Rickt, you might want to put some salt and pepper on that foot you're sticking in your mouth.
Another factoid for you to chew on: The Commandant Marine Corp issued an order forbidding all Marine officers from making negative reports about the effectiveness of the varmint cartridge and the M16. You want to dispute that also? You need to check your facts before you start calling names.
As far as the effectiveness of the varmint cartridge as a combat cartridge, how much personal knowledge do you have?? I have none as when I was in the Marine Corp, we used real rifles but I've talked to too many guys that was there and read too many post by folks that were there not to believe them.
You're not mad because I made fun of your tacticool little, spray and pray rifle are you?

BTW, I think you would be amazed at how many rounds I've put through a .223. I don't know that I could match your spray and pray volumes but I've taken a couple of bolt rifles chambered in .223 on several Pdog shoots and I shoot factory matches using a -ta da- .223.

GOOBER'S DICTIONARY
1st Edition


Facts: (prnoun "fax"). New fangled machine to send notz on.

Physics: (prnoun "fizzix"). Sound Alka-Seltzer makes when put in wadder.

Kinetic Energy: Amount of spunk my relativz haves.

Muzzle Velocity: Speed of my wife's jawz when she chewz my ass out.

Humane: Hairdoo made popular by Hugh the barber in Mount Pilot.



To be continued.......

Found this in Google.

In general, the M14 was a comtroversial weapon. It had the accuracy and range of the "old time" military rifles, but was too long, heavy and lacked the automatic fire firepower of a true assault rifle, often required in the modern close combat. Nevertheless, it was a reliable and powerful weapon, often favored by users for high lethality, long range and good penetration - features much appreciated by US soldiers during recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The word I got was that all special forces would be equiped with the M14 and the balance of the forces asap.

quote:

The word I got was that all special forces would be equiped with the M14 and the balance of the forces asap.

......GOOBER'S DICTIONARY


.223: Boolit bartche shot last T-Rex wif.
Commonly used in Africa to stop animalz that are charging wif you in
mind for an appetizer. (vittles)

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Rickt, you might want to put some salt and pepper on that foot you're sticking in your mouth.
Another factoid for you to chew on: The Commandant Marine Corp issued an order forbidding all Marine officers from making negative reports about the effectiveness of the varmint cartridge and the M16. You want to dispute that also? You need to check your facts before you start calling names.
As far as the effectiveness of the varmint cartridge as a combat cartridge, how much personal knowledge do you have?? I have none as when I was in the Marine Corp, we used real rifles but I've talked to too many guys that was there and read too many post by folks that were there not to believe them.
You're not mad because I made fun of your tacticool little, spray and pray rifle are you?

BTW, I think you would be amazed at how many rounds I've put through a .223. I don't know that I could match your spray and pray volumes but I've taken a couple of bolt rifles chambered in .223 on several Pdog shoots and I shoot factory matches using a -ta da- .223.

Well the post was actually directed toward troll rcamuglia. I have handled AR's in various forms since 1971 and spray and pray is pretty dumb since you have to carry your ammo and it's all you have till resupply. Yes I have examined dead people killed with the 5.56 XM193 round. The fact is this is a very destructive 55 grain bullet not reccomended for the human body to absorb. I never considered the AR platform "tacticool" because I am so familiar with it just like I am very familiar with the 1911 pistol. Rest assured if I want something dead and the only rifle I have at hand is a rifle in 223/5.56 then it's time on this planet is in dire straights. And as for the M14, it makes a fine target/sniper rifle but it is a clunker as a battle rifle compared to the M16 platform. As to the commandant of the Marine corps forbidding Marine officers from making negative reports about the effectiveness of the 5.56 and the M16 I can easily understand why an officer would not want his weapon system denigrated but I dispute that this was over the original 55 grain FMJBT's stopping power. Probably over the early rifles not having chrome lined barrels and the Macnamara dumb ass move to use early and dirty ball powder instead of extruded powder which was what the M16 was designed to function with. While you may have shot a few prairie dogs and punched some paper with the 223, that is just too cool. I find it amusing that someone that has not explored the true capabilities of a cartridge would set himself up to deride it.

Quote by rickt300...

...."the stopping power of the 55 gr FMJ..."

Hilarious!!

An oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp"

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Quote by rickt300...

...."the stopping power of the 55 gr FMJ..."

Hilarious!!

An oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp"

That bullet fired from the original 1 in 12 inch twist started tumbling and breaking up as soon as it hit flesh or bone and made some very ugly wounds, in fact it was called "the meat axe" for a while. Present ammo fired thru a 1 in 7 inch twist barely starts to tumble when it is going out the far side on combatants not wearing body armor, which modern ammo is designed to defeat. I have killed a bunch of deer with the XM193 round, it is very effective when properly placed. You might note the DC Sniper used XM193 very effectivly on his victims.

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Quote by rickt300...
...."the stopping power of the 55 gr FMJ..."
Hilarious!! An oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp"

That bullet fired from the original 1 in 12 inch twist started tumbling and breaking up as soon as it hit flesh or bone and made some very ugly wounds, in fact it was called "the meat axe" for a while. Present ammo fired thru a 1 in 7 inch twist barely starts to tumble when it is going out the far side on combatants not wearing body armor, which modern ammo is designed to defeat. I have killed a bunch of deer with the XM193 round, it is very effective when properly placed. You might note the DC Sniper used XM193 very effectivly on his victims.

rcamuglia, Looks like you need no coaching on the meaning of "oxymoron". So, tell me - is the term "223 medium game rifle" an oxymoron, paradox or contradiction - or all three?

This just gets better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_refuting_idea
Especially see: Determinism, and Epimonides Paradox

rickt300, lemmee seee ifin ay gots dis swrait.

"That bullet" - presumably FMJ - tumbled by design, partially because of twist rate.
Same bullet - broke up by design as soon as it hit flesh.
Made ugly wounds - by design.
Present ammo tumbles too, just not as quick - thus not as effective?
I haven't noticed any deer wearing body armor??
You hunt deer with FMJ bullets.
Effective when properly placed - so you say.
As I recall, the DC sniper made head shots.

This doesn't seem to me the criteria of an appropriate hunting bullet.

KB

KB,

Except my head hurts from reading the info on your link!

That's the way it was intended - as an exercise in the absurdity and the nature of argument/debate - same as this discussion about using the 223 for deer.

How do you like my new signature/motto?

KB

So are you saying the 223 was designed to wound and not to kill? in combat situations?

So at what point (what kind of game) in your opinion do you need to go to a larger cartridge? what about black bear, elk, bighorn, etc? Just trying to figure out how many of my rifles I don't need.

quote:

Originally posted by JonP:
So are you saying the 223 was designed to wound and not to kill? in combat situations?

I'm no expert, but why would it be designed to tumble, when they had a choice? Hunting bullets/rifles combos are not designed to do that.
I know for a fact, for example, that the military ammo for the 7.62x39 was designed intentionally to extract a great part of its effectivness from the tumbling effect, and breakup, of the bullet in flesh. It's a military concept, not a hunting concept.

I'm not going into your last loaded question. It's subjective - whatever you want - you figure it out. I have my opinions about it, and I am willing to express my opinions, but not (this time) in response to a loaded question.

KB

KB,


By the end of all of this, you'll have a signature as long as mike-dettorre!


JonP,

The OGW fomula and TI are good guides that an intelligent individual may choose to use.

Kin folk of the Pile family do not.

CumblewWad is just as much a horses ass as he was several months ago. Proof positive that just because retards can procreate don't mean they should.

Guud gawd, it's ketch-um-if-he-kan. Greetings. I've missed ya. Glad you could join in. We need your special way with words, as a measure of the extent of gooberism.

As an intro to others, since I'm thinking this is your first post in this frakus, Ole Ketchum is in the class of Proxymoron - an advocate. He's one of those guys who is an exception to your standard goober. First, apparantly he's a great shot, skilled hunter, uses restraint, effective, etc. Ya know, all the usual attributes to a good hunter. What he fails to do, IMO, is qualify the 223. He has a good looking bolt action rifle, I don't know the twist, but it's gotta be good on these little SE Alaska Sitka deer. Obviously, or at least apparantly, it's deadly in his hands.

I could say more good things about you, but let's not get carried away about this obvious mutual admiration. But, I'll venture a little further by saying, IMO if a guy wanted to use the 223 for deer (gawd knows why) then surely Ketchum is the person to look to as an example. IMO, he is precise, and about as far from spray-n-pray as they get, an AH nevertheless, but that's beside the point.

KB

Had to check the score.

The axis of ignorance lost another point for the wiki violation again.

You guys really need to try harder.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by JonP:
So are you saying the 223 was designed to wound and not to kill? in combat situations?

I'm no expert, but why would it be designed to tumble, when they had a choice? Hunting bullets/rifles combos are not designed to do that.
I know for a fact, for example, that the military ammo for the 7.62x39 was designed intentionally to extract a great part of its effectivness from the tumbling effect, and breakup, of the bullet in flesh. It's a military concept, not a hunting concept.

I'm not going into your last loaded question. It's subjective - whatever you want - you figure it out. I have my opinions about it, and I am willing to express my opinions, but not (this time) in response to a loaded question.

KB

Tumbling is characteristic of spitzer bullets. expanding bullets shift their weight rapidly backward and track straight through flesh. This is true in general of all calibers.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Had to check the score.

The axis of ignorance lost another point for the wiki violation again.

You guys really need to try harder.

There is one word especially describing you:

http://dictionary.babylon.com/incorrigible
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incorrigible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorrigibility

KB

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
Tumbling is characteristic of spitzer bullets. expanding bullets shift their weight rapidly backward and track straight through flesh. This is true in general of all calibers.

What about the breaking up?

It was my understanding that tumbling is not only a character of spitzer FMJ bullets, but especially so of those with low sectional density, such as the .223 bullets, and the 123gr .311 bullets. It was my understanding that the Soviets chose that bullet, that weight, because of its tumbling character. Same for the military .223, and most especially by matching it with a slow twist rate, thus under stabilizing.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


Same for the military .223, and most especially by matching it with a slow twist rate, thus under stabilizing.

KB

The term would be over stablizing.

Terry

I think you may have goofed TC1,

it's under-stabilized.

1 in 8 is a faster twist rate than 1 in 14

Yep, sure did. Now the coffee is kicking in it makes sense now.

Terry

Still....

Wayfaring stranger sits in a dimly lit basement. The sound of dripping water is all that can be heard. Each drop breaks the silence like thin ice cracking on a pond's edge.

Periodically checking the thread, the insane laugh that culminates in complete evacuation of air from his feeble lungs and subsequent gasp for air to refill them is the only thing that creates a stir.

They stir because they know their time is short.

Behind the bench that houses the reloading equipment and Singer sewing machine is the crudely-dug pit. They can't escape. They've heard the agonizing squeals of the others as they were processed and skinned. The subsequent machine gun-like aria of the Singer harmonizes with the unintelligible mumblings of the man as he works is actually calming to them as the garment being made takes shape.

The coat was complete.

His dimented laughter was the bell tolling for those still trapped in the pit and caused them to stir frantically.

The Jackalope pants were next....

The tumbling was a result of improper twist for the heavier bullet they were trying to use since the original bullets --55grs fmj -- proved to be TOTALLY inadequite. They tried to play it off as a planned part of the Grand Design but shortly changed the rate of twist.

In the military mindset, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy as the wounded enemy will need people to tend him. Thereby diluting the enemy combatants.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
The tumbling was a result of improper twist for the heavier bullet they were trying to use since the original bullets --55grs fmj -- proved to be TOTALLY inadequite. They tried. to play it off as a planned part of the Grand Design but shortly changed the rate of twist.

In the military mindset, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy as the wounded enemy will need people to tend him. Thereby diluting the enemy combatants.

A precisely placed explanation sure to penetrate even the thickest of goober skulls!

The XM193 bullet is jacketed with the absolute minimum thickness of gilding metal, then it was deeply cannelured. The 1 in 12 twisted barrels were actually pretty accurate but the relatively long 55 grain FMJBT was just about the longets bullet the twist could stabilize. The bullet often broke in half at the cannelure. I consider this bullet a FMJ designed to come apart, not a FMJ designed to do lots of penetration. An no, the DC sniper mostly made body hits and the fragmenting of the bullet was well documented. As a matter of fact the military is going to a different bullet than the not so effective 62 gr. M855, A match type hollowpoint that will bring fragmenting back along with more energy at long range. And yes I used the XM193 round on a bunch of deer during a culling operation in south central Texas. Most of the deer were pretty small at less than 90 pounds but hitting them in the shoulder or neck droped them very quickly. I used a 1 in 9 twist 16 inch barreled AR for this and had no complaints. Your argument holds nothing but unsubstantiated bias against the 223. This makes you the bonehead.

I see you guys are still shooting blanks.

quote:

by wasbeeman:
In the military mindset, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy as the wounded enemy

In rcamuglia's mindset, a wounded deer that gores his buddy in the leg...

Wait,..... that can't be a good thing...
I wonder what kind of inadequate cartridge was used to wound that deer?

90# deer!

The hilarity continues!!

Note that you are confirming that the Taylor Index is spot on!

90# deer! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
In rcamuglia's mindset, a wounded deer that gores his buddy in the leg...

Wait,..... that can't be a good thing...
I wonder what kind of inadequate cartridge was used to wound that deer?

I'm still waiting......

In a witless battle of wits never give the opposing side their best ammo.

His son shot and wounded it and he went into the thick stuff to look for it. Caliber was not even discussed with me, but I'm sure it was adequate because his family's last name is not "Pile"

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I'm sure it was adequate

Obviously it wasn't.

Kind of removes the caliber from the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:
The XM193 bullet is jacketed with the absolute minimum thickness of gilding metal, then it was deeply cannelured. The 1 in 12 twisted barrels were actually pretty accurate but the relatively long 55 grain FMJBT was just about the longets bullet the twist could stabilize. The bullet often broke in half at the cannelure. I consider this bullet a FMJ designed to come apart, not a FMJ designed to do lots of penetration. An no, the DC sniper mostly made body hits and the fragmenting of the bullet was well documented. As a matter of fact the military is going to a different bullet than the not so effective 62 gr. M855, A match type hollowpoint that will bring fragmenting back along with more energy at long range. And yes I used the XM193 round on a bunch of deer during a culling operation in south central Texas. Most of the deer were pretty small at less than 90 pounds but hitting them in the shoulder or neck droped them very quickly. I used a 1 in 9 twist 16 inch barreled AR for this and had no complaints. Your argument holds nothing but unsubstantiated bias against the 223. This makes you the bonehead.

Unsubstantiated bias? Bonehead? Humm - bias - maybe - well yes. Unsubstantiated - no. Bonehead - could be.

rickt300, I don't mean to pick on you too much, since I figure that you're probably a pretty nice guy and all, and most likely you recently served as a warrior for our country and all, thus certainly you deserve a high degree of respect.

However, you are a good example of the type of hunter that I take some exception to, and IMO one of the main reasons the 223 for deer hunting is an issue at all. We come from different schools. Frankly, I don't like the talk of military weapons, snipers and criminals, and other such lingo mixed in with discussion of hunting tools. It's a state of mind.

It's probably just me. I don't even like the fact that most of our great and effective deer and hog cartridges once and some still do serve in the military. Take the great ones - 6.5x55, 7x57, 8x57. 308, 30-06, and even the 7.62x54, and there's more.

And then along comes this GD 223, drempt up by some military master mind warrior, and it has been the subject of controversy from the beginning. To me it's a complete anomaly, no matter which arena it's in, military or hunting fields.

All the afore mentioned military cartridges were developed with a great deal of tech thought and resources at them. Probably the same with the 223, but something went amuck, IMO, with the 223. It's like a bad virus that wont go away.

Thousands and thousands of young men are introduced to the 223 while they are serving honorably, as it was for the larger cartridges, in an earlier time. The bias for the use of those cartridges for hunting is obvious. Fortunately, until the 223 came along, they were all mostly good choices, with the 7.62x39 being marginal.

So, yes I'm bias against the 223, for the above reasons, and also because it is such a deviation from our customary and well proven deer cartridges.

So there. Does that make me a conservative? OMG It certainly makes me a civilian.

KB

The Geneva Convention sets the rules of how to fight a humane war. In 1899 at Hague, the convention outlawed expanding bullets. That's why military ammo is full metal jacket---not to be used on game. It is military logic that a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded one requires others to help that person. I don't know if this is true or a good war story, but an Army guy told me in Viet Nam they carried a little file and filed the nose off bullets to make them expand. He said don't let the Viet Cong catch you with a file or you would die even sooner. A tumbling bullet is not accurate, so I can't see them tumbling by design.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
The Geneva Convention sets the rules of how to fight a humane war. In 1899 at Hague, the convention outlawed expanding bullets. That's why military ammo is full metal jacket---not to be used on game. It is military logic that a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded one requires others to help that person. I don't know if this is true or a good war story, but an Army guy told me in Viet Nam they carried a little file and filed the nose off bullets to make them expand. He said don't let the Viet Cong catch you with a file or you would die even sooner. A tumbling bullet is not accurate, so I can't see them tumbling by design.

OK, OK - good discussion. Let's start at the bottom. Tumbling in this context is referring to what happens after the bullet strikes the target. It would be rediculous to even think about a bullet tumbling in flight. I have no idea how that could be done. Blunderbuss - maybe.

Geneva Convention - Hague - etc., - seems to me the military, US and Soviets, got around that by designing, or choosing, a bullet that tumbles and breaks up - in the target.

Re the Viet Nam vet - - there are plenty of war stories, whatever they are worth, but not much in the context of hunting deer, IMO. Some of those guys smoked way too much whacky weed.

KB

Uncle! Uncle!

You guys are right about the .223 being a great deer cartridge. I didn't realize that your deer are that tiny. 90#? The cartridge is probably overkill on deer that size. Heck, one of my dogs is that big!

When I posted the pic of the Jackalope I thought it may give some comic relief to the thread; I had no idea it was on the money!

You may want to also carry a .17 HMR in case you have some really close action on your hunts. A guy on another thread said it works great while spotlighting impala in Africa.

Silly me! All this time I thought............

R, quit it - you're tickeling me - like a sharp jab to my funny bone tickles.

The natives up around Kotzebue use the .17 whatever on caribou too, so I hear, (hearsay ) after they chase them down on snow machines, or from a boat up along side the animals while they cross the river. Subsistance slaughter, head shots. The 223 must be overkill in such circumstance.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You guys are right about the .223 being a great deer cartridge.

about time
Do you feel it would be a better flock shooting deer cartridge than what KB likes to use?

You see that I asked about your feelings because everyone knows how important feelings are when it comes to putting meat in the freezer.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You guys are right about the .223 being a great deer cartridge.

about time
Do you feel it would be a better flock shooting deer cartridge than what KB likes to use?

You see that I asked about your feelings because everyone knows how important feelings are when it comes to putting meat in the freezer.

I have decided that the two of you are perfect adversaries for arguing this issue. Both of you are out of my league. So, I'll leave it up to you to sort this out. Good luck.

I would like to thank you both for giving me ideas for my new signature/motto.

When either of you are ready for debate, rather than pissing at each other, I'm good for that. Meanwhile - go for it.

KB