Author Topic: Ban the .223? (Read 3282 times)

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2013, 10:31:10 AM »

Yes sir, I do know. You might want to adjust yourself a tad. You can't seem to handle differences of opinion. You need for everything you boast about to be correct and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I can help you with that, or you can just stop having that attitude. Just be pleasant. Say nice things. I'm telling you straight up that the .223 and 9mm was introduced because they can be handled and carried by humans who can't deal with a heavier gun/cartridge. It's a fact. You, at your age, ought to know that. I don't give a rat's patoot how many 1911's you've built or what sissyfied gun you relatives like.

Dee · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2013, 11:39:08 AM »

You insulted our military vets sir. There is nothing you can say from this day forward that will interest me.

twoshooter · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2013, 12:46:15 PM »

Holy crap Batman!! This bunch does not deserve to have a flyswatter , let alone a gun. You get insulted over such trivial crap, how do you survive a trip to the grocery store without having a duel? Or a bar- "less filling- TASTES GREAT" ? I guess the sarca____ section is out of your dictionary? The 223 post was because the 223 and 222 mag are virtually identical, they shortened the 223 to make it feed easier, and made some minor case spec changes due to full auto fire requirements. It was SARCASM. Girly round ?? Who give a sh#@! If you want to see testicles, lets go back to sword fighting without armor and before there was antibiotics or field hospitals. The record for an amputation of a leg is I believe- 15 seconds -something pretty close- by a Civil War surgeon with no anesthetic. The ONLY thing this group needs to know is that there is a room full of liberals somewhere with this site up on the big screen , with chips and dip, cheering as the pro-gunners eat their own young. You are making Conservative and Cannibal into synonyms ( that means things that are alike)

reliquary · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2013, 02:57:09 PM »

MIV: your remarks are not well grounded in historical facts. They are also disrespectful to those of us who have "been there".

I was around and in uniform when the AR was tested and issued as the M16; up to that point we were issued M14s which were in 7.62x51 (.308). The first units in RVN were equipped with the M14s and the need became immediately evident for a lighter weapon, using lighter rounds, because of the environment we found ourselves in.

It seems there were some of us "girlies" who found it difficult to carry a 10-pound rifle, 60-pound ruck, and a gallon or so of water for extended periods in 100% humidity and 100-degree temperatures, while wandering around in the woods and in rice paddies. Perhaps you should try that for a while and come back with some experience rather than uncalled-for and inappropriate sarcasm.

The M16 was not well received at first, because the specs were changed after the weapon was field-tested and a different powder was used to load in the round. The different burn characteristics and the environment caused the weapon to jam. It also did not have the forward-assist for the bolt; those caused many dead GIs before they got the problems solved. And then, there were a couple of million or more of the things in the inventory and it has been our primary battle rifle ever since.

I personally do not like the M16 or the M4 series or the .223 round itself. But I carried it for 18 of my 20 years and got good with it because I was required to carry it. It does not perform well at longer ranges because it was never designed to be a longer-range weapon...it was designed for close-in combat. To have kept it for all these years, after we left RVN, is a mistake on the part of the military leadership and their procurement priorities, but that's another story.

It is a tribute to our troops that they have done as well with it as they have...in spite of their "girliness".

mechanic · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2013, 03:01:35 PM »

Quote from: buffermop on January 12, 2013, 06:40:47 AM

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.

The shooter in Connecticut used (4) pistols. The Bushmaster was still in his vehicle. Using even standard mags, he still had a lot of firepower, and just drop one handgun and grab another. The James gang perfected this type of "shock and awe" 150 yrs. ago, by carrying 6 - 8 revolvers on their person.

Mag capacity, nor size of the projectile has anything to do with evil. We let video games and violent TV show raise our children, and we live in a country that has slaughtered over 53,000,000 unborn babies and we expect different?

I have owned hundreds of guns over the years, many with multi shot capability, and not one has ever killed anyone. If we allow the argument to be about guns, we won't have 5 round mags, nor will we have guns at all.

Ben

twoshooter · « **Reply #35 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:47:19 PM »

I had heard that also. The medical examiner however pronounced that all of the victims were shot with the 223. It would take a conspiracy theorist to pronounce that the medical autopsy reports were doctored, and trying to prove otherwise would be a nightmare and counter productive even if true. I suspect that the police or press just got it wrong, like the identity of the shooter at first. In fact, there are many more semi-auto handguns than AR's, that would have been even more of a fecal hurricane than it already is. There is no good ending or outcome here regardless.

Bugflipper · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2013, 07:23:50 PM »

FPH, not trying to gang up on ya' but the AR is exponentially more effective and deadly than a glock at close quarters. That's why the 5.56 is the go to caliber for entry teams these days. Not to long ago a swat team would consist of mainly shotguns and handguns. Every team is different but generally these days if they do not have short barreled rifle caliber autos or semi autos it's usually that they just aren't in the budget. A lot more energy is transfered to a person from the AR because of the high velocity up close. Also fragmentation is usually a given up close. There is also the greater hydraulic effect with the temporary and permanent wound channels that are larger with the varmint round over a semi auto pistol round. The main aspect though is the potential of lights out is much greater with the rifle compared to pistol rounds.

Fellows no need for the personal attacks and insults. You could have all handled it the same from the high road.

For my take on the 5.56:
An Air Force General wanted the M16 because it looked futuristic. The only reason it was desired was for its looks initially. It was forced upon the other branches who where kicking and screaming the whole time. It either failed miserably in trials or was sabotaged by the orders of the brass conducting the trials, to make it fail. McNamra and the other wiz kids decided what was best for our armed forces and Kennedy declared it just. The wiz kids were the ones who came up with the increased capacity to weight and lighter recoil for smaller stature soldiers. It was not a military decision. It was an order by the commander in chief that they all standardize with the same round. The M16 ended up being forced on all branches.

The 45 was much later but that truly was an excuse used by the military. A larger influx of women and small statured guys in the military. In truth they were ordered by Regan to standardize with the NATO so they would quit pissing and moaning. We made them take the 7.62 and 5.56. The Brits had a good round that is ballistically about the same as the 6.8 but we insisted the 7.62. The Brits found their FAL pretty well uncontrollable in full auto with the round and just made semi autos. Don't know if any of you fellows have tried to shoot an M14 or not in full auto but it's pretty hard to hit anything as well. The varmint round can be controlled in full auto by about anyone. The wiz kids thought x amount of bullets equalled x amount of casualties. None of them knew a thing about a gun. It held more rounds and was able to be controlled more efficiently in full auto. Their math was more bullets sprayed equals more enemies dead. When reports came back that it wasn't as effective as a full sized rifle round they came back with the BS that if you wound 1, 2 more have to carry him so it's better to have a caliber that wounds, it takes 3 enemies out of action. The wiz kids did dozens of idiotic thing but I'm tired of typing. I think their math computed casualties of the entire Vietnamese population being wiped out several times over. I do have a great respect for our past present and future military personnel. I do not see any use for a varmint round to keep them from harms way when there are better options that could fit the light load out high capacity scenario and give them a little more range and knock down power. I don't hunt deer with a 223, not knocking folks who do, but deer don't shoot back. The 223 is being a little bit more widely accepted by deer hunters in the last few years with specialty bullets. The problem is our guys and gals don't get to ask questions on a forum and pick the best bullet for the job at hand. They make the best of what they are dealt and prosper. I would like to see them issued a more potent cartridge than a 5.56 though.

FPH · « **Reply #37 on:** January 12, 2013, 07:27:11 PM »

FPH, not trying to gang up on ya' but the AR is exponentially more effective and deadly than a glock at close quarters. That's why the 5.56 is the go to caliber for entry teams these days. Not to long ago a swat team would consist of mainly shotguns and handguns. Every team is different but generally these days if they do not have short barreled rifle caliber autos or semi autos it's usually that they just aren't in the budget. A lot more energy is transfered to a person from the AR because of the high velocity up close. Also fragmentation is usually a given up close. There is also the greater hydraulic effect with the temporary and permanent wound channels that are larger with the varmint round over a semi auto pistol round. The main aspect though is the potential of lights out is much greater with the rifle compared to pistol rounds.

Good to know. Also interesting info on the sniper shot and taking men out of the field of battle. However, I was just imparting that in the CT. case, a 10mm Glock round would have probably been just lethal in outcome as the AR round. But thanks for your explanation. I don't want to get caught with my pants down.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #38 on:** January 12, 2013, 11:12:31 PM »

Quote from: mechanic on January 12, 2013, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: buffermop on January 12, 2013, 06:40:47 AM
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.

The shooter in Connecticut used (4) pistols. The Bushmaster was still in his vehicle. Using even standard mags, he still had a lot of firepower, and just drop one handgun and grab another. The James gang perfected this type of "shock and awe" 150 yrs. ago, by carrying 6 - 8 revolvers on their person.

Mag capacity, nor size of the projectile has anything to do with evil. We let video games and violent TV show raise our children, and we live in a country that has slaughtered over 53,000,000 unborn babies and we expect different?

I have owned hundreds of guns over the years, many with multi shot capability, and not one has ever killed anyone. If we allow the argument to be about guns, we won't have 5 round mags, nor will we have guns at all.

Ben

Well said Ben.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #39 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:17:03 AM »

A lot of revisionist history going on. The AR15 as it was known then (Armalite Rifle 15) was type accepted with ammunition loaded by Remington. They used a stick powder. The rifle was noted for its extreme reliability. When it was accepted by the military the bean counters awarded the ammunition contract to Winchester who used a ball powder with a faster burn rate. This increased the full auto rate from around 700 rpm to 850-900 rpm. This degraded reliability. The powder had a coating to effect burn rate. This coating left a hard residue in the gas system causing jams.

The military wanted to chrome the chamber and barrel of the rifle as they had done for decades to prevent rust. The McNamara wiz kids said if it was needed the inventor would have done it so no deal. As we have seen chroming the chamber/barrel has had very positive results on reliability.

When first used in RVN the rifle was known for inflicting horrendous wounds because the bullet would tip and fragment when impacting bone or when entering the abdomen or chest. A bone hit on an arm usually meant field amputation or death.

Then some numbs nuts decided that since the 1/14 twist did not do well in Arctic conditions the twist rate for ALL M16s was changed to 1/12. Arctic command could have had their own rifles but no, all M16s were changed. Suddenly the M16 was not the death ray it had been. Then we got on the Merry Go Round of heavier bullets and tighter twists.

Any cartridge will reach the point of loss of effectiveness when you keep shortening the barrel. For the M16 20"s is great. Sixteen inches is sorta ok. The M4 with a 14.5" barrel has reached the point where it just is not totally up to snuff. I really doubt that going back to a 16" barrel would so greatly reduce CQB effectiveness.

I have owned an L1A1 which I used in the Soldier of Fortune 3 gun match way back in the early 80s. I have also owned and cherished the M1 Garand and the M14. Sadly I had to sell each of them at some point when I was bucks down. I would own each of them today if I could. However, I kept my AR15s. Not because of recoil. Heck I could double tap the M1 on an IPSC target for the entire clip at 100 yards. I would have two 4 round groups about 6 inches apart. After others watched me we had several doing the same thing. It is not a super thing on my part. I kept the AR15 because of accuracy and handling. The ammo capacity and speed of reloading were just benefits.

At 5'6" and of the "girly" persuasion I am no Hulk. I could handle 3 of the best Major Battle Rifles ever made with any man I met. After shooting over 150,000 rds of Major power .45ACP in USPSA/IPSC I can handle the 1911 pretty well.

The changes from the M14/7.62NATO to the M16/5.56NATO and from the 1911/.45ACP to the M9/9mmP/NATO were POLITICAL REASONS
having nothing to do with "girly men". The men who first used the M16 were trained and entered combat with the M14. Those who first used the M9/9mmP were trained and used the 1911/.45ACP.

To suggest the reason for changing to the lighter calibers was to accommodate women and "girly men" flies in the face of reality.

Bugflipper · « **Reply #40 on:** January 13, 2013, 07:44:30 AM »

You make some good points SharonAnne. I do a couple of precision rifle courses a year. If there is a girl in one of them they generally are at or near the top of the bunch. I think a little bit is a fellows ego that makes him think he already knows how to do it and it's just a formality to get the certification. A lot of the big strong guys fail because they can't overcome the flinch. Been doing it 5 years now and a girl hasn't failed yet. An adult being to small framed to handle recoil is a load of crap. Sportsmen today often shoot off a lead sled when on the bench to tame their recoil padded big game rifles. The soviet ladies did just fine with an iron butted 7.62x54 that kicked similarly to a common magnum deer rifle with a good recoil pad on it.

reliquary · « **Reply #41 on:** January 13, 2013, 11:51:10 AM »

SharonAnne: you're correct in your details about the weapon and its acquisition.

One of the main points I was trying to make was that, in the environment in which it was to be used, the weight of the weapon and its ammo were important factors to the troops, as compared to the weight of the M14 and its ammo.

Marksmanship ability is important in a match, but try hauling your M1, plus 50-60 pounds in a pack, for a few miles through a swamp...and then competing in a shooting match...and doing it again the next day, etc. For someone like MIV to refer to anyone who can do that as "girly" is very repugnant...I intended no slam against you or any match shooter (which I have been).

buffermop · « **Reply #42 on:** January 13, 2013, 11:55:19 AM »

Girly gun my foot. It still is as lethal as any caliber out there with a well placed shot.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #43 on:** January 13, 2013, 02:49:01 PM »

reliQ, I was not disputing any of your points. I totally agree. I made the same points in another thread after talking to a grunt who was returning to Iraq for his 3rd tour (volunteered). Now that is a Patriot. He was always the SAW gunner. I asked his opinion on the IAR. He was all for it. It would lighten the load by 9 lbs. I then compared the Surefire 100rd mag with the BetaMag 100. With the normal load of 800 rds the Surefire mags would lighten the load by over 1 lb. per mag over the BetaMag. It came to about 17# lighter. I guessed that the total load out would be no lighter, he would just carry more ammo.

I know intellectually how much our grunts carry. Back in my youth I was able to hump a 60# pack. On a portage I carried the pack and 50# canoe, sometimes for 1.5 miles. Definately not all day as our soldiers do. I was spent from one portage. That our soldiers do this day in day out is totally out of my ken. I am amazed and completely proud of all of them and you who have served. You have my gratitude. When I was still Nursing I thanked and shook the hand of every Vet patient I had. One cried, he said no one had ever thanked him. Look down on my posts. I think that says it all.

Oops, I too am guilty of revisionist history or, the older I get the better I was. On reflection I realized that I only double carried on the short portages, 0.5 miles OR LESS. Even then I was spent. The loads our soldiers carry is AMAZING! They are awesome in the truest sense of the word.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #44 on:** January 13, 2013, 03:10:55 PM »

Quote from: mechanic on January 12, 2013, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: buffermop on January 12, 2013, 06:40:47 AM
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.

The shooter in Connecticut used (4) pistols. The Bushmaster was still in his vehicle. Using even standard mags, he still had a lot of firepower, and just drop one handgun and grab another. The James gang perfected this type of "shock and awe" 150 yrs. ago, by carrying 6 - 8 revolvers on their person.

Mag capacity, nor size of the projectile has anything to do with evil. We let video games and violent TV show raise our children, and we live in a country that has slaughtered over 53,000,000 unborn babies and we expect different?

I have owned hundreds of guns over the years, many with multi shot capability, and not one has ever killed anyone. If we allow the argument to be about guns, we won't have 5 round mags, nor will we have guns at all.

Ben

Well said Ben!

My attitude toward compromising with gun control idiots is never. If you "Give them an inch, and they'll want a yard", and then eventually you won't have anything.

BTW quite a few South American (example Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) countries have that rule about banning calibers. Any caliber used by the military is forbidden to citizens. Ask yourself, have we been reduced to following the lead of corrupt, bankrupt countries? I hope not.

I used both the 14 and the 16 when I was in VN, and both were effective, when you hit your target properly, and when you took care of your rifle. Unfortunately some of our troops used the spray and pray method of aiming, and some guys just didn't take care of their rifles.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #45 on:** January 13, 2013, 03:17:37 PM »

BTW, a club member back in Michigan called my AR15 a "mouse gun". He had a chunk of I-beam hanging at 100yds. It was about 12" on the web. I have no idea what the metal was other than steel. He was shooting it with his 30-40 Krag and getting a nice ringing sound. I stood with my AR15 and snapped off a quick 10 rounds. It did not get much of a sound. We walked down range and found 10 holes that you could stick a 5.56 case through. He looked dumbfounded. I than asked, "which of us has the mouse gun?".

uh, Ranger, Mexico is in North America. (ducking) Your point about calibers and corrupt bankrupt countries is well taken. Although we ARE a bankrupt country. Look at our deficit. Also, with what the Criminal in Chief is doing I think the USA falls in the corrupt category too.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #46 on:** January 13, 2013, 04:12:30 PM »

MIV, as you know I want to know what opinions are based on. Where does your demeaning opinion of the .223R/5.56N come from? Have you shot men in combat with a 7.62N and then were able to compare it to the men you shot with the 5.56N? If you have not done so have you seen men shot with each and thus can compare and contrast?

I base my opinion from the Vets I have talked to who were there when they were using the M14 and lived through the McNamara debacle. Once the M16 was squared away they praised the M16 for its combat effectiveness. Yes, for how it stopped and killed men. I have yet to speak to a Vet who actually used the M16 in combat who did not like it for how well it worked. Not how it looked, or how tiny the cartridge was but how it defeated the enemy.

Now I am going to be quite apparent, no sarcasm, MIV where the hell does your opinion come from?

Ranger99 · « **Reply #47 on:** January 13, 2013, 05:46:30 PM »

excuse an interruption from a non-vet:
aren't u.s. military small arms rounds
supposed to be used to disable the
enemy as opposed to kill outright?
i was under the assumption that we
were part of a treaty to use ammo that
was not to cause undue suffering, maiming,etc.
isn't that why we don't use hollow point
or soft point ammo in combat?

not a judgement or critique here, just curious

Bugflipper · « **Reply #48 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:21:28 PM »

Ranger the truth of the matter is both the last 55 gr and the current 62 gr rounds do in fact fragment under a certain range in a person. With the M4 it's around 220 yards and under with the green tipped penetrator current issue ammo. The fragments do a nasty number. So it's not just a straight punch through as one would assume that a fmj would do. They were specifically designed to fail to create maximum damage since they are a small diameter. In the Vietnam era they had thicker jackets and would yaw or tumble in a fellow to maximize effect. Fragmentation creates more damage since minnie offshoots turn into tiny projectiles tearing separate paths. This creates a greater chance of maiming or killing than a thick skinned fmj projectile. They also do more damage than a hp or sp mushrooming projectile that retains it's weight and drives through creating a single hole.

Some of our troops also have available 69 gr sierra match kings, a hp round. I think those are able to be used because the treaty doesn't apply when you are at war with a country that didn't sign it. They are said to be more effective than the green tip ammo. A thin jacket and soft lead helps them fragment at longer ranges than the standard issue.

Ranger99 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:30:01 PM »

ok. thanks, i wasn't aware of that.
i've been lucky enough (knocking on wood
right now) that i haven't had to pop anyone
with a .223 of any grain weight or configuration.
now varmints with a v-max, i can say for sure
they quickly become an ex-varmint.
i've always thought it was a shame to
hamstring our troops with such rules that
they get wounded and killed so regularly
when our enemy doesn't play by any rules.

reliquary · « **Reply #50 on:** January 14, 2013, 03:48:50 AM »

In WWII, the basic load for a rifleman was 80 rounds for the Garand. In most cases, the supply train was just behind him, and he didn't have to carry 50-60 pounds on his back...beans, bullets, and gear were brought up to him as-needed, from a convenient dump in the rear.

In RVN, the basic load for the M16 was 300 rounds because of the rate of fire. In addition, we carried 50-60 pounds of supplies and gear, through the woods and the swamps, in 100% humidity and 100-degree temps. Many of us carried much more than the basic load of ammo, and skimped on the other weight. There weren't any "girls" doing it, back then.

My point to MIV remains this: you go try to accomplish something like what we did, and what the troops are doing now...including female troops (you'd be better off not to call them "girlies", either)...and, if you can do it better, then you have earned the right to criticize. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #51 on:** January 14, 2013, 04:16:27 AM »

Well this has gotten into a 223 vs what ever round . One point not getting attention was the ban on 223 ammo. There are several countries to the South that ban all military cal. weapons . Is this something that could be done by exc. order ? If so it would seem better to look into this instead of debate over the reason for the 223 .
This is how the left works get us fighting over one thing then swoop in and ban something else. What defense can the right come up with to stop such an order to ban all military cal. weapons and ammo ?
You may like or dislike the 223 or AR style rifles or even all military cal. ammo and rifles but if we keep fighting about stuff that has little meaning we won't have a chance to keep any of them.

buffermop · « **Reply #52 on:** January 14, 2013, 06:03:22 AM »

I still say ban the assault weapons. I think they are ugly looking. They don't show the fine wood grain that a true sporting weapon would have. It is only stamped ugly metal that is designed for mass production.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #53 on:** January 14, 2013, 07:01:49 AM »

So the Rem. 700 is better ? I mean it's made out of 3 pcs of pipe and some fiberglass in some models. BTW what parts on a AR are stamped ? Most are more highly machined than most bolt guns . BTW check out the wood stock , pistol grip and forearms aval. for AR's is is some beautiful wood.
Your discription of stamped ugly metal , well that dog don't hunt .

reliquary · « **Reply #54 on:** January 14, 2013, 07:24:14 AM »

I don't own an AR, but have owned mini-14s in .223 and have no problem with legal ownership of any weapon in any caliber or style that one desires.

Look at California's treatment of the SKS. Look at NYC's gun bans...and how ineffective it has been in preventing gun ownership by criminals; FBI stats estimate 2,000,000 illegal weapons in NYC. Look at Chicago's gun bans; same illegal market, same gun violence. The only ones who have trouble getting them are honest, law-abiding citizens. We as legal gun owners should voice our concerns in every way, to all who will listen.

My neighbor was visiting a few days ago and kept harping about how he would support a ban on AR-style weapons because "No one should own any of them, anyway". I countered by saying that I would support a ban on ownership of multiple S&W revolvers, because "No one should own more than two of anything". Since he collects S&W revolvers, he didn't see the humor in that one. Folks, we have to stand together.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #55 on:** January 14, 2013, 08:11:32 AM »

buttermop, so you want to ban the AR15 since it is ugly. That makes as much sense as the anti gunners wanting to ban them because they LOOK like M16s.

regarding stamped parts, you are confusing the AR15 with the AK47. You really don't know much about guns do you?

BTW, the Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with sporting guns. So you don't know much about that either.

Dee · « **Reply #56 on:** January 14, 2013, 08:41:22 AM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on January 14, 2013, 08:11:32 AM

buttermop, so you want to ban the AR15 since it is ugly. That makes as much sense as the anti gunners wanting to ban them because they LOOK like M16s.

regarding stamped parts, you are confusing the AR15 with the AK47. You really don't know much about guns do you?

BTW, the Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with sporting guns. So you don't know much about that either.

OUCH! Me thinks she has a point! Or, points, with an s!

evidrine · « **Reply #57 on:** January 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM »

Im getting a kick out of this thread!!! Unfortunately, I gotta go. Im basically replying just so I could keep up with it later

. Keep it coming, lots of good information and optinions to go along with them.

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #58 on:** January 14, 2013, 06:16:15 PM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on January 13, 2013, 03:17:37 PM

BTW, a club member back in Michigan called my AR15 a "mouse gun". He had a chunk of I-beam hanging at 100yds. It was about 12" on the web. I have no idea what the metal was other than steel. He was shooting it with his 30-40 Krag and getting a nice ringing sound. I stood with my AR15 and snapped off a quick 10 rounds. It did not get much of a sound. We walked down range and found 10 holes that you could stick a 5.56 case through. He looked dumbfounded. I than asked, "which of us has the mouse gun?".

uh, Ranger, Mexico is in North America. (ducking) Your point about calibers and corrupt bankrupt countries is well taken. Although we ARE a bankrupt country. Look at our deficit. Also, with what the Criminal in Chief is doing I think the USA falls in the corrupt category too.

SharonAnne,
Without sounding like, I'm a know it all. I do know that Mexico is in North America. What I wanted to say was: Banana Republics, but for once I decided to be a little politically correct, in deference to those on GBO that may be of Hispanic descent.

Maybe I should have said Spanish speaking countries, but that wouldn't have been correct either, since Brazil is a Portuguese speaking country, and Guyana is English speaking. But I stand corrected, and bow to your wisdom.

I agree with you about the Criminal in Chief, and his corrupt cronies, but we aren't luckily in the same class as Argentina, which recently had one of their Naval (tall) ship seized for failure to pay a debt to a hedge fund. Although Argentina recently won that case, and their ship back on a technicality. http://photos.mercurynews.com/2013/01/09/argentina-ship-release-ghana/

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #59 on:** January 14, 2013, 06:25:43 PM »

Quote from: buffermop on January 14, 2013, 06:03:22 AM

I still say ban the assault weapons. I think they are ugly looking. They don't show the fine wood grain that a true sporting weapon would have. It is only stamped ugly metal that is designed for mass production.

So your saying ban the ugly guns? Suppose I thought the gun you liked was ugly. Should we ban that too? Remember "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".

BTW, if you want fine wood grain on an AR, all you have to do is change the furniture.

http://www.precisionfirearms.com/19.html

Is this "pretty enough" for you? BTW to me, only accurate guns are "pretty".