General Discussion

sir pball

(5,341 posts)

82. It was designed BY the military to be underpowered!

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:11 PM

Jan 2013

Here's the four most common rifle rounds the military uses:

The one on the left is the .223/5.56mm. The next one in is the .308/7.62mm, which the 223 was implemented (not designed - the original concept was a civilian varmint round) to replace - the 308 was just too big, heavy, and kicked too hard for the average soldier to handle. It's widely considered to be one of the best medium-game rounds ever designed, packing over twice the power of the .223 - which should give pause to the idea of little guy being any use for hunting.

The other two are what the military considers "high-powered" rounds, used in long-range sniper rifles - .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua. The former is just as popular a sporting round as the .308; it was developed in the civilian market before ever being militarized.

So yeah. The .223 is, even by military standards, extraordinarily underpowered, and it was quite deliberately designed that way.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

One Photograph, Two Bullets, And 26 Reasons We Need To Take Action For Newtown, Connecticut [View all] Playinghardball Jan 2013 OP

EDIT: I was wrong Recursion Jan 2013 #1

The round on the left looks like a .22 long Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #8

Really? jberryhill Jan 2013 #9

Yes really. There's no round I can think of that much smaller than a .223 long Recursion Jan 2013 #12

Looks right to me jberryhill Jan 2013 #20

isn't the important thing rim fire or center fire? and .220 is smaller than .223... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #10

40 grain? Well if we're going to bring in subsonic ammo, ok Recursion Jan 2013 #16

You are completely wrong jberryhill Jan 2013 #24

People buying the most destructive firearm possible will use Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #26

Is this more to your liking? Hoyt Jan 2013 #23

Yes, thank you (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #25

the .22lr seems exactly the same as the original photo Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #29

You are correct jberryhill Jan 2013 #33

Yes, I was completely wrong. Not sure why this bothered me so much Recursion Jan 2013 #36

The brass is much larger for the .223 than the .22 krispos42 Jan 2013 #136

Maybe it's the penny? I'm not sure. I'm using the gimp and checking that it wasn't resized Recursion Jan 2013 #34

You can eyeball it from the length of the reflection jberryhill Jan 2013 #45

Jesus Christ! sadbear Jan 2013 #2

Why do you want bigger ammo than that? Recursion Jan 2013 #3

Yes, I am ignorant about these things. sadbear Jan 2013 #5

If it is, then the one on the left is absurdly small; it's hard to tell the scale Recursion Jan 2013 #6

see post #10 farminator3000 Jan 2013 #14

Yes. It's a deliberately low-power rifle compared to a 30-06 or 308 Recursion Jan 2013 #17

going through a metal pipe is sufficient penetration in my book farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22

Wth? Heimer Jan 2013 #30

you heard me. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #59

Many states actually ban .223/5.56mm ammo for hunting large game. SQUEE Jan 2013 #106

define many for starters- i think more allow it than not farminator3000 Jan 2013 #113

Ummmm....had to edit :P Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #39

ummm, had to go to the nra site, thanks... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #62

Excuse me.... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #69

the topic is whether .223 is a military round. the answer is yes. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #74

You *could* but it would be illegal. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #41

not everywhere farminator3000 Jan 2013 #63

.22 centerfire, not 22 Long Rifle sir pball Jan 2013 #77

i have a .22LR- if i wanted to shoot a deer DEAD with it, i could. easily. i don't. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #80

You could shoot it easily. And it most likely would suffer. n/t DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #90

not if i knew what i was doing. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #97

Total BS. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #112

not BS at all. why does it say dangerous up to 1.5 MILES on the ammo box? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #128

Yes, it is total BS, and it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #144

having too much gun is just as bad as not enough gun farminator3000 Jan 2013 #151

And a .22 isn't a big enough round DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #158

Shenanigans. sir pball Jan 2013 #91

not at all. obviously, the size of the animal, the distance, etc. all matter farminator3000 Jan 2013 #101

It was designed BY the military to be underpowered! sir pball Jan 2013 #82

Two Things wercal Jan 2013 #84

Neither can I, and yet you've seen, they still do BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #15

The big one looks like the 50 cal bullets they use for experiments on MythBusters. RetroGamer1971 Jan 2013 #4

That round is not a .50 cal. Glassunion Jan 2013 #11

The big one looks like a 30-06 round, the smaller a 22 long rifle... Scuba Jan 2013 #7

no, it looks like post #10 farminator3000 Jan 2013 #19

Bullshit jberryhill Jan 2013 #28

Thanks, that pic makes the scalar difference more understandable. Are you also calling bullshit ... Scuba Jan 2013 #37

I am calling bullshit on two things jberryhill Jan 2013 #43

The "wildly inaccurate" was regarding the claim that the 223 wasn't a good hunting round. Scuba Jan 2013 #51

.223 Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #52

Yes, posting wildly inaccurate information is not helpful Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #32

The bullet on the left is a .22 caliber used for shooting beer cans... Playinghardball Jan 2013 #13

A .22 can kill a person very well. NT EOTE Jan 2013 #49

If by action you mean actually doing something beyond pounding a keyboard... OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #18

Here, for an attempt at scale. The .223 is *on the LEFT* in this one Recursion Jan 2013 #21

so a .22 cal rifle isn't a rifle? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #35

Fine. The smallest *centerfire* rifle ammunition sold Recursion Jan 2013 #42

Tons of people. JoeyT Jan 2013 #160

why do you keep trying to pretend that .22s don't exist? .22s KILL things EASILY. also .17 cal=small farminator3000 Jan 2013 #38

Well if a guy on Yahoo Answers shot a deer with a .22lr DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #88

there is supposed to be an element of skill involved in hunting. 50-100 yards, head shot, dead. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #96

You assume that all hunting is done for sport. SQUEE Jan 2013 #108

no, sport means 'only kill what you eat' -true for a lot of people- or at least give away to eat farminator3000 Jan 2013 #124

You think people should be hunting deer with a .22lr from 50-100 yards and aiming for the head? DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #114

head sounds better than lungs to me, but i'm not a hooved herbivore. ask an expert, maybe farminator3000 Jan 2013 #120

You're obviously not a hunter, and have no idea what you are talking about. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #145

i guess i didn't post enough of this professional deer killer guy before farminator3000 Jan 2013 #150

no the first time was too much. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #159

Semantics liberal N proud Jan 2013 #79

You gun boys have all lost your UncleYoder Jan 2013 #27

In the interest of some small degree of sanity... JayhawkSD Jan 2013 #31

It is meant for hunting humans. Your using it for prairie dogs does not change Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #40

That's the point that the gun crowd just keep trying to ignore. Hoyt Jan 2013 #44

It did not start as a military round. Few actually do. hack89 Jan 2013 #60

dead wrong. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #78

It is damn near ballistically identical to the .222 hack89 Jan 2013 #86

i already posted this for you, but here it is again farminator3000 Jan 2013 #94

The .222 Remington is used in semi-automatics hack89 Jan 2013 #100

that is terrible news, something should be done about that. maybe a ban. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #107

I am saying that fixating on the bullets is stupid hack89 Jan 2013 #109

no, you are trying to change the subject- the .223 is designed to be fired semi-automatically farminator3000 Jan 2013 #115

Again, so what? hack89 Jan 2013 #116

the "what" being that .223 ammo is both overkill and not civilian farminator3000 Jan 2013 #130

So what about other civilian rounds - are they ok? hack89 Jan 2013 #133

you can have whatever you want, as long as you are responsible about it, i'd say farminator3000 Jan 2013 #138

I think a Mini-14 in .222 Remington would work fine for me hack89 Jan 2013 #141

that's cool. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #148

the case is ~2mm longer also Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #95

The fact that you must make false statements to defend this ammunition Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #92

A modification of .001 inches hack89 Jan 2013 #93

How about to .22 like the OP was comparing it to? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #98

I was correct hack89 Jan 2013 #103

The .222 was developed for a bolt action rifle, so how about Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #104

By that logic every round is bad. hack89 Jan 2013 #105

The OP is a comparison of the two bullets Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #118

Ok. So a 5.56 is more deadly then a smaller, less powerful round. hack89 Jan 2013 #119

There is no arguing with a zealot Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #121

What is.... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #122

How about until mass shootings are a rarity instead of being common place? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #125

So what is that first step? hack89 Jan 2013 #123

First of all, it is impossible for you to know that doing nothing will produce Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #126

30 years of historical trends make it a pretty safe bet. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #127

More falsehoods. Can't you get anything right? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #132

I was talking about all gun violence - not a tiny piece of it. hack89 Jan 2013 #135

So what you are suggesting are "some first steps" .... spin Jan 2013 #142

read my response to this exact same question posted earlier Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #146

A quick link would have been helpful. ... spin Jan 2013 #156

Well God knows I am here for no reason other than to be helpful Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #157

Thanks for the link. ... spin Jan 2013 #162

You said you saw my answer to that Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #163

That's fair you didn't suggest that. ... spin Jan 2013 #164

Stop being paranoid. Nobody wants to do what you think we want to do. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #165

I did see that post ... spin Jan 2013 #166

Nobody said stop. Nobody said confiscate Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #167

But you have never stated what your final goal was. ... spin Jan 2013 #168

here are ALL of the f'in bullets, .22 LR is 4th, and .223 is 16th, i think farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46

Are you a hunter? Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #50

no, i'm a farmer. i could kill a deer out of season with a machine gun if it was eating my crops farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56

the original one photograph, 2 bullets concept seems to have gone out the window here farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47

U hunt Deer with a 22? One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #48

This is the simplest explanation of why banning .223 is pointless Xithras Jan 2013 #54

maybe 30-.06s are for real hunters and .223 are for wanna-be's? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57

Big game - bigger bullet. Small game - smaller bullet hack89 Jan 2013 #64

more guns + bigger mags = more bullets = more innocent people murdered every day. you again? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #65

So restrict magazine size - problem solved. hack89 Jan 2013 #66

they already restricted it in NY state AS OF YESTERDAY farminator3000 Jan 2013 #68

Every bullet does that - how do you think bullets work? hack89 Jan 2013 #70

every bullet is the same? ha ha ha ha ha. you can find lot on google in 60 seconds farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72

And your point is what? hack89 Jan 2013 #73

the point, from the OP, is that .223 are military rounds farminator3000 Jan 2013 #75

Except for the non-military ones. hack89 Jan 2013 #83

Is the 30-06 a military round? hack89 Jan 2013 #89

Deer... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #117

And humans... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #131

Humans aren't.. Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #139

and deer aren't... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #143

Explain then... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #147

i think you can work it out yourself. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #149

I hunt elk Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #153

"This ammunition isn�t meant for hunting, it�s meant for warfare. " DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #53

...which was derived from... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #55

The casing makes the bullet look much bigger than it is. bunnies Jan 2013 #58

I am for outlawing the so called asult weopons but the. 223 is a very good round for doc03 Jan 2013 #61

maybe if you are planning on making communist squirrel meatballs farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67

Well dah that's what bullets do. You are not allowed to hunt deer with the doc03 Jan 2013 #134

yes. you are allowed to use it for deer in many states. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #140

You can't in the states I am familiar with and I sure wouldn't doc03 Jan 2013 #152

I preferred the 223 for varmint jdadd Jan 2013 #71

you must enjoy split groundhogs then! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #76

Hollow points fragment..... jdadd Jan 2013 #99

I used a Sako .243 for groundhog shot some at 300 yards doc03 Jan 2013 #129

I hunt deer... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #81

Hunters use the same round. Rex Jan 2013 #85

"This ammunition isn�t meant for hunting, it�s meant for warfare." Glassunion Jan 2013 #87

Just MrYikes Jan 2013 #110

Classic misinformation to manipulate the unknowing. aikoaiko Jan 2013 #102

WTF... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #111

Nah, haven't you been reading anything? Its about hunting kids, I mean deer. Or maybe coyote's. MichiganVote Jan 2013 #137

Gun nuts want the one on the right to stay legal SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #154

This one is also legal, even though it serves no actual function it should be SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #155

There's no such thing as a benign bullet. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #161