A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Really, really dumb



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old January 17th 20, 08:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,130
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/17/2020 12:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/


starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/



That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and
durable
one."

Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an
AR-15 .223 round!

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down.

Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in
lethality between a 22LR and
an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy)
and its shape, and how
they affect the internal organs and/or bones.

An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities



We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical
knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical
damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give
several links to details, if really needed - and I can't
believe it's needed.

But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard
22LR were as lethal as
a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the
much more expensive
ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to
carry? Why would they not
just use 22s?

Again: Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski


Maybe they know something about their craft.

Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/
7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue
rifles?


Because they found that the benefits of carrying more
lighter rounds greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier
rounds. And because the 223 cartridge was much more deadly
once it entered an enemy's body. There were reports (from
special forces who first used these guns) of 223s leaving
gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous
designs would pass through and cause much less damage. Also,
the AR-style gun itself was easier to shoot.

Here, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/



As with tires or anything else there may well be an
optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series
of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at
which time something else may be optimal.


Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday)
is still true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than
that of a backyard 22 rifle. If it were not, soldiers would
be shooting 22LRs in battle.


Not as deadly generally as 7.62. Or a Barrett .50 for that matter.
Special Forces still make excellent use of .22 for some types of action
(as a recent post noted).* No matter how you try to spin this, an AR-15
semi is not magic, and a .223 is not magic either. They are both
mediocre in a range of weapons by any measure.


Can we return to what was actually said, please?

The actual point I was discussing was Tom's claim: "A .22 long rifle is
at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15."

That was and remains bull****, no matter how much people try to sidestep
into other matters.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #252  
Old January 17th 20, 10:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,560
Default Really, really dumb

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:38:10 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 12:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/


starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/



That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and
durable
one."

Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an
AR-15 .223 round!

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down.

Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in
lethality between a 22LR and
an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy)
and its shape, and how
they affect the internal organs and/or bones.

An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities



We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical
knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical
damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give
several links to details, if really needed - and I can't
believe it's needed.

But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard
22LR were as lethal as
a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the
much more expensive
ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to
carry? Why would they not
just use 22s?

Again: Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski


Maybe they know something about their craft.

Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/
7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue
rifles?

Because they found that the benefits of carrying more
lighter rounds greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier
rounds. And because the 223 cartridge was much more deadly
once it entered an enemy's body. There were reports (from
special forces who first used these guns) of 223s leaving
gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous
designs would pass through and cause much less damage. Also,
the AR-style gun itself was easier to shoot.

Here, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/



As with tires or anything else there may well be an
optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series
of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at
which time something else may be optimal.

Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday)
is still true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than
that of a backyard 22 rifle. If it were not, soldiers would
be shooting 22LRs in battle.


Not as deadly generally as 7.62. Or a Barrett .50 for that matter.
Special Forces still make excellent use of .22 for some types of action
(as a recent post noted).* No matter how you try to spin this, an AR-15
semi is not magic, and a .223 is not magic either. They are both
mediocre in a range of weapons by any measure.


Can we return to what was actually said, please?

The actual point I was discussing was Tom's claim: "A .22 long rifle is
at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15."

That was and remains bull****, no matter how much people try to sidestep
into other matters.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Bloody hell, Krygowski, I know next to nothing about guns and could care less (sorry, y'all NRA stalwarts but I'm more into internal combustion; all the firearms I've ever owned or used were given to, issued to me, or inherited by me) but even I know that a .22 long rifle is a dangerous craftsman's tool, whereas a .223 AR15 is an American Kalashnikov, crap in almost anyone's hands, good only for short range spraying of bullets in the hope that one of the many bullets hits bone and starts tumbling. It was the perfect weapon of an army that doesn't exist any more -- a half-trained conscript army fighting in a jungle where one would come on the enemy suddenly at a range of a few feet, rather than today's professional army fighting in open deserts.

Ande Jute
Some people would look a lot wiser if they kept their mouth firmly shut
  #253  
Old January 18th 20, 12:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,538
Default Really, really dumb

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:01:09 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/
starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/

That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable
one."


Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round!

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down.


Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and
an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how
they affect the internal organs and/or bones.

An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities


We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give
several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed.

But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as
a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive
ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not
just use 22s?

Again: Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski


Maybe they know something about their craft.

Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/
7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue
rifles?

As with tires or anything else there may well be an optimal
solution at some point in time to a dynamic series of
problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at
which time something else may be optimal.


The current thought is to do away with the .22 caliber M-16 cartridge
and the new standard will be a cartridge in the 6.5 - 7mm range
which would increase both accurate range and allow the use of squad
level machine guns in the same caliber.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #254  
Old January 18th 20, 09:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Really, really dumb

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 1:37:07 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:38:10 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 12:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/


starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/



That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and
durable
one."

Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an
AR-15 .223 round!

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down.

Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in
lethality between a 22LR and
an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy)
and its shape, and how
they affect the internal organs and/or bones.

An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities



We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical
knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical
damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give
several links to details, if really needed - and I can't
believe it's needed.

But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard
22LR were as lethal as
a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the
much more expensive
ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to
carry? Why would they not
just use 22s?

Again: Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski


Maybe they know something about their craft.

Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/
7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue
rifles?

Because they found that the benefits of carrying more
lighter rounds greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier
rounds. And because the 223 cartridge was much more deadly
once it entered an enemy's body. There were reports (from
special forces who first used these guns) of 223s leaving
gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous
designs would pass through and cause much less damage. Also,
the AR-style gun itself was easier to shoot.

Here, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/



As with tires or anything else there may well be an
optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series
of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at
which time something else may be optimal.

Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday)
is still true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than
that of a backyard 22 rifle. If it were not, soldiers would
be shooting 22LRs in battle.


Not as deadly generally as 7.62. Or a Barrett .50 for that matter.
Special Forces still make excellent use of .22 for some types of action
(as a recent post noted).* No matter how you try to spin this, an AR-15
semi is not magic, and a .223 is not magic either. They are both
mediocre in a range of weapons by any measure.


Can we return to what was actually said, please?

The actual point I was discussing was Tom's claim: "A .22 long rifle is
at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15."

That was and remains bull****, no matter how much people try to sidestep
into other matters.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Bloody hell, Krygowski, I know next to nothing about guns and could care less (sorry, y'all NRA stalwarts but I'm more into internal combustion; all the firearms I've ever owned or used were given to, issued to me, or inherited by me) but even I know that a .22 long rifle is a dangerous craftsman's tool, whereas a .223 AR15 is an American Kalashnikov, crap in almost anyone's hands, good only for short range spraying of bullets in the hope that one of the many bullets hits bone and starts tumbling. It was the perfect weapon of an army that doesn't exist any more -- a half-trained conscript army fighting in a jungle where one would come on the enemy suddenly at a range of a few feet, rather than today's professional army fighting in open deserts.

Ande Jute
Some people would look a lot wiser if they kept their mouth firmly shut


Krygowski completely agrees with your "spraying" statement because he wants to believe that fully automatic and semi-automatic are the same thing.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is just dumb... Uncle Dave Racing 19 September 28th 09 08:58 AM
HOW dumb?? Brimstone[_6_] UK 89 April 6th 09 03:49 PM
this is so dumb brockfisher05 Unicycling 10 December 18th 04 03:38 AM
Dumb question the black rose General 12 October 19th 04 09:37 PM
How dumb am I? Andy P UK 2 September 18th 03 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.