Ban the .223?

[FPH]

I spoke with a gentleman today who wanted to ban the .223 caliber(as a gesture of good faith).  His reasoning was that it was designed as a Military round,( I asked him about other Military rounds like the 30.06 and the .308). He thought the .223  was used for little else but killing, and the bullet was designed to tumble when it hit(first I have heard of that).  I asked about the .223 as a varmint round, and he dismissed that argument(he even said he owned a Sako bolt action in .223, which he uses for punching paper).  He also wants to ban the AR. I  asked him which was more deadly at close quarters,........the Glock ( which he likes), , or the sinister looking AR  when they both held a 20 rd. mag.( he wanted to see the AR disappear, as it looks Military). 

[DDZ]

Its not just the government or anti gun people that we have to battle on 2nd amendment issues. Its fellow gun owners also. We like to think people that own guns must be on our side, but that is not the case. There are many gun owners that are clueless about the 2nd Amendment and the reason our founders wrote it. Many think that all one needs is a 30-06 for deer hunting and a shotgun for small game hunting. They don't understand that after the semi-autos are made illegal, their shotgun and 06 are next.
I have personally had gun owners say things to me like "what does anyone need a AR style rifle for" Or "what does anyone need a semi-auto for" These are the people that we need to educated on what the right to own firearms is really about.
I was talking to my Nephew last night and he was telling me about one of his college professors talking to the class about semi-autos and how they need to be banned, because you don't need them for hunting. My nephew said no one else spoke up in the class except him. Not that it changed the professors mind, but maybe some of his fellow classmates listened.
Educating people is the key to keeping our rights. If we don't do it, someone else will indoctrinate them with lies, to help fulfill governments agenda.     

[SharonAnne]

the problem is too many "educators" are anti gun. No matter what a student says, the one at the front of the room has the power.

 My ex was an english teacher. The study book was "Alas Babylon". It may have been the first post apocalypse book written. In the scene where some bad guys get shot with a Thompson .45 submachine gun the kids reacted badly when the bad guys got shot more than once. They all thought it was like TV where one shot finishes them off. They were amazed to be told that people can and have survived being shot multiple times and that in a real gun fight you had to shoot until the bad guy stopped moving.

At least that time the teacher set the kids straight.

Funny how the idea is to BAN  a rifle based on what it looks like. Rifles are used in 3.5% of all murders. AR15s are a subset of rifles. At Sandy Hook the nasty AR15 remained in the truck but hey ban them anyway, they look nasty.

[tom548]

Are you sure on the AR  in the trunk, I have looked and only find the one article around the time of the shooting. I was hoping to find proof of non use of the AR. Some one said they saw a photo of it being removed from the trunk but I could not find that.
I have been doing a lot of letter writing and only want to use facts, as one untrue item discounts all the true points I have tried to show people.

[FPH]

Are you sure on the AR  in the trunk, I have looked and only find the one article around the time of the shooting. I was hoping to find proof of non use of the AR. Some one said they saw a photo of it being removed from the trunk but I could not find that.
I have been doing a lot of letter writing and only want to use facts, as one untrue item discounts all the true points I have tried to show people.

I have no info on the AR's use in this particular incident.  This gentleman's contention was they are just made to kill people.

[twoshooter]

I have never liked the 223, I remember when it came out-crappy round . The 222 Mag was much better - slightly more case capacity, long neck to seat bullets in and out as needed. The 223 would never have survived if not for all the cheap brass from mi-surp. Just use a 742 Remington, with an enhanced cartridge carrier. It would be SOOOOO much different. Get rid of the nasty "black rifle/military" look, perhaps a beige or desert camo look--- something light, less sinister. Perhaps we could have the bolts and others rechambered

[Dee]

Gosh! I thought the military used the 5.56? The 223 will work in the 5.56, but not vise versa unless so marked.
 
Actually the 223 is inherently accurate, and out performs the 222 magnum in velocity.

[FPH]

No argument here.  I was not going to debate him on the .223 vs the 5.56 issue. I'll' take the .222mag for accuracy though.

[Ranger99]

we shouldn't ban any cartridge at all.
no type of firearm action or configuration at all.
no type of magazine at all.


we shouldn't give not one teeny bit of
an inch on this.


when i see these goober-headed "gun experts"
on television saying that "nobody needs so-and-so,
all anyone needs is - - - " , i want to double
over and puke.

[Redtail1949]

it has been a long time ago, however, i do recall the many any articles and news stories of the horrific wounds caused by the military rounds. it was not by design it was just a simple truth of a somewhat underpowered light weight round tumbling along limb bones or spinning after contact with a bone. it did happen but most at the time believed it was because the round did not possess the energy to punch thru like the trusted and tested 30.06 and the .308. that is why they went to heavier bullets trying to stop that and it did somewhat. however many manyu photos and stories of the tumbling rounds were put out over the first years of VN War.
as far as a hunting round there was great debate about having something the compete with the .222 magnum and the .220 swift for varmit hunting. the swift of course was super fast but had a bad reputation of throat erosion. the same i believe was the complaint on the .222 magnum. the 5.56 nato was brought on by the military for many many different reasons. mainly to make standerd samong allied forces. the other was to enable the GI to carry more ammo. as a result out comes the .223 and with its interchange between nato chambers and the assurance of plentiful brass that the average reloader could take advantage of became a hit.
what is amazing and now history has shown the .223 was always shown to be a pretty good compromise calibert for varmits, however, as a military rifle capable of taking out the bad guys it simply does not possess the energy to kill or reliably take out the bad guys at the longer ranges. of course a head shot would kill at almost any distance. but a torso shot would not and does not do it at the longer ranges. that is whay many of todays service men are taking back up the M-14 of old.  it was not ever touted as a big game caliber in any way. a few articles appeared touting the proverbial head shots to deer made it a fine rifle for those animals even some sung songs of praise as a elk rifle. almost immeadiately most serious hunters and sportman shut down that speculation.
i have two grandsons (brothers) in the military one is US Army Special Forces with two tours in Afganistan. The other a U.S. Marine with one tour Afganistan and had served 4 months in Irag. Both have told me they love the M4 for its weight and its accuracy but after using the weapon that both said they learned it was not a reliable killer nor would it reliably take down to the ground any enemy shot in the torso with up to two rounds. both used the M14 or any .308 caliber they could get their hands on when they could and both stated that most 1 shot hits dropped the bad guys in their tracks.
after their use and some news stories reporting the complaints of service members of the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 they recieved orders not to use any weapons not assigned them unless in the heat of battle that needed to pick up a weapon and ammo from the bad guys. seems the brass did not what anyone to disparage the AMERICAN WEAPON SYSTEMS.
no matter what  a full auto or select fire 5.56 is formidible  however it will never compete for combat effectivenes with the .3098 or 30.06. it and the .223 or just pretty good varmit rounds in the hunting catagory.
 

[Dee]

No argument here.  I was not going to debate him on the .223 vs the 5.56 issue. I'll' take the .222mag for accuracy though.

I really don't have "any" experience with the 222 mag. but data says that the 223 is faster, and I have a ton of experience with the 223, both professionally, and on the bench. I won't say it's more accurate than the 222 mag. because I don't know, but I will say the 222 mag. will have to be darn accurate to beat the 223. Given velocity differences and what I personally know about the 223, I would choose it. I have always stayed away for anything magnum in the rifle category.

[FPH]

No argument here.  I was not going to debate him on the .223 vs the 5.56 issue. I'll' take the .222mag for accuracy though.

I really don't have "any" experience with the 222 mag. but data says that the 223 is faster, and I have a ton of experience with the 223, both professionally, and on the bench. I won't say it's more accurate than the 222 mag. because I don't know, but I will say the 222 mag. will have to be darn accurate to beat the 223. Given velocity differences and what I personally know about the 223, I would choose it. I have always stayed away for anything magnum in the rifle category.

I'm just the opposite.  I have more experience with the .222 rem mag. and not enough to be fair to the .223.  I have a buddy whose Uncle  owned a Sako in.222 rem. mag.  We liberated it a lot and could hit golf balls a 300 meters all day long........nice rifle.

[Mike in Virginia]

The .223 is a useless cartridge, at least it is for me.  I don't have a need or desire to kill varmits.  As for a human killing round, it will work, but only as a minimal method.  When hit by a .223, the victim will crawl away and die.  When hit by a .308, the victim will die immediately.  It's been argued that the average soldier can carry more rounds as oppossed to the .308, and there is merit there.  But it is the round needed by today's girly riflemen. 

[Dee]

I have shot the .222. It was a little weak for my taste in a center fire, but it was accurate. A guy I once knew had a custom built bolt gun in .222. Double set triggers, beautiful swirled barrel the whole shot. Purtiest rifle I have ever seen. Don't remember him much, but I remember that rifle. He couldn't hit a barn with it, from the inside. But I could. Man that rifle was nice, but I always wondered. Why .222? .222 mag would have made more sense, but I had never even heard of a 222 mag back in 1971.
There was a lot I had never heard of in 1971.

[FPH]

The .223 is a useless cartridge, at least it is for me.  I don't have a need or desire to kill varmits.  As for a human killing round, it will work, but only as a minimal method.  When hit by a .223, the victim will crawl away and die.  When hit by a .308, the victim will die immediately.  It's been argued that the average soldier can carry more rounds as oppossed to the .308, and there is merit there.  But it is the round needed by today's girly riflemen. 

Mike, while I too prefer the .308 as a battle round, there is nothing "girly" about entering the field of battle.....no matter what you carry.

[Dee]

The .223 is a useless cartridge, at least it is for me.  I don't have a need or desire to kill varmits.  As for a human killing round, it will work, but only as a minimal method.  When hit by a .223, the victim will crawl away and die.  When hit by a .308, the victim will die immediately.  It's been argued that the average soldier can carry more rounds as oppossed to the .308, and there is merit there.  But it is the round needed by today's girly riflemen.

I have a "girly rifleman" for my youngest son. He was a "girly SSgt. for the 82nd Air Borne 12 months Afganistan, and 24 months Iraq. Him and his "9 girly rifleman squad" all carried M4s, except the two that carried SAWS, but they were 223 caliber also.
Anyone one of those 82nd Air Born "girly riflemen" would "beat your ass" if you said that to their face.
My other "girly rifleman" son carried an M4 also. He and his 3rd Bat Ranger "girly riflemen" brothers would also "beat your ass" if you said that to their face. If their opponents could talk, they would tell you that your full of BS. They can't though cause their dead. They were shot with "girly rifles".
You sound like a real "combat queen".

[Doublebass73]

Who knew that after 50 years in military service and serving with distinction in the Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq wars the .223/5.56 was useless and only for girly riflemen?

[FPH]

Who knew that after 50 years in military service and serving with distinction in the Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq wars the .223/5.56 was useless and only for girly riflemen?

MIV of course.

[tom548]

I think a lot of the .223  dislike started when it was used in the spray and pray full auto in VN. I am a huge fan of the .308 but have had just as good results and just as fast kills with well placed shots. Makes a big difference weather you aim at a full body or a spot on that body that contains vitals. And that is also true with .308, a poor shot is just a poor shot.

[FPH]

Never hunted with the .223........the .308 has never let me down though.  My buddy uses the .223 on everything up to Mulies.  He loves it. 

[Dee]

Not to argue tom, but the United States Military caused the distrust of the M16 themselves. In an effort to save money, they used the same ball powder to load the 5.56 round as they had been using to load the 7.62 (308), and the two rounds NEEDED DIFFERENT BURN RATE POWDERS. The error in being CHEAP WITH SOLDIERS LIVES, caused the M16 with it's tighter tolerances to FOUL QUICKLEY, and thereby FAIL TO FEED. As soon as this powder error was corrected, the M16 became reliable. Was it perfect? Of course not, but neither was the M14 with it's open and exposed Garand action.
I have been fortunate in my past career to have been able to fire thousands of 223 in the AR15 platform, and can honestly say, I have never had a failure with a properly maintained AR. My youngest son has more actually combat experience with the M4 than anyone I "PERSONALLY" know, and because he was a Patrol Leader Sgt. his was a select fire. The 82nd Air Born was in the thick of it, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and he stated that none of his squad experience weapon failures in the countless firefights they were in in that 3 years.
In reality, the human being is one of the most THIN SKINNED animals on planet earth, and a large caliber is not really needed to get to the boiler room. Your remark of a "good shot", verses a "bad shot", is DEAD ON.

[Bugflipper]

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for our military to ban it (5.56). Our boys would probably be grateful if they did away with the varmint cartridge.    A lot of complaints coming back from the sand box with the shorter 14.5" barrel reducing the effective range a bit to just over 200 yards. They have no complaints when the bullet is able to fragment. After it looses a little steam there are a lot of complaints.

[FPH]

I know guys coming back who love the 5.56.  I know guys who swear by the .308.  Would be nice to be able to choose.

[buffermop]

Banning any caliber makes no sense, its keeping the idiots away from owning or gaining access to high volume weapons. Controlling the firepower to a 5 shot max clip could have saved a lot of lives in the Connecticut shooting. It could have given the first responders extra time to put a bullet in the assaients head.

[FPH]

Banning any caliber makes no sense, its keeping the idiots away from owning or gaining access to high volume weapons. Controlling the firepower to a 5 shot max clip could have saved a lot of lives in the Connecticut shooting. It could have given the first responders extra time to put a bullet in the assaients head.

 I can change a 5 round mag before you can blink.......it makes no difference to me.  Same with a speed loader for a revolver if you ban  pistols.....or I could just use a 12 ga.

[Ranger99]

the volume of a magazine makes no
difference and should not be an issue.
i should be able to have and own whatever
i want. the moron that killed the children
should not have been running loose.
it's already against the law for folks with
mental problems to possess firearms.
felons cannot legally have firearms.
addicts cannot legally have firearms.
the laws are already there. time for
some enforcement and to keep the
problem folks where they can't do harm.

[Mike in Virginia]

No, Dee.  You missed my point.  The .223 was adopted by the military because it is indeed a girly round.  The military personnel are not the same as in World War II.  Today's military people are, in part, girls and other sissies that could not possibly fight with a weapon that had recoil.  The fact your relatives had .223's, means only that is the round they were given.  The round itself doesn't make them sissies.  I have no idea if they are sissies or not.  I'm saying the U.S. must issue a girly weapon in modern times. 
That's why they couldn't keep the .45 sidearm.  They had to go to the girly 9mm so the girls and sissies could use them. 
And you ought not say someone will "beat my ass," for stating the facts.  Firstly, that's ugly talk, and secondly, I don't think so. 

[FPH]

No, Dee.  You missed my point.  The .223 was adopted by the military because it is indeed a girly round.  The military personnel are not the same as in World War II.  Today's military people are, in part, girls and other sissies that could not possibly fight with a weapon that had recoil.  The fact your relatives had .223's, means only that is the round they were given.  The round itself doesn't make them sissies.  I have no idea if they are sissies or not.  I'm saying the U.S. must issue a girly weapon in modern times. 
That's why they couldn't keep the .45 sidearm.  They had to go to the girly 9mm so the girls and sissies could use them. 
And you ought not say someone will "beat my ass," for stating the facts.  Firstly, that's ugly talk, and secondly, I don't think so. 
[/q

No, Dee.  You missed my point.  The .223 was adopted by the military because it is indeed a girly round.  The military personnel are not the same as in World War II.  Today's military people are, in part, girls and other sissies that could not possibly fight with a weapon that had recoil.  The fact your relatives had .223's, means only that is the round they were given.  The round itself doesn't make them sissies.  I have no idea if they are sissies or not.  I'm saying the U.S. must issue a girly weapon in modern times. 
That's why they couldn't keep the .45 sidearm.  They had to go to the girly 9mm so the girls and sissies could use them. 
And you ought not say someone will "beat my ass," for stating the facts.  Firstly, that's ugly talk, and secondly, I don't think so. 

You seem to use the word "girly" as a pejorative. 

[Dee]

No, Dee.  You missed my point.  The .223 was adopted by the military because it is indeed a girly round.  The military personnel are not the same as in World War II.  Today's military people are, in part, girls and other sissies that could not possibly fight with a weapon that had recoil.  The fact your relatives had .223's, means only that is the round they were given.  The round itself doesn't make them sissies.  I have no idea if they are sissies or not.  I'm saying the U.S. must issue a girly weapon in modern times. 
That's why they couldn't keep the .45 sidearm.  They had to go to the girly 9mm so the girls and sissies could use them. 
And you ought not say someone will "beat my ass," for stating the facts.  Firstly, that's ugly talk, and secondly, I don't think so.

TECHNOLOGY brought us from the musket, to the 03 bolt action, to the  M1, to the M14, to the M16, to the M4. Lighter, larger ammo capacity, better portability. The 1911 pistol was and is, a great pistol. I have built dozens for myself and other people. TECHNOLOGY however, has produced pistols that are lighter, just as accurate, larger magazine capacity, easier to shoot, and more reliable, being less finicky. The 9mm round was a bad choice, but it had nothing to do with anything more than NATO.
You are talking about what you THINK, not what you know. I've noticed that about you.
Like I said. You TALK like a "combat queen". I'm not sayin you are one, just that you talk like one.

[FPH]

My understanding was the 5.56 was chosen for ammo carrying capacity.  I never heard recoil as an issue.  As for to days fighting men, heck most my friends would carry a 20mm cannon if it put the enemy in the ground more quickly and they were allowed to carry it..  Recoil is a no issue.