Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
11. Facts inconvenient to your thesis = "nitpicking".
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:48 PM
Jul 2015
"What he actually wrote was that it had a 'very high velocity' @ 3,000 fps, which you well know is what imparts high kinetic energy to the bullet, thus making the .223 quite powerful despite its light weight."

Oh, baloney. Plenty of deer and elk rifles can exceed 3000 ft/sec, including that poster's recommendation of .25-06, .270, and whatnot. .22-250 can approach 4300 ft/sec with the same 55gr bullet that you are railing about in .223 at 2950-3000 ft/sec. A .270 or .25-06 can match or exceed the velocity of any .223 load, with more mass, and will create a commensurately larger wound.

The inhumanity of using a small varmint round on a deer-sized animal or larger is that the wound may not be severe enough or penetrate deeply enough to incapacitate the animal, resulting in needless suffering and a wasted death.

"If cavitation occurs the animal can wander off & be in unbearable pain for days, moreso than with other hunting bullets."

Cavitation occurs with *all* hunting bullets above 1500-2000 ft/sec. A .25-06, .270, or .30.06 will produce twice the cavitation (or more) than 55gr .223, because it has more mass and more energy at the same or greater velocity.

"The target shooting aspect is immaterial"

Not for target shooters...which, I'll remind you, vastly outnumber hunters in this country.

"hunting game at longer range impractical; small game a quarter mile away bothers you? a 22 rifle is likely the preferred method for short range."

Then why is .223 Remington the most used varmint hunting round in America?

I'll tell you. Because it has enough energy to make humane kills on small game beyond the 50 yards or so that .22LR will, out to the extended ranges you discuss that require higher energy calibers like .22-250.

Again, you're saying that the top target round in the USA is irrelevant for target shooting, and the top varmint round in the USA is irrelevant to varmint hunting. That is nonsensical.

"your gloss glosses over what you volunteered recently, that the .223 will generally cause more severe damage if it hits a person thru drywall, with more grotesque & serious wounding. Bullet will still tend to fragment. Thus, first author's claim that the .223 is 'less desirable for home defense' is not 'exactly backwards' as you say, but spot on."

No, *you* have it backwards. See the Police Marksman article I referenced upthread. .223 Remington shooting lightweight JHP is *less* lethal after penetrating drywall than 9mm JHP or 12-gauge buckshot, even after a single wall, and is less likely to penetrate multiple walls or exit the structure.

"Here I sorta disagree with author, I think you need between 500 & 1000 dollars to get a bushmaster or ar15, making it an upper class white man's toy"

I suppose $549 is "between 500 and 1000 dollars", but it's hardly out of the reach of a working class adult. You're looking at about the same price as a Savage Trophy Hunter XP bolt-action at Walmart.

"some kind of bizarre status symbol that is hardly ever used constructively or humanely."

The most popular target rifle in the nation is almost never used for benign purposes like target shooting? Uh-huh.

"It is one of the most unused in violent crime or to cause death"

Yep, in spite of its being the top selling civilian rifle in the United States, and one of the most common rifles in U.S. homes. Which makes the obsession with banning it all the more bizarre.
Great rebuttal Ben DonP Jul 2015 #1
Great post! Hangingon Jul 2015 #2
Wait a minute! I smell a rat! Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #3
I would assume you can use both, depending on your target Travis_0004 Jul 2015 #4
The author of the OP you just fisked posted this a few months ago: friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #5
"In my case, you called me names, insulted my intelligence and integrity." pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #6
More guns than fingers? Ooooh. Sooo impressive. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #31
Another outstanding takedown, benEzra. pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #7
You are approximately five times more likely to win the lottery than be murdered by a .223 cal rifle the band leader Jul 2015 #8
It seems a response to this thread was posted Somewhere Else... benEzra Jul 2015 #9
picking nits & bigger game jimmy the one Jul 2015 #10
Facts inconvenient to your thesis = "nitpicking". benEzra Jul 2015 #11
+1. Once again, verifiable truth is shown to be superior to mere weight of verbiage friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #12
cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #13
You are confusing cavitation with fragmentation. benEzra Jul 2015 #14
cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #15
Thoughts... benEzra Jul 2015 #16
incredible super cavitation jimmy the one Jul 2015 #17
Given that we are talking about the least misused guns... benEzra Jul 2015 #18
the dancer undulates to the music jimmy the one Jul 2015 #19
Well, to get pedantic... benEzra Jul 2015 #21
pink floyd is wrong jimmy the one Jul 2015 #22
modification jimmy the one Jul 2015 #23
Then you should tell all the physicists working on supercavitating projectiles, blades, and foils benEzra Jul 2015 #24
What's the big deal? discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2015 #25
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #27
This subthread gives me life. Brickbat Jul 2015 #28
enriched jimmy the one Jul 2015 #30
. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #20
This is all the more hilarious if you know the origins of this image. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #33
I'm afraid I don't. Now I'm aching with curiosity. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #34
Allow me AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #35
Oh my. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #36
Possibly the most expressive cat I've ever seen AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #37
Um, no. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #32
As I'm sure you know HassleCat Jul 2015 #26
The posters were arguing for bans, not background checks. benEzra Jul 2015 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»More scaremongering about...»Reply #11