22 Creedmore legal use issues!

[Article 4]

Just ignore the absolute drivel and content straw man “arguments” from @Article 4 and you’ll learn a thing or two.

Likewise @mxgsfmdpx - lemming

 

[Article 4]

Exactly right that the .338 guy has better ethics than you? Why do you draw the line where you do?

Show me data (outside of the bias in here) that proves:

If we shoot at 1000 yards, since that is the benchmark these days, and hit the same 5 inch circle with a 77 grain bullet out of any 243 caliber flying at 3000 fps has a better ballistics profile and terminal performance data than a 195 grain bullet out of a 284 flying at 3000 fps.

 

[KHntr]

you are wrong again!!

i have killed a lot of thing with small calibers. i CHOOSE not to hunt larger with smaller. Seems your ethics are more in question than mine. Mine are mine and i am steadfast in them.

Ok. here is one article i recently read. peruse this

The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others

How higher speed, greater mass, and more surface area increase the damage that rounds can do to human bodies.

www.thetrace.org

After reading this “article” which was obviously written by a mainstream media writer of some flavor, I’m starting to see that all you guys have who are replying to Article 4 have been trolled in spectacular form.
After reading that, it looks to me like Article likely isn’t actually a hunter or shooter if he’s using that to substantiate his position.
And if he IS a shooter, then him providing that article is actually quite embarrassing.

 

[Article 4]

After reading this “article” which was obviously written by a mainstream media writer of some flavor, I’m starting to see that all you guys have who are replying to Article 4 have been trolled in spectacular form.
After reading that, it looks to me like Article likely isn’t actually a hunter or shooter if he’s using that to substantiate his position.
And if he IS a shooter, then him providing that article is actually quite embarrassing.

Typical fanboy/lemming response. You wanna take personal shots...ok

It would be so easy for me to find articles that say nothing but exactly what I want them to rather than actually reading articles that have varying data sets in them. But then again, perhaps my expectation of people like you is that you will actually comprehend what was written.

Let me help you without getting into the weeds with some excerpts from the article:

• Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.
• Dr. Peter Rhee is a trauma surgeon who operated on victims of the 2011 shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded in a hail of 9mm bullets. Rhee explained that the more massive the projectile, the more severe the wound.
  “A .22 will kill you, but it won’t blow your head apart,” he said. With bigger bullets, “you will make bigger holes.”

This next one is very important to the argument and Ill interpret it for you since you cannot understand

• What makes the .223 potentially deadlier than the .22 is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
  
  Slow-motion videos of ballistics tests clearly illustrate this difference. Watch the .22 and the .223 tested on blocks of ballistics gelatin, a material that mimics human tissue. The .223 generates a far larger shock wave, and penetrates farther, than the .22.

What that actually says is pertinent to my point. A 195 grain bullet traveling just as fast as a 77 grain bullet will have a ballistic and terminal performance advantage.



Caught me - never shot a rifle in my life and not a single animal

 

[KHntr]

Typical fanboy/lemming response. You wanna take personal shots...ok

It would be so easy for me to find articles that say nothing but exactly what I want them to rather than actually reading articles that have varying data sets in them. But then again, perhaps my expectation of people like you is that you will actually comprehend what was written.

Let me help you without getting into the weeds with some excerpts from the article:

• Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.
• Dr. Peter Rhee is a trauma surgeon who operated on victims of the 2011 shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded in a hail of 9mm bullets. Rhee explained that the more massive the projectile, the more severe the wound.
  “A .22 will kill you, but it won’t blow your head apart,” he said. With bigger bullets, “you will make bigger holes.”

This next one is very important to the argument and Ill interpret it for you since you cannot understand

• What makes the .223 potentially deadlier than the .22 is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
  
  Slow-motion videos of ballistics tests clearly illustrate this difference. Watch the .22 and the .223 tested on blocks of ballistics gelatin, a material that mimics human tissue. The .223 generates a far larger shock wave, and penetrates farther, than the .22.

What that actually says is pertinent to my point. A 195 grain bullet traveling just as fast as a 77 grain bullet will have a ballistic and terminal performance advantage.



Caught me - never shot a rifle in my life and not a single animal

I like that you quoted the exact parts that show your lack of reading comprehension and knowledge.

I’m sorry, but it is impossible to take you seriously. You are out of your depth, and continue to prove it in spectacular fashion.

 

[Article 4]

I like that you quoted the exact parts that show your lack of reading comprehension.

Wow - I congratulate you on your level of ignorance...never seen it that high before. Well done

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Typical fanboy/lemming response. You wanna take personal shots...ok

It would be so easy for me to find articles that say nothing but exactly what I want them to rather than actually reading articles that have varying data sets in them. But then again, perhaps my expectation of people like you is that you will actually comprehend what was written.

Let me help you without getting into the weeds with some excerpts from the article:

• Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.
• Dr. Peter Rhee is a trauma surgeon who operated on victims of the 2011 shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded in a hail of 9mm bullets. Rhee explained that the more massive the projectile, the more severe the wound.
  “A .22 will kill you, but it won’t blow your head apart,” he said. With bigger bullets, “you will make bigger holes.”

This next one is very important to the argument and Ill interpret it for you since you cannot understand

• What makes the .223 potentially deadlier than the .22 is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
  
  Slow-motion videos of ballistics tests clearly illustrate this difference. Watch the .22 and the .223 tested on blocks of ballistics gelatin, a material that mimics human tissue. The .223 generates a far larger shock wave, and penetrates farther, than the .22.

What that actually says is pertinent to my point. A 195 grain bullet traveling just as fast as a 77 grain bullet will have a ballistic and terminal performance advantage.



Caught me - never shot a rifle in my life and not a single animal

Dude.

You really gotta relax with not even reading what you copy and paste from AI. Please form your own thoughts with evidence.

 

[Article 4]

Dude.

You really gotta relax with not even reading what you copy and paste from AI. Please form your own thoughts with evidence.

View attachment 817437

Got it straight from the link i provided and actually read the article (didnt even know it was part of ai since I don't use it)

Obviously you are too biased and incompetent to actually read the whole thing otherwise you would have known that

Sucks you are unable to think on your own. Some disabilities are hard to overcome.

And with that, you and your other lemmings have taken up about as much of my time as I will allow you too. Ignorance is bliss. Have a great day full of it!!

 

[Reburn]

Got it straight from the link i provided and actually read the article (didnt even know it was part of ai since I don't use it)

Obviously you are too biased and incompetent to actually read the whole thing otherwise you would have known that

Sucks you are unable to think on your own. Some disabilities are hard to overcome.

And with that, you and your other lemmings have taken up about as much of my time as I will allow you too. Ignorance is bliss. Have a great day full of it!!

you fill your home with waves
nothing still can stay
when the storm starts to recede
parting clouds reveal your grief
Nothing still can stay
Forever midnight
Sink heavy into the abyss
You're alone with yourself
Forced only to reminisce
Completely devoid of bliss

 

[sveltri]

Show me data (outside of the bias in here) that proves:

If we shoot at 1000 yards, since that is the benchmark these days, and hit the same 5 inch circle with a 77 grain bullet out of any 243 caliber flying at 3000 fps has a better ballistics profile and terminal performance data than a 195 grain bullet out of a 284 flying at 3000 fps.

The oft recommended 77 TMK is a .224, not .243.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

I live in hunt in states that have no centerfire rifle requirements however, I completely disagree with this policy when,

• We have minimum muzzleloader requirements - for moose, elk, sheep, and bear the min is .50 cal and deer sized and smaller it .45
• We have minimum arrow weight and pull weight requirements (300 grains and 40lbs)
• Minimum broad head cutting requirements 7/8 and .015 thick

The rule should be revisited and I would vote for minimum caliber and bullet weight requirements for anything larger than deer sized animals, including bears...

“Hello, my identity is an activist. I think we should all just eat tofu, and put an end to violence. That said, I do respect hunters’ rights. However, I believe 300 magnums are far too destructive for use on animals, and should be banned. I’d vote on it and suggest we closely look at 7 mags after that. I’ll never try it, ever, but my ethics say we ban all calibers over a certain diameter and energy because they’re inhumane… Period dot.“

See how that works?

Your way of thinking is a problem. Disagreement and debate is a wonderfully underrated thing. We do it instinctively because it has been so successful evolutionarily at sussing out what works and what’s BS. However, people who go right to legislation against those they disagree with can’t back up their opinions. They need daddy government to flip the board for them. Rules for thee not for me. With mentalities like this, one day our grand kids will have the privilege of arguing that guns are illegal, because they are bad, because the law says so.

To answer the OP, they “get away with it” because some states favor legislation over a freedom of ideas and practices.

 

[LongWayAround]

Against my better judgement, I clicked on his linked article. Literally first sentence moment of wtf.

"The bullet that struck U.S. Representative Steve Scalise last week was traveling at somewhere between 1,100 and 2,600 feet per second. The projectile, a 7.62 x 39 bullet, hit the House majority whip with between 370 and 1,550 foot-pounds of force. The rifle round, which is longer than a pistol projectile,"

So he was hit from a distance somewhere between point blank and 600 yards.

That was enough for me to know that the article wasn't written by anyone with actual familiarity with firearms.

 

[eric1115]

If, as evidence that .223 can be an effective hunting cartridge, I cite an article about how the AR-15 is unacceptable for civilians to own because the .223 is too powerful for any legitimate sporting or hunting purpose, would that improve or damage my credibility in your view?

 

[Article 4]

Clipped for bre



If you think that article is something that will cause experienced hunters and shooters to shift their position closer to yours, I don't know what to tell you. Citing it drops your credibility as a knowledgeable hunter/shooter substantially.

The fact that you did read it and did not realize it's drivel (sometimes stuff written by "journalists" and stuff generated by a predictive text generator is hard to differentiate, so I won't hold that against you) says a lot more about your experience and expertise than it does about whatever argument you're trying to support with it.
If, as evidence that .223 can be an effective hunting cartridge, I cite an article about how the AR-15 is unacceptable for civilians to own because the .223 is too powerful for any legitimate sporting or hunting purpose, would that improve or damage my credibility in your view?

another lemming. As soon as you cannot refute fact and provide your own, you revert to personal attacks.
It is one study. one. amongst hundreds.

Dont care to change your mind.

Using AR based liberal diatribe to support your non existent point makes your credibility worse than you think mine is.

 

[Article 4]

Bigger well constructed bullets with higher BCs going just as fast as small well constructed bullets with their BCs will always outperform them both ballistically and with terminal performance.

So yes. just like you wouldn’t shoot an elk with a 100 grain arrow and a field point, i am in favor of minimum caliber and energy requirement for larger game. Period. dot.

 

[Reburn]

another lemming. As soon as you cannot refute fact and provide your own, you revert to personal attacks.
It is one study. one. amongst hundreds.

Dont care to change your mind.

Using AR based liberal diatribe to support your non existent point makes your credibility worse than you think mine is.

I feel a glitch in the cortex
Like a ghost in the shell
Caught the devil playing mind tricks
I feel the dread close in like the walls of a cell
I cannot sleep, I cannot hide, I cannot take
One more night on the dark side of my mind
period dot

 

[Article 4]

The oft recommended 77 TMK is a .224, not .243.

You are right. which makes his assertion even less applicable

 

[sveltri]

You are right. which makes his assertion even less applicable

Not really, just points out you may have not comprehended what your arguing against.

 

[Article 4]

Not really, just points out you may have not comprehended what your arguing against.

May have not?

Your typo is worse than mine.

 

[Reburn]

You are right. which makes his assertion even less applicable

I push my fingers into my eyes
It's the only thing that slowly stops the ache
But it's made of all the things I have to take
Jesus, it never ends, it works its way inside
If the pain goes on, I'm not gonna make it