Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  .223 is OK enough for deer up to ~100 yds (0+ / 0-)

    especially the hotter loads. But it was designed as a wounding round -- wounding being more debilitating and resource intensive for the enemy -- and hotter loads do cause more tissue damage.

    Still, if you are an ethical hunter, i.e., if you practice diligently with various scenarios, and (unless you're using open sights) your scope is properly sighted-in, you should be able to get a clean 1-shot kill with a heart shot, and there shouldn't be unacceptable damage to skeletal muscle (might zigzag around in the peritoneal cavity and wreck some of the organ meats).

    I much prefer .308 fwiw, but my hunting rifles are notably heavier than an AR-15 or Mini-14.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:19:07 AM PST

    •  it is against the law in most states to use a .223 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      With all due respect, I am confused by your comment, "it was designed as a wounding round"

      ... I don't know a single hunter who would say they hunt "to wound" the animal.  I've never known anyone to go hunting with the intention of merely wounding their target.  Wounding your target does not benefit anyone.  Personally, I think only a morbid person would want wounded animals to be walking around in the woods -- and most states agree with me which is one reason why those states ban hunters from using a .223 AR.

      The .223 AR was also specifically designed to hunt people and to kill people that were being hunted.  That's why the military had the .223 AR designed --- it was not designed to merely "wound" people -- and it was certainly not designed so people could go 'wounding' animals in the woods.

      •  No, it was designed to wound. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul Ferguson, BlackSheep1, raincrow

        The thought being that, well, if you KILL an opposing soldier, he or she can be left on the ground till cessation of the firefight. You've nullified one soldier.

        If, instead, you wound said soldier, it will take at least one and probably more soldiers to clear the injured soldier. So by wounding, you've nullified more than one soldier.

        Cold calculus, but that's how it works.

      •  Not sure where to begin with your comment (0+ / 0-)

        What is all this about wanting to wound animals? Why would you want to do that?

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:13:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  .223 is a legal hunting round in ~36 states afaics (0+ / 0-)

        and I can't make heads or tails about all your "wounding" stuff. Why would you want to wound animals??

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:19:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  raincrow - (0+ / 0-)

          I mentioned "wounded" in response to your comment:
          YOU> "But it was designed as a wounding round"

          Which is why I replied> "I am confused by your comment, "it was designed as a wounding round"

          Looks like you confused me ... and ... in my confusion, confused you.

      •  Again, you're wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy

        the .223 was designed with many different factors in mind. The most important, though, was the amount of ammunition that could be carried. It replaced the much larger and heavier .308 round, itself a shorter version of the .30-06. The goal was to allow troops to carry more rounds to put out a higher volume of automatic fire. Only then were changes made to attempt to match the STOPPING POWER (not killing power) of the larger round. That was done my making the smaller faster round tumble on contact.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:26:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I heard a different Creation Story than you did (0+ / 0-)

          The .223 Remington/5.56x45mm was born of ArmaLite engineers scaling up the .222 Remington varmint round. They started with a varmint round precisely because varmint rounds are designed to maximize wounding. Such rounds are designed to yaw/tumble and disintegrate in soft tissue so as to cause a lot of damage. That degree of damage will reliably kill small to medium-size animals (i.e., varmints), but in larger animals such as deer and humans, if you don't make a clean killing shot, you end up with a significantly wounded target. On the battlefield this translates into a high incidence of wounded rather than dead soldiers. Wounded soldiers require either the diverson of substantial resources for caretaking or leaving the wounded behind, which is very hard on esprit de corps.

          Hideous business.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          ammo.ar15.com/project/AmmoOracle_061808.pdf

          YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

          by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:47:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site