View Single Post
Old 02-28-2013, 03:54 PM   #48
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123


Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Some namecall. Others condescend. In either case, you usually you reap what you sow.
Big surprise, you missed the point: I'm laughing at your pitiable attempt to condescend.

People say the same about a .243. Very manageable recoil, Yet it's inarguably more powerful than the .223. On the other side, there's the 22 250. Recoil difference is fairly negligible in the real world. To the point it has more to do with gun design than cartridge. So it becomes a pretty awesome coincidence that people only want to ban the one that's in the news.
Nice try at a distraction.

The .223 is what the army decided was the best 'sweet spot' you are talking about. The soviets decided on a different compromise (more power, less controllable) for the AK-47. Note that they changed their mind, and now use a round nearly identical (ballistic characteristics) to the .223 in the AK-74 (seventy-four)

No one cares about the designation of the cartridge or what the damn things LOOK like. They care about the capabilities of that weapon.

Reaping, Sowing. etc etc
When you say something that betrays ignorance, I'll call you on it. Suck it up kid.

There's a reason a .22 isn't legal to use on deer in most states. Same with the .223. But the .243 is generally considered ok.

Fact of the matter is,the difference is most .243's look like this:

Oh look a bolt action rifle. Not even remotely related to what we are talking about!

And when a crazy wants to go shoot a bunch of people, he wants to pick up a weapon that looks the part. It sure as hell ain't because he's done detailed ballistic study on 223 vs 22/22-250/243. 600 pound gorilla alert.
A crazy guy wanting to kill lots of folk wants a weapon that allows him to kill the most folk. He doesn't care what it looks like.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote