Awe geez, do eyes gotcha wuees a swell pcecker, and bees shore mi wrdos arth writh?

KB

"

quote:

Awe geez, do eyes gotcha wuees a swell pcecker, and bees shore mi wrdo art write?

"
KB That makes as much sense as anything you have ever posted.

I'm glad you see the humor.

It took me over two years to just get past the offensiveness of some of the jokes my Texas buddies would tell. It seemed as though if it didn't involve sheep or goats, it wasn't funny to them. I always figured where there's smoke, there's fire, and actually worried about them. I finally figured out that it must be a Texas thing, mostly smoke.

You know, like a legend, a fairy tale, oral tradition sota thing. Like uncle Bubba, back when kinda thingy. The legend of Broke Back Mountain originated in Texas you know.

They still tell bad jokes, which I still don't think are funny, but I don't worry about them anymore. Texans, a seperate nation.

KB

KB--Yes I could readily see there would be a communication gap between you and a Texan. Those stories we tell about sheep are just jokes. Where it matches your real life experience it just wouldn't seem funny.

You two seem to be running out of steam. Are you ready to call a truce???

CM,
It's the imagination part that I have trouble with. Their jokes have too much info, which I don't want to know or think about. I can imagine and appreciate lots of funny stuff, but some things just fail to amuse me.


This is what I mean. Why bother - it ain't funny, unless you are telling it to another Texan. It makes you look like a Bubba to everyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
KB--Yes I could readily see there would be a communication gap between you and a Texan. Those stories we tell about sheep are just jokes.

I would much rather argue about the use of a 223 for deer. That's the subject of the joke of this thread. That amuses me.

KB

I can tell several stories about my .223--but none involve a deer. I have never shot a deer with it. I did carry it last time I went deer hunting, but no opportunity arose. To start out a friend owned it and wanted to know it's value. It's a Win mod 70 Westerner. I figured that would be Easy--The Blue Book lists EVERY variation you can think of for model 70's--but this one not listed. They listed an older Westerner in .264 mag--but not this. I called Blue Book and talked to Steve Fjestad the publisher. He said it would be in next book and even had one of his staff members call me--the staffer assured me would be in next edition. It wasn't. Haven't bought a Blue Book since. May be listed now--not sure--haven't seen a Blue Book in years. A few years after first looking for the value, I traded for a .222 for my grandson. My friend said you should have bought my .223. He named his price and I readily bought it. This same friend had re-roofed my house after a tornado/hailstorm and wouldn't accept payment. I hoped I paid him too much(which I don't think I did). The rifle had a Bushnell scope but was missing the adjustment covers. I contacted Bushnell and they sent a sheet to be filled out--serial number, country of orgin, EVERYTHING you could think of. I sent it back along with my money(3 prices atleast) and received the wrong covers. These sent back and I received some beat up used ones with explanation that new ones no longer available. On another forum I was told about a customer service rep at Bushnell named Leslie. The scope itself was giving problems. I contacted leslie about the scope and the high price I had paid for used covers. Was told to send scope to Leslie. I did and received it with brand new covers--but still the variable adjustment wouldn't budge. Sent back and received and it worked a couple times then locked up again. Bottom line I got rid of my Bushnell stuff and started buying Leupold. So now for load development. Went to range and a sudden storm came up and I quickly loaded everything and went and grabbed my target. I had shot a one hole group but in the haste of things, didn't know which load did it. Knew it was one of two powders. One possibility was 748 powder. Lyman shows a compressed load of 30.0 grains and lists a c.u.p. of only 43,400. Most cases wouldn't even hold 30.0 grains. Ol stupid me figured it was one of those you just couldn't overcharge. I broke one of my cardinal rules--I did not cross reference it with other books. Saw no need--the 43,400 would be safe. Well I locked up the bolt on my rifle, the case deformed at the head. BTW I did not start at max and had shot 3 or 4 rounds with no excess pressure signs before this happened. After it happened I did cross reference other books and Hornady for example lists max of 27.7 and Sierra 26.7. Lesson learned--ALWAYS cross reference. Might also add Lyman listed a starting load of 26.4 which is near the other two's max. My gunsmith (recently deceased) thought the problem was that I did not use magnum primers. I don't think so--there was no unburned powder. Lyman calls for Remington 7 1/2 primers. Anyways I got it shooting good with another type powder (3031)(not one holers) --that is with jacketed bullets. I cant get it to shoot cast bullets--same cast bullet I shoot in .222 and 22-250.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
KB--Yes I could readily see there would be a communication gap between you and a Texan. Those stories we tell about sheep are just jokes. Where it matches your real life experience it just wouldn't seem funny.

Yah, I betcha, like the old way of doing sheep nuts before rubber bands...

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
I can tell several stories about my .223--but none involve a deer.

I only have one very short story about my 223.

I bought one of those great little Sako actions once, and it fed 223 very well. I held onto it for several years, pondering what I could do with it barreled in 223, twist rate, etc. I finally just traded it off, and don't miss it at all.

KB

quote:

"Squeezed off the Hornet..I heet 'em..but he done ran...'magin that"

Found 'em...hees swahs done by the road...dayed...throed 'em in the truk...he tayst fahn, I reckin"

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
You two seem to be running out of steam. Are you ready to call a truce???

Excellent suggestion.

Maybe this joke explains what I think about it:

A new teacher carpetman was trying to make use of her his psychology courses. She He started her class by saying, 'Everyone who thinks they're stupid, stand up!' After a few seconds, Little Larry kabluewy stood up. The teacher carpetman said, 'Do you think you're stupid, Larrykabluewy?' 'No, ma'am, but I hate to see you standing there all by yourself!'

So, I'm standing there with you good bud. It's been fun.

regards,

KB

Kabluewy.. I think after 6 pages YOU have the best answer!!

Kb--standing there with you I will tell you my true thoughts . This is not intended as in your face, smart assed etc. (and if taken that way--I don't think it will meet the degree your signature lines are just that). You had .223 and traded it off without using it. The shame of that is that you didnt use it and then if you still felt it was inadequate and unethical as you call those of us who have sucessfully used it--you could post with some been there done that real life experience--not armchair theories where you tell us to do the Math. (apparently you have some bad numbers----too many of us with positive experiences to substantiate the numbers you claim that suggest otherwise). If I had bad experiences using the .223 and continued using it--that would be unethical. I did have one bad experience using cast bullets in a .243 and will never do so again. But I don't go to the cast bullet section with negative signature line about cast bullets and call those folks idiots and unethical. This particular thread is one you started--but a couple that I started which were merely to report a single experience same same--you stating your armchair theory that it was unethical and of course my stating I thought you were full of it. Truce? Knock off the trolling on .223 threads and the corny signature lines and we'll be there.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Kb--standing there with you I will tell you my true thoughts.

you could post with some been there done that real life experience--not armchair theories where you tell us to do the Math.

I did have one bad experience using cast bullets in a .243 and will never do so again. But I don't go to the cast bullet section with negative signature line about cast bullets and call those folks idiots and unethical.

Truce? Knock off the trolling on .223 threads and the corny signature lines and we'll be there.

So, you want to exchange true thoughts? Ok, consider this my nice mode.

You could have predicted the bad experience with the 243, if you had bothered to do your homework, and a little common sense.

I never did understand the part of just going out and trying something that is contrary to what people far more experienced than me say isn't going to work well. Like I wouldn't use varmint bullets on deer, because - well - because they are varmint bullets and deer aren't varmints. Like I wouldn't use match bulles on deer - because they are for shooting in matches or competition, and deer hunting isn't a competitive sport last time I checked.

You may say, that I'm selective in who I pay attention to, as far as experience goes, and you are correct. Those who say that in their experience, such and such -- bla, bla, that they have had good luck with a 223, makes little difference to me, because the folks I listen to and common wisdom says the 223 ain't a deer cartridge. Who ya gonna trust - myth believers, or the myth busters - those who have really tested the cartridge, bullets, ballistics, and done the math?

Looks to me like the mfg saying a particular bullet will fragment into a lead and copper vapor within the first two inches of penetration would mean something important to even an idiot. But instead guys like you go ahead and try it in the field on deer, and then get on the internet proclaiming its virtues as a deer cartridge.

What are you thinking?

You are right about my signature lines. They are intended to be in your face. I'm glad to read that they are effective.

Perhaps you forget that I started this thread to try an see if I was the only one with a definate negative opinion re the 223 and those who use it for deer. If that's trolling, so be it. I could call you a troll to, but it wouldn't matter.

We'll have a truce when you make posts about the 223 that I can agree with, as I have done with others. Till then, the best it's gonna get is agree to disagree.

Regards,

KB

KablEWEy --Yes I think you are an expert. In matters I have no interest in. Sure hope those guys in Texas figure out it is such a sensitive area and give you some slack. Then again maybe they do have it figured out and like to lay it on.
You keep mentioning varmint bullet and what the mfg label says. This was a cast bullet. You even know what they are? It is the bullet that almost made the American bison extinct. I had a 95 grain bullet doing 2900 fps and was accurate. What great Math formula do you have that would say it wouldn't work? Most people do make good Monday morning quarterbacks/coaches--after the fact. I'd not give you that much credit.
Your signature line really doesn't bother me. It sends an instant message what an idiot you are. I mentioned it trying to do you a subtle favor.
Only one with a definate negative opinion--try DEFINITE---you just showing your ignorance even more.
How could I make posts about the .223 that you agree with? You don't have a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
1. Sure hope those guys in Texas figure out it is such a sensitive area and give you some slack. Then again maybe they do have it figured out and like to lay it on.

2. You keep mentioning varmint bullet and what the mfg label says.

3. This was a cast bullet. I had a 95 grain bullet doing 2900 fps and was accurate. What great Math formula do you have that would say it wouldn't work?

4. Your signature line really doesn't bother me.

5. How could I make posts about the .223 that you agree with?

6. You don't have a clue.

1. They figured it out alright, and did get worse. That's when I figured it out, and quit giving a darn. Now we have a truce.

2. I don't remember mentioning a mfg label, however to most people just the words varmint bullet means something rather specific. Besides the mfg do give pretty good clues of what their design purpose is for any given bullet. There's no reason for them to make it a mystery.

3. I'm not confusing my discussion with lack of distinction between a jacketed varmint bullet and the cast bullets you mentioned. You apparantly are confused. Either way, it ain't a formula that would cause me to predict the results of driving a tiny cast bullet that fast, and expecting it to perform well on a deer. It's common sense. The homework I mentioned might include listening to others on a subject instead of just trying something like that. I haven't read much about tiny cast bullets, but I'll bet that something is said about too much velocity in some the manuals or books that you have already, and you just didn't read or pay attention. To your credit though, you said you wouldn't try that again. I'll bet you have had those experiences before, in a variety of ways. Of course, we all have, but I don't know anyone but you who drives a small cast bullet nearly 3000fps, and shoots a deer with it. You say you learned a lesson, but then shoot deer with varmint bullets. Can you not take one lesson learned and apply it to another similar situation?

4. I don't believe you.

5. Say something reasonable for a change.

6. It's a matter of opinion.

BTW, do you use blue dot powder?

KB

Hide the sheep--here comes kablEWEy. It really wasn't a joke--they meant it.

Well, I didn't see any sheep hanging around deer camp, which was reassuring that they were just jokeing, but I did hear one of the guy's comment of how so-and-so/Bubba had recently lost a dear-dear friend, who was a ewe.

Texans, a seperate nation. I still think the old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" is true, and you sure have been blowing a lot of smoke.

KB

kablowaewe--There weren't any sheep in deer camp? Bet you were disappointed. They knew you couldn't be trusted around them.

I voted overall not good, but that isn't to say I don't think it can be done or shouldn't even be done. Being from California I have seen and talked to too many hunters that never practiced, had very little idea what they were shooting, and even with regular rifles I am betting there were lots of unkilled but wounded some of these guys left behind.

in the few years I hunted deer (started late and haven't hunted much last few years) I only had one good opportunity, a small forked horn within maybe 30 yards. I was carrying a semi-auto 22 mag just plinking while taking my lunch break. I didn't shoot because it wasn't legal caliber, however I am confident that I could have killed him at that range with that rifle.

Would I personally use one? No, I believe also it is marginal, even a great shooter can and will have things happen, the deer moves at the last minute, a twig in the way, they breath wrong, countless Murphy's can happen. I like a larger margin of error for myself. I don't think that should limit people and I don't think a post that just shows the success of a hunt and lists what was used should invite a flaming. Of course some people are obviously trying to start shit and deserve what they get. that will always happen on forums

I think the real issue is that getting a hunting license requires no proficiency be proven, anybody can get one. I think they need to add some practical to it. I heard about the test in Finland, it involves X number of shots into a kill zone on a moving moose target at X meters. (I can't remember the particulars) I do know that when I heard it I thought, "I wonder if I could do that?"

Remember that we here are not the majority in the hunting world, guys that practice, reload, spend time pouring over information, I have met hunters that just buy a box of ammo and go shoot. some of them have never punched paper and some don't even know what kind of rifle/ammo they use! I would be more converned with one of them using a 7mag then with a good, ethical hunter using a 223.

Red

Ya see, carpetman. That's a fine demonstration of a reasonable post. Why aren't your posts more like that?

KB

Kablowaewe--Yes indeed a reasonable post. Probably a great guy. He voted no--with no experience. He lists all the things that can go wrong and has the false sense of security that a bigger gun would compensate. Bad shot is a bad shot is a bad shot. If it is a shot that shouldn't be taken with .223 then it shouldn't be taken with bigger gun. You pass the shot and deer walks. How much weight would I give his no vote? Answer is obvious. He brings up a very good point that perhaps a person should have to demonstrate proficiency to get a hunting license. I heard of a guy that owned land and before he would let a person hunt they had to pass a shooting test. Great idea.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

With that said, there are loads of hunters that have successfully taken deer with their .223. In that crowd I believe that there are ethical hunters that have developed boundaries that are the limits of their weapon and stay within those boundaries to ensure clean kills. While at the same time I also believe there are another group I call dingbats that have no boundaries and will take a 500 yard shot at anything moving with their .223 thinking it's plenty of gun. There's always that element that jack up the sport. I do not hunt with a .223 because I don't need any further challenge and I'll stand by my .308 as it has done me proud over many years. But for those that wish to hunt with their .223 have developed their own set of boundaries and have been successful, then I wish them "happy hunting". For those that are convinced their .223 has the stopping power of a .308, 30-06 etc., then perhaps these people need to be roughed up a bit in this forum. After-all, the .308 and 30-06 as with any cartridge has its limitations. So I guess you can say " A man has to know his limitations"...

That's pretty fair.

It is a damn shame we can't have a discussion on it without everything from saber tooth deer to Santa Clause being thrown in the mix. I don't have any problem with someone not agreeing with it. If they would just say so and move on that would be fine, but we have folks here that the majority of thier post count is dedicated to this one subject alone and they've never even done it. They feel it's thier duty and right to troll every post that mentions a .223 and deer! I guess they feel like they can change the world through Internet forums

Oh well, it's funner to do it than talk about it anyway.

Terry

P.S. Sorry in advance for the spelling

Terry,
Lately, I have been in agreement with you in several ways. However, I disagree with you on your main point in this post. The "It's a damn shame we cant have a discussion" part.

I may not have been completely successful about it, but my intent has always been to have relavent discussion about it. Some of the problems with that has been potty mouth postings, and personal attacks, which is something you have quit doing, but others haven't.

Anyway, if we could have a rational, relevant and meaningful discussion, that would be fine with me.

BTW, no one appreciates being called or even considered a troll.

After all, if you really mean what you say, and want meaningful discussion, then have it, and leave off the slurs and comments about others for a starter.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Kablowaewe--Yes indeed a reasonable post. Probably a great guy. He voted no--with no experience. He lists all the things that can go wrong and has the false sense of security that a bigger gun would compensate. Bad shot is a bad shot is a bad shot. If it is a shot that shouldn't be taken with .223 then it shouldn't be taken with bigger gun. You pass the shot and deer walks. How much weight would I give his no vote? Answer is obvious. He brings up a very good point that perhaps a person should have to demonstrate proficiency to get a hunting license. I heard of a guy that owned land and before he would let a person hunt they had to pass a shooting test. Great idea.

Well, cm, that's a pretty good attempt at a reasonable post, but like always, you screw it up.

For example: "If it is a shot that shouldn't be taken with .223 then it shouldn't be taken with bigger gun."

You still havent got it that the 223 isn't per se a deer rifle. It can be used for that purpose, ethically or unethically. It seems to me that there are lots of examples of shots that shouldn't be taken with a 223, which would be ok with an appropriate deer rifle. Distance for one example.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

With that said, there are loads of hunters that have successfully taken deer with their .223. In that crowd I believe that there are ethical hunters that have developed boundaries that are the limits of their weapon and stay within those boundaries to ensure clean kills. While at the same time I also believe there are another group I call dingbats that have no boundaries and will take a 500 yard shot at anything moving with their .223 thinking it's plenty of gun. There's always that element that jack up the sport. I do not hunt with a .223 because I don't need any further challenge and I'll stand by my .308 as it has done me proud over many years. But for those that wish to hunt with their .223 have developed their own set of boundaries and have been successful, then I wish them "happy hunting". For those that are convinced their .223 has the stopping power of a .308, 30-06 etc., then perhaps these people need to be roughed up a bit in this forum. After-all, the .308 and 30-06 as with any cartridge has its limitations. So I guess you can say " A man has to know his limitations"...

That's pretty fair.

It is a damn shame we can't have a discussion on it without everything from saber tooth deer to Santa Clause being thrown in the mix. I don't have any problem with someone not agreeing with it. If they would just say so and move on that would be fine, but we have folks here that the majority of thier post count is dedicated to this one subject alone and they've never even done it. They feel it's thier duty and right to troll every post that mentions a .223 and deer! I guess they feel like they can change the world through Internet forums

Oh well, it's funner to do it than talk about it anyway.

Terry

P.S. Sorry in advance for the spelling

Terry,
Lately, I have been in agreement with you in several ways. However, I disagree with you on your main point in this post. The "It's a damn shame we cant have a discussion" part.

I may not have been completely successful about it, but my intent has always been to have relavent discussion about it. Some of the problems with that has been potty mouth postings, and personal attacks, which is something you have quit doing, but others haven't.

Anyway, if we could have a rational, relevant and meaningful discussion, that would be fine with me.

BTW, no one appreciates being called or even considered a troll.

After all, if you really mean what you say, and want meaningful discussion, then have it, and leave off the slurs and comments about others for a starter.

KB

I was gonna stay out of this but this goes way over the top.

PU-lease quit the "I'm a victim" speal. You're sig line calls everyone who uses a .223 for deer a MORON! So who's the troll? The guy defending his posisition or YOU calling everyone names in EVER SINGLE POST YOU MAKE!

Just admit it your a TROLL who cannot psyically restrain themselves from ruining the discourse and exchange of ideas on the subject for no other reason than you can.

OH! and according to the math even with your lopsided choices more folks advocate the use of .223-5.56 on deer to some extent or another than those who agree with you and dismiss it's use out of hand.

Do the math!

quote:

I may not have been completely successful about it, but my intent has always been to have relavent discussion about it. Some of the problems with that has been potty mouth postings, and personal attacks, which is something you have quit doing, but others haven't.

Kabluey, I have always tried to have a relavent discussion with you on the subject. If you go back and read your own posts, you will see you do as much name calling and baiting as anyone.
I've said as much on the way I use a .223 as I need to, and my record with it shows I'm right in how it's used ( coached really). You still try to inflame all users as the same which is no more true then shooting elk in the ass at 700 yds with an 06 and saying it's the 06 fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
After all, if you really mean what you say, and want meaningful discussion, then have it, and leave off the slurs and comments about others for a starter.
KB

I was gonna stay out of this but this goes way over the top.

You're sig line calls everyone who uses a .223 for deer a MORON! So who's the troll? The guy defending his posisition or YOU calling everyone names in EVER SINGLE POST YOU MAKE!

Just admit it your a TROLL who cannot psyically restrain themselves from ruining the discourse and exchange of ideas on the subject for no other reason than you can.

OH! and according to the math even with your lopsided choices more folks advocate the use of .223-5.56 on deer to some extent or another than those who agree with you and dismiss it's use out of hand.

Do the math!

Uh huh, I see. Everyone who thinks they are a proxymoron, for advocating the use of the 223 on deer, please stand up.

I'll change my signature line, just for you. If you find it so offensive, I'll fix it.

Although some readers may have to look up some words the get the meaning, which is not intended to call everyone useing a 223 for deer a moron.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
After all, if you really mean what you say, and want meaningful discussion, then have it, and leave off the slurs and comments about others for a starter.
KB

I was gonna stay out of this but this goes way over the top.

You're sig line calls everyone who uses a .223 for deer a MORON! So who's the troll? The guy defending his posisition or YOU calling everyone names in EVER SINGLE POST YOU MAKE!

Just admit it your a TROLL who cannot psyically restrain themselves from ruining the discourse and exchange of ideas on the subject for no other reason than you can.

OH! and according to the math even with your lopsided choices more folks advocate the use of .223-5.56 on deer to some extent or another than those who agree with you and dismiss it's use out of hand.

Do the math!

Uh huh, I see. Everyone who thinks they are a proxymoron, for advocating the use of the 223 on deer, please stand up.

I'll change my signature line, just for you. If you find it so offensive, I'll fix it.

KB

I Don't think I'm one, But at the same time I don't appreciate your sig line calling me a moron by PROXY just because my experiences have have taught me that a .223 under the correct circumstances is indeed a viable deer rifle.

Any civil discourse you attempt to have on this matter FAIL's once the reader gets to the bottom of your post and reads the sig. At the very least it tells anyone inclined to respond that you're mind is closed on the matter.

I know I posted this before but I think it has some relevance.

I lived and hunted in Germany...every animal shot is catalogued...every bullet accounted for. It takes 8 months to 2 years to get a hunting license and the course work and practical requirements are WAY beyond anything here. These guys know their stuff and they can shoot (the guys we've invited here to hunt have impressed me with their skills!!). With all the evidence/statistics collected over the years, they placed a requirement of 6.5mm on deer sized game.

I'm not saying that very skilled hunters under certain circumstances aren't effective with 22 calibers...just adding that the results of this system indicate its not a wise choice.

I'm sure the next post will belittle our German colleagues but having hunted there many times, I have never seen so many one shot "bang flops" on running big game...these guys can handle their weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:
I Don't think I'm one, But at the same time I don't appreciate your sig line calling me a moron by PROXY just because my experiences have have taught me that a .223 under the correct circumstances is indeed a viable deer rifle.

Any civil discourse you attempt to have on this matter FAIL's once the reader gets to the bottom of your post and reads the sig. At the very least it tells anyone inclined to respond that you're mind is closed on the matter.

OK, I get it. My signature line is intended to express an opinion, and perhaps some ironic humor. I spent most of my time in writing it to be concise, play with words, yet have a message. It was not intended to be excessively offensive.

If I added, IMO, would that be OK?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


BTW, no one appreciates being called or even considered a troll.

KB

You're trolling now. If you truly don't like it maybe you should consider changing your behavior. You're no victim here. Nobody is buying that line.

Terry

Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Spoken like a true victim

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Everything when the Trolling in question precludes any discussion from taking place.

Ever hear the saying that "If the shoe fits"

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


BTW, no one appreciates being called or even considered a troll.

KB

You're trolling now. If you truly don't like it maybe you should consider changing your behavior. You're no victim here. Nobody is buying that line.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Everything when the Trolling in question precludes any discussion from taking place.

Ever hear the saying that "If the shoe fits"

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:
I Don't think I'm one, But at the same time I don't appreciate your sig line calling me a moron by PROXY just because my experiences have have taught me that a .223 under the correct circumstances is indeed a viable deer rifle.

Any civil discourse you attempt to have on this matter FAIL's once the reader gets to the bottom of your post and reads the sig. At the very least it tells anyone inclined to respond that you're mind is closed on the matter.

OK, I get it. My signature line is intended to express an opinion, and perhaps some ironic humor. I spent most of my time in writing it to be concise, play with words, yet have a message. It was not intended to be excessively offensive.

Anyone starting a poll on AR could be called a troll.

I've changed my signature line. What else can I do for you today?

BTW, my signature line is the issue for discussion and voting, which is the basis for this thread. All your name calling and diversion from the topic is just BS, which exists in every 223 deer rifle thread because you bring it to the table. That's part of the reason for this thread. The whole issue of using the 223 as a sporting deer rifle is loaded with BS, brought forth mostly by some of its advocates, as rationalizations.

Nowhere in my initial sig line, or the edited one, did I call those who use the 223, in general or for deer, morons. I could have finished the third line that way, but chose to not do that, because that isn't the message intended.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Rather more than any of your contributions methinks.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Kablowaewe--Yes indeed a reasonable post. Probably a great guy. He voted no--with no experience. He lists all the things that can go wrong and has the false sense of security that a bigger gun would compensate. Bad shot is a bad shot is a bad shot. If it is a shot that shouldn't be taken with .223 then it shouldn't be taken with bigger gun. You pass the shot and deer walks. How much weight would I give his no vote? Answer is obvious. He brings up a very good point that perhaps a person should have to demonstrate proficiency to get a hunting license. I heard of a guy that owned land and before he would let a person hunt they had to pass a shooting test. Great idea.

Man, I've never had anybody misread me, or try to at least, like this.

I admitted having little experience, that doesn't change two things 1. this is all opinions, 2. intelligence doesn't always require experience.

I voted for "not ethical in the big picture view" BIG PICTURE. Maybe you get countless opportunities on deer, and pass on all the ones that don't provide ideal shots for a cartridge never designed for hunting deer, or you are just fortunate to always get those great shots. I believe though, and I would bet that all those honest about the other hunters they know would say the same, that most hunters in the woods are not great shots, are not going to always wait for ideal shots. And therefore making it legal to use a 223, which is likely by most to be loaded with ammo not ideal for hunting, is going to only invite more wounded game that will suffer unnecessarily.

I haven't read all the posts, as I thought a reasonable post would just be read and those on each side see it for what it was, not an indictment of those using the 223 responsibly, just an observation of the pros/cons and what I see to be the larger problem. that is training versus cartridge selection.

However, since it didn't go that way let me add (in case it wasn't posted). The 223 was made for shooting men. And not shooting them for eating, the original design was for a bullet barely on the edge of control, tumbling when it hit the body and causing massive tissue damage. Later due to goodwill etc. they went to different bullets, less deaths, more wounds. If it wounds and doesn't kill a man size animal, or creates massive tissue damage, how would it be well suiting for hunting unless you planned to throw out a good portion of the meat?

Bullets have changed, custom rifles can accomplish more, but the point remains it is a small bullet with less energy than cartridges designed to kill much better. (yes, many of the most popular cartridges were designed to kill men, but in a different manner than the 223 and at longer ranges).

I NEVER SAID A LARGER WEAPON COMPENSATES FOR BAD SHOOTING. Maybe what I didn't say clearly enough is with a gun like the 223 even a well placed shot has the potential to fail, and by it's nature limits the shots that can be taken with a rifle appropriate to that size game. I have seen on tv where some guys get to hunt in blinds where the deer just walk up in the field around them and they pick the one they want, they can rangefind it, finish their snickers bar, rest their rifle and take the shot. That's not where I hunt (in fact the main reason I don't watch a lot of hunting shows is they never show hunting where I do it). If that's where you hunt, or anybody else, and for them a 223 is sufficient, well more power to them. Where I hunt it's thick, usually too dry, pushing the game or waiting for hours in an uncomfortable cramped position with a field of view smaller than a football field and that filled with bushes and rocks. I have had small opportunities that I did not feel offered a shot I was comfortable with, and I passed. I don't just shoot at brown hide. But when I make a responsible shot I want to also be responsible about what I am shooting.

My stepfather has hunted in 5 states and been at it for 50 years, he could shoot 5 shots into a dime at 100yds with his 788 in 222 (now a 223) and I guarantee that he takes something different when he goes hunting deer. So citing my inexperience as reason for my logical informed decisions about how I hunt doesn't hold water.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Krochus:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Everything when the Trolling in question precludes any discussion from taking place.:

quote:

Originally posted by Oddbod:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Can't give it up, can ya?

What does your post have to do with "meaningful discussion" or the 223 as a deer rifle?

KB

Rather more than any of your contributions methinks.

My contributions enable discussion to take place.

For folks like you, TC1, krochass, my intent is to provoke discussion, or whatever BS you care to contribute.

For others, like dago red, enliven discussion.

KB

quote:

My contributions enable discussion to take place.

your contributions add nothing but an overload of background white noise made up primarily of personal attacks, insults and name calling to sort through. As if in some belief that doing so will make anyone here REALLY care what some self appointed expert from AK thinks.

quote:

For folks like you, TC1, krochas, my intent is to provoke discussion, or whatever BS you care to contribute.

Well shit why don't you just come out and say "I'M a Troll"! Cut the innocent I'm doing it for the greater good bullshit. You just want to stir some shit and need to come up with some opponents to do so.



Here an Idea, click on your profile and then "see previous posts". Now scroll down and see how many PAGES you have to go back before you find a post contributing some form of technical information that relates to shooting or reloading.

Now does that look like the work of a troll to you?

We could go back to basics, as an example of a well said post, on topic:

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
In my experience with the .223 a 125lb deer is no match for a well placed .224 63gr TSX.
Terry

In case you have forgotten how, the above example is well said. It leaves little room for argument and name calling, eh? Perhaps it opens discussion.

KB