big, heavy,slow hg bullets r easilly proven

1994 Views 14 Replies 4 Participants Last post by andy, Jun 5, 2004

andy

Discussion Starter · May 26, 2004

to not be worth much, on animals. Yes, such loads will kill them, but they take 10-30s seconds to do so. If the target was a man, trying to kill you,anything short of a .5 second drooping of his arms is a failure. A good 223 softpoint, from a rifle barrel, RARELY fails to drop men just like that. Maybe once in 50 shootings, with a chest hit. 12 ga slugs fail nearly as often, buckshot fails more often, mostly because a CENTERED hit with it is pretty unusual.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

.45 COLT

· #2 · May 26, 2004

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? The heavy bullet works fine on any animal I've ever shot, boar, deer, bear, moose.

Don't babble about any shotgun loads being inadequate. Slugs are devastating at short range on anything. I've seen buckshot used in combat and it does itself right proud.

The .223 is a pretty fair varmint round, nothing more. Most of those who think differently are "book shooters" with little or no real experience with the round.

DC

andy

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 26, 2004

u r full of it, and many here know it, too

I've seen big heavy bullets fail miserably, too many times to count. You dont see them DROP animals. What you see is the animals run OFF for 5-20 seconds. Like I said, that sort of performance is UNACCEPTABLE in a defensive round. Many here have taken PLENTY of deer with 223, and one has done so with .22 Hornet, too.

Buckshot is illegal for deer hunting in nearly every state, because even with tight chokes, it aint worth a damn on deer beyond about 30m, and with typical riot barrels, it sucks beyond 20m. That's a fact.

Just because YOU are too ignorant to get the proper loads for taking deer with a 223, to impatient inept to get within 100m and get a good, broadside shot into the ribs, does not make the 223 inadeuate for the task. It makes YOU inadequate as a hunter, that's all.

GBullet

· #4 · May 30, 2004

Re: u r full of it, and many here know it, too

andy said:
Buckshot is illegal for deer hunting in nearly every state, because even with tight chokes, it aint worth a damn on deer beyond about 30m, and with typical riot barrels, it sucks beyond 20m. That's a fact.

Just because YOU are too ignorant to get the proper loads for taking deer with a 223, to impatient inept to get within 100m and get a good, broadside shot into the ribs, does not make the 223 inadeuate for the task. It makes YOU inadequate as a hunter, that's all.

I just did a quick check of hunting regulations in AL, CA, LA, MS, NC, NJ and PA. Buckshot is legal in all of those states.

.45 COLT

· #5 · May 30, 2004

Don't confuse him with facts. His head might explode.

DC

GBullet

· #6 · May 30, 2004

andy said:
big, heavy,slow hg bullets r easilly proven to not be worth much, on animals. Yes, such loads will kill them, but they take 10-30s seconds to do so. If the target was a man, trying to kill you,anything short of a .5 second drooping of his arms is a failure. A good 223 softpoint, from a rifle barrel, RARELY fails to drop men just like that. Maybe once in 50 shootings, with a chest hit. 12 ga slugs fail nearly as often, buckshot fails more often, mostly because a CENTERED hit with it is pretty unusual.

I'll bet that all those Indians, buffalo, bear, deer, Zulu, Japanese soldiers in WWII, and Moro feel awful stupid that they got tricked into dying from those ineffective big, slow handgun bullets.

andy

Discussion Starter · #7 · May 30, 2004

stupid, aint ya. Lots of animals and men

died of colic, and of small pox, too. wanna WAIT while a man to die of such, while he's shooting or stabbing you 4x a second, dummy?

G

· #8 · May 30, 2004

.45 COLT said:
Don't confuse him with facts. His head might explode.

DC

andy

Discussion Starter · #9 · May 31, 2004

u r the dumbass who can't grasp the facts

u "think" it's ok for the attacker to take 10seconds to collapse, after you shoot him with .45 ball, or some similar half assed load.

GBullet

· #10 · May 31, 2004

Re: u r the dumbass who can't grasp the facts

223 fan said:
u "think" it's ok for the attacker to take 10seconds to collapse, after you shoot him with .45 ball, or some similar half assed load.

Oh, no, I don't think that ten seconds is alright. I think ten seconds may be inevitable. Unless you happen to hit a doped up assailant's CNS, it may take a while.

andy

Discussion Starter · #11 · May 31, 2004

i'ts not only not inevitable, it's VERY rare

for a man to be able to withstand a 223 sp to the chest, and a proper load in a 460 Rowland case (1911) replicates the shock and destruction of a 223 sp, on animal tests. Just because you are too lazy, cheap and chicken[bleep] to find out the truth about such things doesn't mean that others haven't, or cant. It just means you are lazy,m cheap, and chicken[bleep], that' s all.

GBullet

· #12 · May 31, 2004

Re: i'ts not only not inevitable, it's VERY rare

andy said:
for a man to be able to withstand a 223 sp to the chest, and a proper load in a 460 Rowland case (1911) replicates the shock and destruction of a 223 sp, on animal tests. Just because you are too lazy, cheap and chicken[bleep] to find out the truth about such things doesn't mean that others haven't, or cant. It just means you are lazy,m cheap, and chicken[bleep], that' s all.

You may have an effective load in the .460 Rowland, but your physics are bad.

A shock wave is where a fluid is compressed on one side of the wave and not so on the other. Shock waves happen in air, but not in water.

Your .460 Rowland, and every other bullet, would create an elastic wave. Elastic waves are called...sound waves, and from bullets these are weaker than the ultrasound machines used to break up kidney stones. This effect is pretty good for stunning fish when you shoot into water, but not for stopping bad guys.

"Hydrostatic shock" is a non-technical term that refers to the radial momentum imparted to the tissues by the nose of the bullet, when it passes through body tissues.

It sounds like your theory is based on shooting water-filled jugs.

andy

Discussion Starter · #13 · Jun 1, 2004

not at all. It's based on shooting 9"

thick mammals. The tissue destruction has to be seen to be believed. It and the shock effect is the same as that demoed by the 223 softpoint, but then, you dont know anyhting about THAT, either.

SFC Hall

· #14 · Jun 2, 2004

soldier 18 years

So I’m curious as to how many men you guys have shot? I have, with ball ammo mind you, and I’ll say I wasn’t impressed with the .223

andy

Discussion Starter · #15 · Jun 5, 2004

I"m not impressed by 308 ball either.

I've seen it fail regularly on animals, and MANY vets have seen 308, 8x57 Mauser, 3006, 7.7 Jap ball fail miserably, with solid chest hits. So run along and play your Freudian bs on somebody who doesn't know any better, ok? Several of us here have seen 30-30 sp type performance out of 55 gr 223 ball, on deer, under 100 yds. It does ok, if you do your part. None of us are stuck with ball ammo. 308 STAYS heavy, as does its ammo, it STAYS nonGI rifle rd, it stays unable to be suppressed and still be a handy rifle, it STAYS without a .22 unit, It STAYS unconcealable, and so on. All it takes to have the many advantages of the 223 is to have enough sense to use a good softpoint rd in it.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.