or destination of the first steps that you mention might not be what I just described. That's why I asked you for further clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #166)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:35 PM

167. Nobody said stop. Nobody said confiscate

I stopped reading right there

Your paranoia is making you argue things that have not been said.

As I began this sub thread... There is no arguing with a zealot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #167)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:48 PM

168. But you have never stated what your final goal was. ...

I also explained that I would have no problem with your opinion if you seriously believed that all firearms should be banned and confiscated. That is the exact opposite of the view of some gun owners that firearms should be unregulated. I happen to disagree with both positions and am in between. That does not make me right by any means.

Perhaps you feel that I am a zealot but you probably have no knowledge of my views. I actually agree with most of the ideas purposed by Obama today.

You accuse me of being paranoid but I have a absolutely no fear that "jack booted thugs" are going to show up on my doorstep to confiscate my firearms in my lifetime.

Look, if you honestly support banning all civilian owned firearms why just not admit it. We have been going back and forth for a long time now without insulting each other which is somewhat unusual today on DU when discussing the gun control issue. I doubt that anyone would have taken the effort to follow our sub tread to this point.

But perhaps you are not in favor of disarming all citizens but somewhere in between. That's what is interesting to me.

I often see posts that say that Obama's ideas are a good first step and I wonder what goals such posters are actually hoping for.

If you really believe that your ideas are the way our country should move toward to stop gun violence, I feel that you should be willing to defend them. Perhaps if they are so weak that you unwilling to state them you should consider revising them.

I have my own views and have been more than willing to debate them. Since I started posting on DU I have realized that my prior views had faults so I changed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:16 AM

46. here are ALL of the f'in bullets, .22 LR is 4th, and .223 is 16th, i think



http://guns411.com/ammo-size-chart/

the pic in the OP shows a .223 next to a .22 short.

original idea- these big bullets are ridiculous- still stands.

they are for military actions.

don't need them to hunt.

holy crap, look at #12.

ouch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:24 AM

50. Are you a hunter?

Do you have an understanding of the calibers used for deer hunting? (Hint: they are far more powerful than .223 ammo.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:49 AM

56. no, i'm a farmer. i could kill a deer out of season with a machine gun if it was eating my crops

Last edited Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

but a dog is a lot more fun.

also, coyote piss makes a good deterrent.

i can also state fairly assuredly that deer's skulls are less hard to penetrate than steel pipes.

i know for a fact a .22 is plenty for a rabid coyote, for instance.

and if a .222 works just fine, i'm sure .223 will too.

and i remember from hunting safety classes that hunting is about patience and skill, not firepower and range.

like, getting a perfect shot, not blasting away from a quarter mile out.

***

Across the country the 30-06 is probably still the most commonly used round for harvesting deer, and there is little doubt that it is a very effective deer round, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think it's the perfect chambering for a deer rifle. It's just a little more punch than what's needed. Why should someone put up with useless recoil when there are other rounds that will get the job done with less punishment to our shoulders? Staying in the 30 caliber family and taking a step down is the 308 Winchester which is an excellent choice for deer. Mated with a 165 grain bullet and a muzzle velocity around 2700 feet/sec, it is a great choice for any deer hunting out to most sane distances. It also has the benefit of numerous factory loadings, and finding a load that shoots well is usually not a problem.

An argument can also be made for going smaller by looking at a couple of 25 caliber rounds. The 25-06, which is a former wildcat based on the 30-06 case and made legit by Remington, has gained a reputation as the perfect antelope round, but the characteristics that make it great for pronghorn also make it great for deer hunting.
http://www.huntthenorth.com/Theperfectrifle.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:18 AM

47. the original one photograph, 2 bullets concept seems to have gone out the window here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:22 AM

48. U hunt Deer with a 22?

Don't know about your neck of the woods. But what I see up north is 30-06 for Deer etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:42 AM

54. This is the simplest explanation of why banning .223 is pointless

Nearly every game hunter in America has a .30-06 rifle in a gun safe, and it would be impossible to ban it without banning hunting (which would be political suicide).

When someone can explain to me why banning the .223 is beneficial but banning the .30-06 isn't, I'll change my mind. The pic upthread that shows ALL of the bullet sizes provides an even better demonstration of why banning a particular caliber is pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:56 AM

57. maybe 30-.06s are for real hunters and .223 are for wanna-be's?

it seems the .223 rifles are military style guns, which some civilians pretend they need to hunt.

banning all of the 'toys', meaning attachments that make them basically military assault rifles is a great idea.

of course you can't do an all out BAN on a type of ammo, but regulating it and taxing the living crap out of it is always an option.

i think the people in charge are saying its the 30 and 100 round mags that are more of a problem than the caliber-

look at NYs limit of 7 rounds in a mag...

if you need 30 rounds to target shoot, leave the gun at the range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:11 PM

64. Big game - bigger bullet. Small game - smaller bullet

it is not that difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:13 PM

65. more guns + bigger mags = more bullets = more innocent people murdered every day. you again?

I then looked at different statesí firearm regulations for deer hunting and found no consistency in which rifle calibers hunters are allowed to use. Some states prohibit the .223 for deer hunting; others allow it and even other .22-caliber centerfire rifles.
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148

are you a hobbit? deer are big game?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:15 PM

66. So restrict magazine size - problem solved.

.223 is good for small game. 30-06 is good for big game like deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:19 PM

68. they already restricted it in NY state AS OF YESTERDAY

5.56◊45mm NATO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The 5.56◊45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rifle cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle. Under STANAG 4172, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries. It is derived from, but not identical to, the .223 Remington cartridge. When the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws in tissue, fragmentation creates a rapid transfer of energy which can result in dramatic wounding effects.

that is good for rabbits? instant rabbit tartare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:23 PM

70. Every bullet does that - how do you think bullets work?

Secondly, there are a multitude of .223 bullets available depending on what you use it for. I would use a different round for target shooting then a hunter would use for small game.

There is some complexity here that a quick google search doesn't address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:32 PM

72. every bullet is the same? ha ha ha ha ha. you can find lot on google in 60 seconds



I had friends on AR15.com send me some requests and samples and ask me to run them through the Box O' Truth.

So we went to the range to kind of tie up some lose ends.

We used the Box O' Truth with 12 sheetrock boards in it, backed up with a gallon jug of water to catch the round, and backed up finally by a wall of bricks enclosed in a wood enclosure.

Started out with some ammo that Arowneragain sent me, some Glazer Blue Tip 9mm.

I shot it out of my Beretta and it went through 6 boards of drywall and dented the 7th.
Miscellaneous Rounds Meet the Box O' Truth

It put an almost 3/4" hole through the boards before stopping.

At the request of Peekay, I shot a .357 Magnum 158 grain JHP out of my 6" Colt Python.

Much to our surprise, it was stopped by the 10th board after going through 9 boards. It was fully expanded.

I was so surprised, that I did it again, but got the same results.

Who'd a thunk it? The .357 Magnum is supposed to be a big penetrator.

Tman used his Romanian SAR2, in 5.45 X 39 with Wolf ammo to shoot the box.

It went through all 12 boards, busted the water jug, but bounced off the wood in front of the bricks.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:36 PM

73. And your point is what?

you were talking about hydroshock in living tissue. Now you are talking about kinetic penetration of drywall.

And you do understand that a rifle round will always have more penetrating power than a pistol round? Pistol rounds don't have to travel hundreds of feet.

Show me a comparison with three rifle rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:55 PM

75. the point, from the OP, is that .223 are military rounds

And you do understand that a rifle round will always have more penetrating power than a pistol round?

as you have also pointed out. thanks for agreeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

83. Except for the non-military ones.

international law is very clear on what types of rounds are legal in warfare and which are not.

You understand that expanding core bullets commonly used in civilian hunting are outlawed in war as being inhumane. Military rounds must have full metal jacketed bullets - which actually have less destructive power than hunting rounds.

And once again - the .223 was not originally a military round. The military took it off the shelf and made some minor changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:20 PM

89. Is the 30-06 a military round?

because it was used to kill tens of thousands in a world war. Shall we ban it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:14 PM

117. Deer...

...are classified as big game in all states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #117)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:56 PM

131. And humans...

are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #131)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:37 PM

139. Humans aren't..

..."game" in my world. Your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #139)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:51 PM

143. and deer aren't...

enemy combatants.

the point is still the same- civilians don't need military-style weapons or ammo to hunt or shoot at targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #143)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:56 PM

147. Explain then...

...how .223 ammo is more dangerous than the ammunition from my 7mm Rem. mag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #147)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:08 PM

149. i think you can work it out yourself.

to me it looks like the .223 is 2 to 3 times bigger than a .22lr and the 7mm rem. is at least 2 times as big as a .223.

the point is that the .22 is plenty dangerous enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #149)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:24 PM

153. I hunt elk

Are you saying I should use a .22 long rifle or a .223?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:38 AM

53. "This ammunition isnít meant for hunting, itís meant for warfare. "

Why are you comparing it to the .22lr when that isn't meant for hunting anything but small game? The .223 is used for hunting small game also. Neither is used for large game. For your picture to make any sense with that caption you should have compared the .223 to a real hunting round. It would have been much easier too because you would only have to crop the picture, not crop two rounds and put them together.


.223 on the left, .30-06 hunting round on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:42 AM

55. ...which was derived from...

the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum woodchuck cartridges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:58 AM

58. The casing makes the bullet look much bigger than it is.

These fit a handgun & are WAY more damaging.

Theyre ALL meant for some sort of warfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:09 PM

61. I am for outlawing the so called asult weopons but the. 223 is a very good round for

small game. It is under powered for larger game like deer, it isn't even leagal to use in any state I am
familiar with. To say it is only good for warfare shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:16 PM

67. maybe if you are planning on making communist squirrel meatballs

sounds like the .223 is designed to shred up commies

5.56◊45mm NATO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The 5.56◊45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rifle cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle. Under STANAG 4172, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries. It is derived from, but not identical to, the .223 Remington cartridge. When the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws in tissue, fragmentation creates a rapid transfer of energy which can result in dramatic wounding effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:58 PM

134. Well dah that's what bullets do. You are not allowed to hunt deer with the

.223 because it is considered to light a round to make a clean kill on an animal that size.
The .223 has a lot of velocity but it shoots a small diameter light bullet. The old NATO 7.62
that the M-14 shot or the 30-06 Springfield shot a round 4 times the weight of the .223. Those are what you use to hunt deer with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #134)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:42 PM

140. yes. you are allowed to use it for deer in many states.

and i'm sure plenty of 'hunters' do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #140)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:21 PM

152. You can't in the states I am familiar with and I sure wouldn't

want to use one when there are far better alternatives. I am not saying you can't kill a deer with one, my dad killed a couple deer with a .22 hornet but they weren't legal kills. The op states that a .223 is some kind of super weopon that is only meant for killing people. The .223 is a good round, excellent for small game but it is not the first choice for deer and in fact you can't use it in many states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:29 PM

71. I preferred the 223 for varmint

Back in my groundhog hunting days in Central Ohio, I used a Remington 788 Bolt action, chambered to fire 223 ammo....flat trajectory, accurate at 100 yards and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jdadd (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:58 PM

76. you must enjoy split groundhogs then!

i've seen what a .222 does, it ain't pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:45 PM

99. Hollow points fragment.....

3300 FPS will probably even fragment, after hitting a blade of grass. Military uses FMJ, not hollow point ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jdadd (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:46 PM

129. I used a Sako .243 for groundhog shot some at 300 yards

Back in the 60s-70s we had thousands of acres of old strip mine land to hunt on. That has all been sold off now and everything is posted, I haven't shot a groundhog in years. My dad had a .222 he used for groundhog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:11 PM

81. I hunt deer...

...but my primary focus in the fall is elk. Anyone who advocates hunting elk with a .223 needs to have his head examined. During rifle season (I also bowhunt during archery-only season) my preferred caliber is a 7mm Rem mag. It is far, far more powerful than a .223 round, and is a perfectly reasonable and ethical choice for elk hunting. If the point of this thread was to say that the .223 round is too powerful to be in civilian hands, it completely, and utterly failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:16 PM

85. Hunters use the same round.


Nice try, but fail. Nobody is going to ban hunting rifles which use a huge caliber bullet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

87. "This ammunition isnít meant for hunting, itís meant for warfare."

Is the .308 meant for hunting or warfare?
Is the .30-06 meant for hunting or warfare?
Is the 9.3◊62mm meant for hunting or warfare?
Is the 6.5◊55mm meant for hunting or warfare?
Is the .338 meant for hunting or warfare?
Is the .300 meant for hunting or warfare?

I could go on. The long and short of it is simply that the military and civilians have been using the same exact same cartridges since the invention of the firearm. For almost every single cartridge that the military uses, there is a civilian rifle that is chambered the same.

Different calibers are used for different applications. I would not not hunt an elk with a .223 (too small), nor would I hunt a groundhog with a .338 (too big). I would use what is appropriate for the task at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #87)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:46 PM

110. Just

don't go talking about my 7.62 x 39 and I'll stay out of the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:53 PM

102. Classic misinformation to manipulate the unknowing.



"This ammunition isnít meant for hunting, itís meant for warfare."

Playinghardball, you might not have realized that you were being lied to, but MissR*EVOLutionaires/MoveOn.org played you for a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:50 PM

111. WTF...

...is the point of this OP? To show profound ignorance of ammunition and hunting? If so, it sure succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:07 PM

137. Nah, haven't you been reading anything? Its about hunting kids, I mean deer. Or maybe coyote's.

Or was it rodents? Yeah, a lot about rodents. And arguing about ammunition, the "right" ammunition to kill something somewhere, and of course, bragging rights.

Yup, that's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:27 PM

154. Gun nuts want the one on the right to stay legal



It's an anti materiel round - I've heard some say well it's also an anti personnel round. Then again I've never heard of anything that was anti materiel that wasn't anti personnel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #154)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:29 PM

155. This one is also legal, even though it serves no actual function it should be

considered a destructive device.

And a penis compensator. It's almost twice the diameter of the big anti materiel bullet on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:50 PM

161. There's no such thing as a benign bullet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread