Disingenuous Argument (in more simple terms, FALSE argument)

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

The text which accompanied the photo I found salient to discussion of gun control restricting certain kinds of more damaging ammunition. I find myself rolling my eyes when someone makes the disingenuous argument postered below.

The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge (maximum pressure 24,000 PSI for .22LR; maximum pressure 50,000 PSI for .223). The .223 bullet is a much heavier bullet, travelling at a higher velocity. This means that the .223 bullet has much more energy to deliver on its target.

Upon impact .223 bullets demonstrate a tendency to tumble, increasing the size of the wound channel. The .223 bullet also delivers additional damage due to hydrostatic shock. The .22LR bullet has neither of these qualities.

This pretty much sums up the difference:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Terminal Ballistics

For more info on terminal ballistics, one of the current acknowledged experts is Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR. Here is a link to some data on self-defense ammo:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

[gejohnston]

2. now compare the .223 and

and round commonly used for deer hunting like .30-30, .270, 30-06, .308 and get back with us.

Give you a hint, many states will not allow a .223 to be used for deer or proghorn hunting because it isn't lethal enough. None of those rounds on your chart are legal big game rounds in Wyoming.

A number of factors enter the issue of hydro-static shock including bullet weight, design, etc even within a certain caliber. A military round is going to produce less than a self defense/hunting round because the military is limited by The Hague Convention 1899.

[backwoodsbob]

23. hell compare the .223 to

my new favorite hunting rifle...the .300 WSM

[krispos42]

3. Not that I've heard

Of course, the .223 Rem is significantly less powerful that your average deer cartridge.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Size of the slug and power of the charge are just a part of the argument.

I don't want anyone shooting a .22 LR at me at 100 rounds per minute.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Is there a .22LR weapon capable of doing that in sustained fire?

[gejohnston]

8. rare, expensive, and Title 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-180
IIRC, it was the first to use a LASER sight.

[SayWut]

13. Those original laser sights were huge.

I can only imagine how something that size and mounted that far forward made it unwieldy to carry around or shoot.
Laser equipped 180's were originally issued to prison guards. One of the stories (or rumors), I recall at the time, was that the tower guards would play the laser dot around the yard to keep unruly inmates in line, or simply to remind them of who was in charge.



It's not really that expensive when compared to other full-auto firearms (here's one for $15K).
http://www.blackforgeweapons.com/product_p/b02049.htm

Considering what it costs nowadays to feed a centerfire subgun or assault rifle, a 180 at that price is at least economical to spend a day at the range with, without breaking your wallet.
I'd liken it to the Prius of the full-auto world.

[Buzz Clik]

9. That was not what I meant.

The size of the round and it's muzzle velocity is only part of the equation; it's the rate of firing I don't like.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Who makes that argument? I have never seen it made in serious conversation

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. me either ... never heard this claim in Any Conversation, serious or otherwise - Not to say that I

hang out all day talking ammo but, still ...

[Clames]

7. Disingenuous is the argument is that a .223 will make you more dead than .22LR.

Which sums up the vast majority of your arguments.

[iiibbb]

11. ironic post

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. and doubles down by Reccing it

DGaP recs their own thread

[aikoaiko]

12. If its so common a false argument, show a few links to the such arguments.

Really.

[SayWut]

14. A "COMMON" Disingenuous Argument?

Just how "common" is that argument?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+%22a+.223+round+is+no+different+than+a+.22%22.#seen

"No results found for "a .223 round is no different than a .22..."

[ManiacJoe]

15. Sounds like a strawman argument.

Certainly others are more traveled on the internet than I am, but I have never heard/seen anyone ever claim anything resembling "a .223 round is not different tha a .22lr".

[jimmy the one]

16. vague on the hague

dscntnt:Terminal Ballistics .. info on terminal ballistics, one of the current acknowledged experts Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR.

I'm a bit familiar with probably 'the' ballistics expert martin fackler, having read dozens of his articles from his IWB papers, whom roberts mentions. Fackler was an army surgeon, retired now, & a gunnut to boot tho he is an honest one & doesn' try to manipulate facts, cool, respect. President of his 'internat wound ballistics org' foremost expert in the '4th' ballistics category.

gejohnston .. compare the .223 and round commonly used for deer hunting like .30-30, .270, 30-06, .308 and get back with us.

It wasn't the intent to do that, just to note that the .223 while essentially 22 caliber, is an order of magnitude more powerful than a 22 long or short, & is disingenuous for gunnuts to argue otherwise or blow smoke on it.

Give you a hint, many states will not allow a .223 to be used for deer or proghorn hunting because it isn't lethal enough. None of those rounds on your chart are legal big game rounds in Wyoming.

Oh it's lethal enough, just that it's more of a slow kill so the animal can run off, which is how it was designed, to exploit high muzzle velocity using a lightweight bullet so as to lessen the weight a soldier had to carry while not comprising his guns capability to 'incapacitate', which on a battlefield can cause an enemy to become demoralized by the moan of dying comrades, &/or the need for medic & stretcher bearers. 'Incap' is deemed better sometimes, didn't you know that?
The .223 tends to fragment inside the target, generally into 2 parts, each creating it's own bullet path. Cavitation can occur from both I believe, at least the larger more likely.
However Dr Roberts says this: .223 .. there have been quite a few reports in inadequate fragmentation. Please remember that this is military ammo, and while the fragmenting properties are well documented and understood, there is no requirement for the bullet to fragment when being tested for acceptance

fackler: Fragmentation of M16 military ball ruptures the walls of the giant temporary cavity caused by the high velocity bullet turning it into a very large permanent wound cavity. This cavity is located DEEP within the target where it has great potential of damaging vital organs. http://bajaarizona.org/fklr/fklr.html

another link: While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down, the 5.56 {.223}bullet instead enters the body, quickly turns sideways after passing through only 4" of flesh, then breaks in two major pieces, as well as many smaller fragments. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss. This light-weight cartridge permits soldiers to carry more ammo, but is not as effective at long distances as heavier cartridges and does not penetrate steel as well. The low recoil permits quick {& more accurate} follow-up shots and minimal muzzle climb during automatic fire

johnston: A military round is going to produce less than a self defense/hunting round because the military is limited by The Hague Convention 1899.

Please cite the particular hague convention which affects the 3,000 fps 55 or 62grain m16 bullet, thanks, I'd like to see what it say.

[gejohnston]

17. expanding ammo

Oh it's lethal enough, just that it's more of a slow kill so the animal can run off, which is how it was designed, to exploit high muzzle velocity using a lightweight bullet so as to lessen the weight a soldier had to carry while not comprising his guns capability to 'incapacitate', which on a battlefield can cause an enemy to become demoralized by the moan of dying comrades, &/or the need for medic & stretcher bearers.

the law says anything under .23 caliber, really doesn't matter.

'Incap' is deemed better sometimes, didn't you know that?

Yes, I'm surprized you made the effort to research anything beyond disgraced historians turned bartenders.

t wasn't the intent to do that, just to note that the .223 while essentially 22 caliber, is an order of magnitude more powerful than a 22 long or short, & is disingenuous for gunnuts to argue otherwise or blow smoke on it.

But what "gun nut" made such a claim? The OP sounds more like a straw man more than anything else.

[jimmy the one]

18. leg wound from m16

Warning - Graphic pictures depicting severe upper leg injury from m16, same as what an AR15 could do:

seriously, do not click on the link if severe wound pictures make you squeamish. Hope I'm not violating any rule here krispos, & pls note the ample warnings, but delete if you feel it's inappropriate, by all means.

Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...(Warning: Disturbing ...

This is why animals might not die straightaway, or why victims become incapacitated rather than deaded.

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

(excerpt not from the picture site, but from facklers article): The thigh entrance wound will be small and punctuate. The first part of the tissue path will show minimal disruption. The exit will vary from the small punctuate hole described for the Soviet AK-47 to the stellate exit described for the Yugoslav AK-47, depending on how thick the thigh is where the bullet perforates it. In a sufficiently thick thigh, the M193 bullet fragmentation is also likely to cause a significant loss of tissue and possibly one or more small exit wounds near the large stellate one.

Makes me sick to stomach looking at this & reading wound ballistics, often did, why I gave up guns, want nothing to do.

[petronius]

19. As others have said, I doubt anyone has ever seriously claimed that the two rounds

are the same, and it doesn't seem that the person who created the image believes that the ".22 = .223" argument is ever seriously made either. Rather, it looks like WATMAB said the claim is made to test the knowledge level of the pro-gun-control participant in a conversation. (We played a game like that when I was a kid - usually involving knowledge about the Brady Bunch, which was seriously uncool - we called it a 'dope check' or a 'nerd test' or something like that.) I agree that it's a pretty silly debate tactic.

http://www.facebook.com/watmab

http://whiskeyandthemorningafter.blogspot.com/2013/02/not-all-bullets-are-same.html

But I do notice an unstated assumption in both your OP and WATMAB's blog: that is, that a non-trivial level of firearms knowledge really is necessary if one wants to have a useful and meaningful opinion on gun policy. In other words, all that talk about calibers and magazines and AW definitions and stocks and shrouds and suppressors isn't just gun porn after all. Who knew?

[jimmy the one]

20. you want examples? examples

ProgressiveProfessor Who makes that argument? I have never seen it made in serious conversation

tues aft: me either ... never heard this claim in Any Conversation, serious or otherwise - Not to say that I

steve in panama city: There are several hunting rifles more powerful than an AR-15. And what about a shotgun? A 12-gauge shotgun is about the most dangerous gun at close range. How about a .22-caliber rifle or pistol? They {ARs} are just small-caliber guns, but the bullet travels at such a high velocity it can do more damage than most high-powered guns. And all these guns are semi-automatic.
http://www.newsherald.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/an-assault-rifle-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is-1.68196

Tho he clearly qualifies what he's saying enough to gun folk, he does leave an impression of parity to the novitiate: When you look at the two calibers, the 22 long rifle bullet is not much smaller then the 223 Remington. If your shots are less then 100 yards, the 22 long rifle loaded with high grade bullets can get close to 223 Remington. Lets be honest, there is no way the 22 Long Rifle can match the ballistics of the 223 Remington.
There is not “that” much difference between the 22 long rifle bullet and the 223 Remington bullet. Keep in mind we are talking about bullet diameter and bullet weight, and not the cartridge length.
Is there a difference between the 22 long rifle and the 223 Remington? Of course there is. But if I were shooting less then say 75 yards, I would take either the 22 long rifle or the 223 Remington.
If I was hunting small game, I would use the 22 long rifle;
if I needed to ask a trespasser what he was doing in my field, I would bring my AR-15;
http://www.survivalboards.com/2012-10-02/middle-ground-rifle-caliber-for-shtf-teotwawki/

There's no serious argument tht I know of (by the army, or gunmakers, or cops) that a 22 is the same as a .223, but some gunnuts will do anything to mislead.

Clames Disingenuous is the argument is that a .223 will make you more dead than .22LR. Which sums up the vast majority of your arguments.

Pretty specious reasoning which superficially glosses over the underlying point, survivability, somewhat the opposite of lethality.

[petronius]

21. Your examples of 'people claiming .22=.223' are of people explicitly not

making that claim.

But perhaps you're right, I shouldn't say never - there is nothing so ludicrous or ignorant that it won't be said by someone, somewhere, at least once. However, it's pretty clear that ".22 = .223" is nowhere close to being a common argument, and is in fact so rare (when seriously meant) as to be completely irrelevant...

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

25. actually there are more of these kinds of claims than you would expect

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

where it gets interesting is what is meant by 'no different'; in some claims, it has to do with lethality, that a .22 LR is more lethal than people give it credit in comparison to the .223

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=503007

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/20120830.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/20120830.aspx

Then you can find the blogs and web sites trying to educate those 'many people who believe the .22 and the .223] are the same or similar, like this one, note the phrase 'many people' (emphasis in bold is mine):

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/140644-comparing-the-bushmaster-223-22-rifle/

"The Bushmaster fires a .223 round...many ppl think that's similar to the .22, a common ammo used in hunting.

They're VERY different."

or a discussion about are they the same or are they different, from here on DU, which if not 'many people' at least the poster had unclear understanding of the difference, which would suggest having heard conflicting opinions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021982591#post13

and the it is bigger it isn't bigger discussion:

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/36893-my-first-ar-question-22lr-vs-223556/

And I don't have time to go through the thousands of comments, for examples, on various sites about the Sandy Hook massacres and other mass shootings that make this a common argument, point of contention, difference of opinion, however you want to frame it, mostly in the context of gun control.

And YES, there are a surprising number that believe that because both are a kind of .22 caliber ammunition, they must be the same size, with just a difference in how the bullet is made / how- heavy it is or how much powder it contains.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021982591#post13

[petronius]

27. Not one of those links - as far as I can tell - goes to anyone arguing that

22lr and .223 are equivalent. In fact, they're pretty much all the opposite.

In your OP you stated that you roll your eyes every time you meet this disingenuous argument, so just tell us straight: who exactly are you rolling your eyes at, who really is making this argument, and where and how often are you meeting it?

Because to me it really looks like you've either seriously failed to understand much of what you've read, or you've disingenuously created a strawman here...

[Clames]

47. Not specious at all if you know the facts.

You obviously don't but I'll fill you in a little. Looking at all the data concerning criminal use of firearms and the types of firearms mostly preferred (cheap, easily concealed handguns) by criminals (not surprisingly, the most statistically likely to be used in murders) a very obvious pattern emerges (as noted in multiple studies conducted by the ATF and NBoJS). If you are truly concerned then you have much more to worry about with .22LR chambered handguns as they used far more frequently than anything in .223 Remington. The Jennings J22 comes to mind here along with several other .25, .32, and .38 caliber "junk" handguns that are favored by criminals.



Yeah, being killed by a .22LR is bad but it would be worse if it was with a .223...

[Puha Ekapi]

24. since no one I know of...

...is making the argument that the .22 long rifle round is equal in power to a 5.56 NATO, which it clearly isn't, are you arguing that the 5.56 NATO should be restricted because it is TOO powerful? My 7mm Rem. mag will throw a bullet 3 times the weight of the 5.56 at the same speed. Is that too powerful?

[ileus]

26. 22-250 best turkey round ever.

[Eleanors38]

28. Disengenuous argument starts with the OP...

You cited a statement which rather accurately describes the differences between a .22 and .223 and you roll your eyes? What is the problem? Is the description inaccurate?

There is also some feint and dodge when the rimfire .22 is described as old technology (true to some extent), but then a leapfrog to presumably new technology of the .223. The centerfire .223 shares the same ignition system of ammo made for the last 120 years. Missing, of course, is a comparison with, say, the hoary .30 '06, a Pepsi-common centerfire round of far greater power, and one which has been around since 1906.

So what are you driving at, dog gone?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

31. that there are a lot of ignorant voices speaking as expert in the gun control debates

and that it resulting in a lot of mistaken assumptions about ammunition and firearms both.

[Clames]

32. And how are you helping by adding your voice to the fray?

The anti-gun crowd does own the most stock in terms of technical ignorance when it comes to firearms and ammunition. Not even debatable since some have even started they are proud of their ignorance on this matter. Common to see technical details that are important dismissed as frivolous by those who rather hurl emotionally charged insults at gun owners that actually discus.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

36. I think the visual is a great refutation

the picture that is worth a thousand words of argument.

[iiibbb]

37. of a non-issue

Even if some morons are claiming equivalence, the 223 isn't even legal to hunt large game with because it isn't lethal enough.

[Clames]

38. If you had an argument to refute you might have a point.

Unfortunately for you, you are just pissing in the wind.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

41. see some great examples below, posted by others

There are a lot of lies generally being introduced into the gun control discussion.

One, that semi-automatics only single fire, per trigger pull ---- except that as has been demonstrated, that frequency of fire, particularly with the various means of bump firing, is so similar to full auto as to have virtually no difference

Two, that assault-style weapons are not assault weapons, and the differences are cosmetic --- they are functional differences, see above.

Three, that there are no significant differences in .22 cal ammo. The conflicting claims about lethality and other effective or pragmatic differences are at one end of the spectrum of this, with those who wrongly believe all .22 cal ammo to be similar are just wrong. But both kinds of 'wrong' are muddying the discussion of gun control, and muddying it a LOT.

As noted in the DC ban on assault and assault STYLE weapons, they exist to be similar to military weapons with the intent of killing people, not for sport, as the intention of their design. Statistically, these assault style weapons shoot more rounds per firing, put more holes in people. and tend to shoot more people than other kinds of firearms, (presuming an expanded capacity magazine).

Unless you have an argument that gets past those issues - rapid fire of a large quantity of ammunition that kills or injures more people, with more holes from the ammo than other firearms, there is no good argument AGAINST a ban on those two things - assault style weapons and large capacity magazines, for ANY kind of .22 cal round or any other kind of round, with the possible exception of paint balls.

[gejohnston]

42. what lies?

and based on what? Just because we don't accept technical ignorance and distortions to serve your purposes as truth doesn't make them lies.

One, that semi-automatics only single fire, per trigger pull ---- except that as has been demonstrated, that frequency of fire, particularly with the various means of bump firing, is so similar to full auto as to have virtually no difference

crudely simulating full auto fire is not the same. Semi automatics do in fact fire a single round per trigger pull, otherwise the ATF would have banned the stocks.

Two, that assault-style weapons are not assault weapons, and the differences are cosmetic --- they are functional differences, see above.

both are political terms, not technical terms. Those who coined the terms use they synonymously.

Three, that there are no significant differences in .22 cal ammo. The conflicting claims about lethality and other effective or pragmatic differences are at one end of the spectrum of this, with those who wrongly believe all .22 cal ammo to be similar are just wrong. But both kinds of 'wrong' are muddying the discussion of gun control, and muddying it a LOT.

Who makes this claim? Do you actually understand what was being said?

As noted in the DC ban on assault and assault STYLE weapons, they exist to be similar to military weapons with the intent of killing people, not for sport, as the intention of their design. Statistically, these assault style weapons shoot more rounds per firing, put more holes in people. and tend to shoot more people than other kinds of firearms, (presuming an expanded capacity magazine).

An appeals court ruling does not make it true in the real world.

Unless you have an argument that gets past those issues - rapid fire of a large quantity of ammunition that kills or injures more people, with more holes from the ammo than other firearms, there is no good argument AGAINST a ban on those two things - assault style weapons and large capacity magazines, for ANY kind of .22 cal round or any other kind of round, with the possible exception of paint balls.

You have not successfully proven that claim.

[Clames]

43. Only lies I see are yours and your deliberate dishonesty....

....makes refuting your points exceedingly easy.


Fist, semi-automatics are exactly that and bump firing device approaches the sustained cyclic-rate of fire that true military assault rifles possess. That comes from actual military experience and not poorly researched imaginings that you have produced. Yes there are significant material and physical differences which you lack the technical competency to understand.


Second, you have yet to cite proof that anyone has made the assertion about .22 cal ammo. Only one muddying the discussion is you with your deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

The rest is just the usual boring rhetoric that has been shot down for years. You have failed, get over it....

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Speaking of lies.

"One, that semi-automatics only single fire, per trigger pull ---- except that as has been demonstrated, that frequency of fire, particularly with the various means of bump firing, is so similar to full auto as to have virtually no difference"

You can aim a fully auto weapon firing properly in FA mode, if you're strong enough to control it. By the very mechanism by which a rifle is bump fired, you cannot control the weapon with anywhere near the precision. You have to hold the gun loosely in your hand and let the recoil jack the weapon back and forth against your trigger finger.

Hard enough to control FA weapons without holding them like that.

[iiibbb]

33. More Irony...

... you are a fountain of irony.

And this is an anonymous website... I hope no one is coming here for "expert" opinion... although some of the opinions here have a lot more iron than the so-called experts paraded in front of us in the press.

[Eleanors38]

35. The instant issue about munitions misses some wider truths...

The tecnology employed by an AR 15 is old.

The technology of firearms available to civilians reached a stasis decades ago.

The calibers of a given semi-auto are numerous, and include some much more powerful than .223.

Several "standard" mags are more easily secreted than one super-duper mag.

At some point in the debate over which arm or ammunition type to ban, the lethality of the thing is noodled over as if it was peculiarly pernicious when compared to other things (see Ted Kennedy's reference to the hoary .30-30 round of c.1895 as a "cop-killer" bullet).

And every fall I take to the deer woods with a common-as-flies .270, which will pass through more stuff than a .30-30 couldn't get to.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Any here on DU, or in the gungeon?

Side question, had the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary used a Marlin Papoose .22lr rifle, would any of those kids have been any less dead, having taken multiple shots in the head?

(They would have been just as dead, so, while the .223 IS a lot more powerful than .22lr, .22lr ain't exactly a slap with a feather pillow either, and NEITHER is powerful enough to use against deer in most states. .243 cal minimum in Washington, for instance.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. A brilliant refutation...

...of an argument no one is making.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

30. Except that a surprising number of people ARE claiming all .22 cal is essentially the same

Just because you're not doesn't make it true that other people do not make the argument. They do, and a number of examples of that were posted here already.

[iiibbb]

34. Anyone claiming they are the same ... are in fact disiginuous or ignorant

But that does not exempt you for implying that the .223 round is anything magic.

The .223 is in fact roundly criticized as being under-powered and ineffective by some.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-26-1159695958_x.htm

WASHINGTON — As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.

As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.

"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."

Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S. The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

[aikoaiko]

39. Can you show us some examples?

[jimmy the one]

40. like two peas in a ..... in a ...

aikoaiko asked penigma: Can you show us some examples?

Well, iiibbb sorta did in the post just above yours, aiko:

iiibbb: But that does not exempt you for implying that the .223 round is anything magic. The .223 is in fact roundly criticized as being under-powered and ineffective by some. .. The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Thanks iiibbb, & concurrently you brought up an afterthought. The 22 long or short bullet, is indeed 'more lethal' than the .223 in the gundeath sense. The 22 caliber bullet owns the distinction of being the most popular caliber to commit suicide with, & it also is involved in homicides more frequently than the .223 as most everyone here has pointed out to some extent. So there might be yearly, a few thousand gundeaths due the 22, but only a few hundred from the .223.
.. of course this is a disingenuous argument to play devils advocate. My point is, the .223 gets 'downplayed' playing with facts & figures, in order for gunnuts to justify possession & constitutional legality of .223/ar15.
Of course the .223 bullet is up to 10 times more powerful than a 22, & generally causes far more severe injury than a low speed 22. The .223 does'nt have the stopping power of a larger caliber rifle game bullet since it was designed to incapacitate as well as kill, as a light bullet (~60 grains compared to 200), but when you toss in 'survivability' after a few hours or days, it ranks right there with the heavies.

iiibbb: —As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry. "Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."

Quite, but them carrying m16s can carry 2 or 3 times more bullets than higgins can, lasting two or 3 times longer, the designed advantage of the m16 (translated to ar15). I'm pretty sure they were designed to be used together, the two rifles, for contributing purpose etc, I didn't get tactical combat training in the navy but this just seems to go together, like two peas in a, a, a ..... a shell.

[aikoaiko]

44. Not quite. I'd like to see examples of "a .223 is no different than a .22"

Last edited Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Or someone "claiming all .22 cal is essentially the same".

In your OP you wrote that " I find myself rolling my eyes when someone makes the disingenuous argument postered below" so I am confident you can provide examples.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. You, too, noticed that *no* examples were given by the OP's author

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Then you should have no problem linking to such claims...