The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2013, 12:36 PM   #26
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Speaking of buffoonery about what something is, have you figured out yet cutlet that the issue with "assault rifles" isn't that they "look scary" but about their ballistics and the rate of controllable fire they enable?
Then why do the liberals like Fienstien talk about folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors? It's because otherwise they have to admit regular hunting rifles about the same.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:37 PM   #27
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,285
Default

Quote:
Conservatives are trying so hard to highlight controversies, no matter how trivial, we have forgotten the basics of reporting: W5 + H as I learned in grade school, also known as who, what, where, when, why, and how. I think conservatives need to reset some of their reportorial resources to tell the stories that need to be told by focusing on the facts at hand in a world view of the right. We need to establish a baseline for integrity in reporting that then allows us to highlight the truly outrageous. That baseline must be the basics of who, what, where, when, why, and how and it must be set before taking the next step into analysis of motivation and its implications. …

Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage. The stories we choose to tell should have all the information we need to be informed of facts and paint a picture of those facts’ impact.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/27/w...for-integrity/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:39 PM   #28
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Still waiting for several folks to at least admit to the reality that an AR-15/.223 or similar weapon is much more deadly (i.e. enables a single person to more quickly kill more people) than a pistol or a rifle that has more recoil.

Pretty much everyone else won't admit it. Will you?
Maybe slightly more deadly not much more. Which is why they have to be legal. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that extra punch when going up against a bad guy. Not to mention in a riot i may have to shoot multiple people.

Fed will you agree that if a riot occured and 10 or more people were trying to loot your property that an assault rifle would be better then a shotgun? or a handgun? Now throw in that 2-3 of the 10 rioters are armed?

For sure a law abiding citizen should be able to have an assault rifle. There is no reason law abiding citizens shouldn't.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:41 PM   #29
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Then why do the liberals like Fienstien talk about folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors? It's because otherwise they have to admit regular hunting rifles about the same.
I don't give a hoot what whoever that person is talks about. I want to know if you've learned anything over the course of the last couple months.

Have you?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:42 PM   #30
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The fact that you've only experienced conversation with people who aren't aware the the term "automatic" refers to any self loading weapon (not just those that fire multiple rounds per trigger pull) just means you are the one who is "pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand". Not the other way around.
I didn't say they 'weren't aware' of the technicality. Go back to my quarterback analogy. There was a time back in the early days of the game where the Quarterback was basically just one of the "backs" so it would've made conversational sense back in that day to call him a "back" instead of a "quarterback"

Today, if you called Peyton Manning a "back" everyone would look at you like you're crazy (because you are) even though you're technically correct.

Talking gun control while calling a semi-automatic an automatic is the same deal. Not exactly wrong. Just a bit off.

Your reflexive defensiveness is nothing if not predictable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:52 PM   #31
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Maybe slightly more deadly not much more. Which is why they have to be legal. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that extra punch when going up against a bad guy. Not to mention in a riot i may have to shoot multiple people.
Ever fired any of the following:

.22
9mm para
.45 Auto
.223/Nato5.56
7.62x39 (AK)?
.308

I've fired all of those rounds (and a whole lot more). There is a huge difference between the recoil of a .308 and a .223, and the ability to control a rifle when firing fast is far greater than that of a pistol (simple physics there).


Quote:
Fed will you agree that if a riot occured and 10 or more people were trying to loot your property that an assault rifle would be better then a shotgun? or a handgun? Now throw in that 2-3 of the 10 rioters are armed?


In other words, yes an "assault rifle" does provide significantly more ability to engage multiple targets. Thanks for finally admitting that, even though you didn't mean to.

Quote:
For sure a law abiding citizen should be able to have an assault rifle. There is no reason law abiding citizens shouldn't.
I'm, at worst, on the fence about whether or not a very. At this point I'm just trying to see if you'll at least acknowledge there is a significant difference between a .223AR and a pistol. Ironically, when you think it supports your position, you are *glad* to talk about the significant superiority, but when asked straight up you spew bull****.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:06 PM   #32
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Still waiting for several folks to at least admit to the reality that an AR-15/.223 or similar weapon is much more deadly (i.e. enables a single person to more quickly kill more people) than a pistol or a rifle that has more recoil.
Comedy gold. Police and military should be the only ones with access to recoil control? Fed's new gun control proposal. Outlaw civilian gunstocks that are larger than the gun's barrel. Then if you really want, you can still choose to shoot, but it'll probably break your shoulder.

Oh, and BTW, the main reason an AR-15 lacks a lot of recoil is because .223 is a tiny caliber. You get what your shoulder pays for. Would you ban .22's as well? They kick even less.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:07 PM   #33
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I didn't say they 'weren't aware' of the technicality. Go back to my quarterback analogy. There was a time back in the early days of the game where the Quarterback was basically just one of the "backs" so it would've made conversational sense back in that day to call him a "back" instead of a "quarterback"

Today, if you called Peyton Manning a "back" everyone would look at you like you're crazy (because you are) even though you're technically correct.

Talking gun control while calling a semi-automatic an automatic is the same deal. Not exactly wrong. Just a bit off.
Automatic is used all the time to refer to semi-auto pistols (I cited several different sources that do so), though I will give you that the incorrect usage to refer only to full-auto is becoming more prevalent in society.

Ironically, having a pistol referred to as "automatic" is how I was originally learned about semi vs full (when I was 8).

Quote:
[Your reflexive defensiveness is nothing if not predictable.
:eyeroll: Nice try.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:12 PM   #34
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Comedy gold. Police and military should be the only ones with access to recoil control? Fed's new gun control proposal. Outlaw civilian gunstocks that are larger than the gun's barrel. Then if you really want, you can still choose to shoot, but it'll probably break your shoulder.
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.

Quote:
Oh, and BTW, the main reason an AR-15 lacks a lot of recoil is because .223 is a tiny caliber. You get what your shoulder pays for. Would you ban .22's as well? They kick even less.
A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:15 PM   #35
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.



A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?
Beat me to it. This is why a conversation about stopping power is much more important than how a gun looks.

And why is it the gun nuts are the ones lacking in knowledge about, you know, guns?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:17 PM   #36
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Beat me to it. This is why a conversation about stopping power is much more important than how a gun looks.

And why is it the gun nuts are the ones lacking in knowledge about, you know, guns?
Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:20 PM   #37
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

You need a lot of power to shoot through body armor. Criminals now where body armor so private citizens need the power to penetrate that. Whats next?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:24 PM   #38
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.
Or it was just part of the editing process, like a lot of stuff. Speeches are edited all the time. If every network aired every second of every speech given by every elected official (Mrs. Obama isn't one, btw, Castle Thickskull), we'd never have time to watch important stuff like...has ABC run anything decent since LOST?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:36 PM   #39
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.
You think any programming is broadcast without editing? Who cares what the first spouce has to say or what was edited in a fluff interview?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:36 PM   #40
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
You need a lot of power to shoot through body armor. Criminals now where body armor so private citizens need the power to penetrate that. Whats next?
A stupid argument if I've ever heard one.

We need guns to fight criminals. Okay well you don't need these guns that can shoot through body armor to be semi-automatic. Well but criminals wear body armor so we need to be able to defeat that. Then make body armor illegal for average citizens. Well but then criminals will be able to shoot me with guns that can't penetrate body armor.

It's the same stupid argument as:

We need guns to fight criminals. Okay but you don't need semi-automatic guns. But then the criminals will only have them. Okay well you don't need X. But then only the criminals will have X. Okay well you don't need Y. But then only the criminals will have Y.

OR

I need to get to work on time, but I don't feel like following the speed limit. Well you don't need to drive 100mph, you could kill someone, no matter how good a driver you are, stay under the limit. BUT THEN ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE 100MPH WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS THE CONSTITUTION NEVER SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT SPEED LIMITS.

You already stated that you think fully automatic guns, grenades, and tanks shouldn't be available. Yet, you're being charged by this mythical 10 person riot mob (2 or 3 are armed, btw) and you obviously need something to go through body armor, so why stop at an AR? Why not just say I should be able to use anything necessary to stop people? Shouldn't your reaction be to just go for the thing that's most likely going to stop 10 people from taking your ****ty property?

Why not use landmines? Then you don't even need to be home for them to be effective (and considering the vast majority of burglaries and home invasions occur while people are gone, that's much more effective than keeping a gun in the house).
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:42 PM   #41
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,387

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Not to be a spoil sport or anything, but if you really want to arm yourself with something which is intended to protect you from the government, it better be able to take down drones. Just sayin'...
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:46 PM   #42
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,110

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

This is a very interesting debate. Thanks to the guys dropping knowledge. I used to hunt pheasant, but haven't done anything but some shootin' out in the woods of Colorado for fun with target practice. Guns are kinda weird to me. There is an antique case of old wild west guns at NDSU in the alumni center. Pretty cool stuff.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:49 PM   #43
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.
Funny, you said .223 AR's should be banned because of a recoil advantage. But it has no advantage over a .22 on recoil. And .22 cals kill far more people every year than AR-15s (or .223's in general)

Pretty realistic looking for a strawman. I'm gonna take "Fed wants it banned because Rachel Madcow Said So" for 500, Alex."

Quote:
A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?
Simple science, Fed. F=ma if you remember back to Intro to Physics. It's true that a .223 cart delivers more velocity than a .22lr. But by upping the acceleration on that (slightly) larger caliber, you deliver even more force to the stock (aka recoil)

Anyway, you say a .223 should be banned even if it's far less powerful than say a .308, only because it has less recoil. Yet you say a .22 should still be legal, even though it has even less (and yet kills more people). Is there some invisible recoil to lethality sweet spot that you're aiming at that none of us know about?

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 02-28-2013 at 01:51 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:06 PM   #44
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Funny, you said .223 AR's should be banned because of a recoil advantage. But it has no advantage over a .22 on recoil. And .22 cals kill far more people every year than AR-15s (or .223's in general)
No, I said (or tried to at least but got distracted and didn't finished the sentence) that at worst, I'm on the fence about a ban for a very specific subset of semi-auto rifles (i.e. those that are commonly referred to as assault rifles). I also said nothing about stocks.

Quote:
Simple science, Fed. F=ma if you remember back to Intro to Physics. It's true that a .223 cart delivers more velocity than a .22lr. But by upping the acceleration on that (slightly) larger caliber, you deliver even more force to the stock (aka recoil)
trying to be condescending about physics to me eh? You should probably know, I have a bachelors in Physics.

In any event, you seem lost. The problem with a .223 is that it delivers a very high amount of muzzle energy (and high killing power) yet maintains a very manageable amount of recoil when fired from a rifle platform.

Quote:
Is there some invisible recoil to lethality sweet spot that you're aiming at that none of us know about?
YES. That's the whole damn design strategy of the NATA5.56! Jesus you are ignorant.

Quote:
Anyway, you say a .223 should be banned even if it's far less powerful than say a .308, only because it has less recoil. Yet you say a .22 should still be legal, even though it has even less (and yet kills more people).
A .223 has much less recoil than a .308, but still delivers a very deadly projectile.

A .22 is deadly, but not to the same degree as a .223. A 22 is a very small projectile (30 grains) fired with a muzzle energy of about ~150ft*lb. A .223 is a small projectile (60 grains) fired at a muzzle energy of 1300ft*lb (10x the energy).

The difference?

A .22 will put a small, neat hole an inch or two into your body (not a good thing, but readily survivable even without prompt medical attention).

A .223 will enter your body, yaw (tumble end over end), fracture and SHRED your insides like razor blades. Very similar to what a hunting round (a common use for the .308) is designed to do. The biggest difference being a hunting round expands and then shreds, whereas a .223 does not expand due to design (to comply with international treaty). This lethality is all done with a manageable recoil in a .223 platofmr, the, as you call it, sweet spot.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:31 PM   #45
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
trying to be condescending about physics to me eh? You should probably know, I have a bachelors in Physics.
Some namecall. Others condescend. In either case, you usually you reap what you sow.

Quote:
In any event, you seem lost. The problem with a .223 is that it delivers a very high amount of muzzle energy (and high killing power) yet maintains a very manageable amount of recoil when fired from a rifle platform.
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.

Quote:
YES. That's the whole damn design strategy of the NATA5.56! Jesus you are ignorant.
Reaping, Sowing. etc etc

Quote:
A .223 has much less recoil than a .308, but still delivers a very deadly projectile.

A .22 is deadly, but not to the same degree as a .223. A 22 is a very small projectile (30 grains) fired with a muzzle energy of about ~150ft*lb. A .223 is a small projectile (60 grains) fired at a muzzle energy of 1300ft*lb (10x the energy).

The difference?

A .22 will put a small, neat hole an inch or two into your body (not a good thing, but readily survivable even without prompt medical attention).

A .223 will enter your body, yaw (tumble end over end), fracture and SHRED your insides like razor blades. Very similar to what a hunting round (a common use for the .308) is designed to do. The biggest difference being a hunting round expands and then shreds, whereas a .223 does not expand due to design (to comply with international treaty). This lethality is all done with a manageable recoil in a .223 platofmr, the, as you call it, sweet spot.
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:



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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:33 PM   #46
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Sel..._FAQ/index.htm

here're the results of typical pistol wounds:



Notice they are all single tract wounds, even with hollow point ammunition (hollow point ammo is designed not to fracture like a .223 but to expand -- the point being to make sure the bullet doesn't exit the target which isless desirable (because energy from the shot is therefor wasted)

This is what the bullets look like after being shot:



(as a side note, I always laugh when on a TV show someone get's shot and the 'doctor' pulls a perfectly non-deformed bullet out of the wound).

Here's the result of a .223 hit (both a before and after of the bullet and the wound profile in ballistics gel:



Notice the multiple wound tracts and the fractured projectile that created them.

The takeaway? Putting a hole/through in someone is bad. Shredding their insides with razorblades is a lot worse.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:46 PM   #47
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
This is a very interesting debate. Thanks to the guys dropping knowledge. I used to hunt pheasant, but haven't done anything but some shootin' out in the woods of Colorado for fun with target practice. Guns are kinda weird to me. There is an antique case of old wild west guns at NDSU in the alumni center. Pretty cool stuff.
Old guns fascinate me.

As I've said before, I own a Springfield M1861 (my brother owns an original), and I would love to own a flintlock someday. A Colt Lightning would be neat to have.

But see, that's what gets me about hobbies. People can have all kinds of hobbies, some legal, and some not. The people with the hobby call them hobbies and want people to respect their right to practice it. The people on the outside see the hobby as potentially dangerous for one reason or another and want it to be more regulated. Growing roses isn't the same as growing pot. Going camping isn't Civil War reenacting. Coin collecting isn't gun collecting. All of them need to be regulated, and some much more than others.

The personal protection argument is, at best, a wash. At best. There is still no evidence (everything presented thus far other than what I posted back in December has been anecdotal) that says your home is any safer with a gun than without, and there is still a lot of evidence that suggests you're more likely to have an accident with it than an opportunity for protection. Then you're upping the ante by suggesting we need people out on the streets who legitimately think they would have had a chance to perform some sort of Rambo stunt in Theater #9 armed? In public?? Excuse me, but no. **** no.

I don't know what the solutions to inner city violence, mental health, or the socio-economic divide are, but adding more guns to the situation defies all logic and statistics.

What burns me up even more isn't even that argument. Because despite what this board suggests, most gun owners aren't that stupid. Most want real reform. No, what makes me angry is the dishonest, disingenuous bull**** arguments you pull (and then unintentionally proceed to completely subvert) in the process of protecting your precious goddamn guns.

You whine about the class, race and social divides, not only neglecting to even discuss how it happened and whose policies (and institutions) got us there in the first place, but then refusing to give a coherent rebuttal and/or replacement plan.

You claim to want the government out of our lives, but you have no problem determining who can get married and who can stick his dick where.

You claim to be morally superior. You want to ban all abortion, yet your attitude about what actually happens to that child after it's born is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." You say marriage is sacred, yet more marriages fail than succeed. You claim all life is sacred, yet say things like "let criminals fry" and "but that shooter in Aurora wasn't a human being and I'd have enjoyed killing him."

You b**** and moan about Obama's drone warfare policies, yet say how weak he is on foreign policy, as if somehow discreet killings are worse than foreign invasions. I mean, they may not be better, but they're certainly not worse.

And the worst part, like I said, is how you do it. Beavis and epicnyuk are the worst. You pretend like you don't understand arguments, you purposely leave out vital information to one side of an argument...you post in the rest of the forum like normal, intelligent human beings, but when it comes to political discussion, it's like you purposely only turn on the part of your brain that wins you the argument (in your own eyes). You're not fooling anyone.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:54 PM   #48
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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
Old 02-28-2013, 03:09 PM   #49
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,026

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

As for other differences between typical pistols (including the .22) and more powerful rounds like the .223 you have to understand an important fact about high powered weapons:

What kills you isn't necessarily the hole in your body or the shredding of your insides, it's that parts of your cardiovascular system explode, particularly in the brain. Basically as the round enters your body, it creates a pulse of pressure in your bloodstream, which causes hemorrhaging. You die from massive brain bleeding before the damage from the primary would kills you.

It's called hydrostatic shock.

Hunters know this very well, it's what results in "blood shot" meat near the wound that you have to avoid when harvesting the meat. Bloodshot meat is a more localized effect, but it's the same thing (hemorrhaging caused by induced static hydraulic pressure in the cardiovascular system).

A .22 doesn't produce anywhere near enough energy to cause hydrostatic shock. Typically the minimum is considered to be the energy from a .45ACP, which is about half the energy of a .223/NATO
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 03:15 PM   #50
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

The takeaway? Putting a hole/through in someone is bad. Shredding their insides with razorblades is a lot worse.
Interesting. But I'm not sure comparing one rifle cartridge's ballistics to a bunch of handguns is all that useful. Different animals entirely.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Denver Broncos