[andy]

does out there, or like a Stinger .22lr from a rifle does up close. 10" 223 and a good SP beats it all to hell.

 

[John in AR]

You keep reflexively belittling a round I like (and a round that's mathematically a fairly decent option), and I'm going to feel obligated to keep reminding you of your own words.

One of your basic premises is that we don't "need" to shoot at 200 yards; this is just the first and easiest example I found:

"...AVOID people, silent .22 ambush nearly everyone that you HAVE to shoot..."

So if you can "silent ambush nearly everyone that you HAVE to shoot" with a .22LR, it means they're almost certainly within 50-100 yards; 150 at the outside.

So, if as you say, you don't "need" to shoot that far, what a bullet does at 200+ yards is irrelevant.

 

[andy]

I"m aware of that, John, but lots of fools here AINT. The 10" 223 and SP's make the 30C and ball look SICK by comparison. The 10" 223 hits harder at 200m than does 30C ball at 50m, because at 50m, the .30c only has 800 ft lbs and it wastes 1/3rd of that on overpenetration, has no temporary cavity effect, etc. Yet there's idiots here who 'think" a 10" 223 is nothing but a pistol. They claim it might as well be a .22 mag rimfire. I got a news flash, the 10" 223 hits as hard at 250m as a .22 mag rifle hits at the muzzle.

 

[Hard Ball]

>30 Carbine ball kills men quite well at 200 meters and that's what it was designed to do, be very effective at ranges from one inch to 200 meters.The 10 inch ,223 is inefective at any range with either ball or SP ammunition You simply have no grasp of terminal ballistics.

 

[Stillwater]

>30 Carbine ball kills men quite well at 200 meters and that's what it was designed to do, be very effective at ranges from one inch to 200 meters.The 10 inch ,223 is inefective at any range with either ball or SP ammunition You simply have no grasp of terminal ballistics.

Hard Ball, you shouldn't point out such SMALL INCONSISTENCIES in NUTTY JOHN'S posts. After all, NUTTY JOHN has a reputation to maintain ...

Oh Yeah, a reputation for beig the BIGGEST IDIOT on the Internet.

 

[Hard Ball]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, Bill! But I am sure that Gk will find it in his heart to forgive me!

 

[Aslan]

He's still stuck on the already disproven myth of depositing energy.

Fackler has already demonstrated this to be false.

So has GunKid with his hit in the belt buckle by a .45, unless he was lying about it.

:devil:

 

[Garand]

LOLOL :laugh01: :laugh01: :laugh01: :laugh01: :laugh01:

 

[Hasher]

Yeha I wan tcoroboration of tha tone. GK hit in the buckle.

I here by raise the BS flag on that one.

 

[brass hammer]

U R on u'r own, TARD! i have tried, to half-assed refleck a few[slim] positive/salient features on the doable posts given!

but , it can't be done, ol' boy [mister 160]

i wish you fare-well/the screamin'shits



:wavey:

 

[Coyote]

I wish General Sancho's Revenge upon you, andy.

 

[John in AR]

Again, weird (yet entertaining) how these old threads percolate up seemingly at random.

30c ball,200m, hits like a .22mag rimfire does out there, or like a Stinger .22lr from a rifle does up close. 10" 223 and a good SP beats it all to hell.

Reality - at 200 yards:
.30Carbine = roughly 445 ft/lbs
.22WMR = roughly 105 ft/lbs (from a rifle)

Nowhere near the same. Put in terms of a common caliber, at 200 yards the 30carbine has the muzzle energy of a 9mm at the muzzle. At 200 yards the .22WMR has the muzzle energy of that same 9mm bullet at 450-500 yards. A 9mm at the muzzle and a 9mm at a quarter-mile are not even close to the same thing.

And a Stinger .22LR from a rifle runs around 195 ft/lbs. So almost twice what the .22WMR does at 200 yards, but less than half what the .30 Carbine does at 200 yards.

So the entire premise for this thread is to claim that 105 ft/lbs equals 195 ft/lbs, which also equals 445 ft/lbs.

I know you dislike the .30 carbine, but facts are what they are, and the .30 carbine is simply more powerful than the 10" 223 you praise. That's indisputable, mathematical truth. Sorry if you don't like it; it'll be okay.

 

[Garand]

Once again we face a situation where the government is banning/ trying to ban the AR and all variants. One day the .30 cal M1 Carbine could be a contender again, as it is now in Canada. Old saying, "its not the firearm you have, but how you use the firearm you have".

 

[John in AR]

If I couldn’t have an AR or similar, the M1 carbine would absolutely be my second choice, and AK maybe third.

 

[John in AR]

One day the .30 cal M1 Carbine could be a contender again, as it is now in Canada.

I was surprised to see that a little 30-second .30 carbine video I put up on youtube less than a year ago has had more than 36,000 views; more of 12,000 of those in just the last month. Most of my stuff gets a few hundred views is all, and I'd imagine that's mostly family & friends checking them out.

Also surprising to me was that while my channel only has 132 subscribers, 93 of those (70%) subscribed after watching that little M1 carbine video. Those two things together make me wonder if there's a resurgence in interest in the .30 carbine out there; people looking into non-AR options for ban-prevention or ban-workaround reasons. Also makes me think I should maybe do another .30 carbine video...

 

[Garand]

Prudent people look for alternatives rather than being a "1 trick pony".

 

[John in AR]

Results of one of the few gel tests I've found for .30 carbine. Prvi/PPU 110-grain JSP, expanded to .640 and still gave almost 18" of penetration. That's pretty good for a caliber & gun that is so easy to shoot.