Another Debunking Thread
- Thread starter BigG
- Start date
"".223 Remington/5.56mmNATO can do everything the .308 Win/7.62mmNATO can, all the way out to 1000 yards".
That is one that I haven't heard. But one I have heard is that the AR15 is more accurate than the M14 out to 1000 yards, only this is no myth. It is fact. Is this being done with the same bone stock AR15 that you might buy retail at your local gun store ? No and the M14 it is shooting against arn't either. Does it take ammo that doesn't feed through the magazine ? Yes. Does that change the fact ? No. It the whole thing just a function of a shooting game that has no basis in the reality of military combat ? Yes. Does that change anything ? No. Does any partiuclar individual's interest in it change any of that ? No. Does the AR15 need these 80 grain bullets that are too long to fit in the magazine to shoot past 400 yards ? No. From what I read, that is what they use past 600 yards. Does formal target shooting have to conform to the realities of military combat ? No. Does recreational shooting of any kind have to conform to the realities of military combat ? No. Do gunowners who arn't interested in military combat, SHTF senarios, home defense etc. exist ? Yes. Are they any less of a man for it ? No.
That is one that I haven't heard. But one I have heard is that the AR15 is more accurate than the M14 out to 1000 yards, only this is no myth. It is fact. Is this being done with the same bone stock AR15 that you might buy retail at your local gun store ? No and the M14 it is shooting against arn't either. Does it take ammo that doesn't feed through the magazine ? Yes. Does that change the fact ? No. It the whole thing just a function of a shooting game that has no basis in the reality of military combat ? Yes. Does that change anything ? No. Does any partiuclar individual's interest in it change any of that ? No. Does the AR15 need these 80 grain bullets that are too long to fit in the magazine to shoot past 400 yards ? No. From what I read, that is what they use past 600 yards. Does formal target shooting have to conform to the realities of military combat ? No. Does recreational shooting of any kind have to conform to the realities of military combat ? No. Do gunowners who arn't interested in military combat, SHTF senarios, home defense etc. exist ? Yes. Are they any less of a man for it ? No.
Preacherman
New member
Matthew, I don't think that semi-auto vs. pump shotgun reliability thing is a myth at all! You may not have seen the long review I posted about Mas Ayoob's LFI-2 and -3 classes in the Training forum, but on those courses, every single semi-auto shotgun (Remington's, Mossberg's, Benelli's, and even a Saiga magazine-fed 12ga.) malfunctioned at least once, taking the weapon off-line during a high-speed, high-stress course of fire. A couple of them were down for a day or two until a gunsmith could fix them. Pumps didn't have nearly as many problems...
Double Naught Spy
New member
BigG, you mentioned Ayoob (not by name) for making a variety of statements pertaining to getting arrested because of the ammo used (reloads for example), gun modifications, etc., in a defensive shooting. Folks often bow to the reasoning as being fully correct or real because Ayoob is an authority and authorities know what they are talking about. This is a type of reasoning fallacy called an appeal to authority where the authority is to be believed when there is no evidence presented to support the position other than attributing it to the authority.
Another classic appeal to authority, actually an appeal to a disembodied or deceased authority commonly done in some of the gun discussions is to attribute aspects of design, use, and intent of John Moses Browning's 1911 guns. People will claim that JMB intended for 1911s to be carried in Condition 1, but such information has never been substantiated as Browning apparently never recorded such a statement for us to verify. Another is that JMB designed the perfect combat handgun and that if he didn't put certain features on his 1911s, then those features are not needed now. JMB's 1911 prototypes, however, have many differences from what became the 1911. As I recall, the military specified somthing like 46 changes to the gun before it was adopted. In other words, the 1911 design is not solely JMB's at all, but an adaptation of his design to meet ever changing military specifications.
Ironically, while you noted the shortcoming of the appeal to authority, you did the same thing. There is little doubt that there are all sorts of myths or legends about firearms that are not true, but by simply stating an opinion that the myth is not true does not actually debunk the myth. To debunk, you would need to provide data to substantiate your hypothesis. This is definitely the case in your argument that civilian and military ammo are not different. With no actual evidence, you are committing a fallacy of faulty generalization. This may also be a fallacy of the appeal to authority where you are treating yourself as the authority on the matter and as that authority, you consider the statement to be correct.
Additionally, while reloading books may not say military brass is 10% thicker and that you should adjust your powder accordingly, this lack of information does debunk that the rounds are the same. An absence of data neither justifies or refutes such claims. In rhetoric/logic, this is a fallacy called "affirming from negative."
Another classic appeal to authority, actually an appeal to a disembodied or deceased authority commonly done in some of the gun discussions is to attribute aspects of design, use, and intent of John Moses Browning's 1911 guns. People will claim that JMB intended for 1911s to be carried in Condition 1, but such information has never been substantiated as Browning apparently never recorded such a statement for us to verify. Another is that JMB designed the perfect combat handgun and that if he didn't put certain features on his 1911s, then those features are not needed now. JMB's 1911 prototypes, however, have many differences from what became the 1911. As I recall, the military specified somthing like 46 changes to the gun before it was adopted. In other words, the 1911 design is not solely JMB's at all, but an adaptation of his design to meet ever changing military specifications.
Ironically, while you noted the shortcoming of the appeal to authority, you did the same thing. There is little doubt that there are all sorts of myths or legends about firearms that are not true, but by simply stating an opinion that the myth is not true does not actually debunk the myth. To debunk, you would need to provide data to substantiate your hypothesis. This is definitely the case in your argument that civilian and military ammo are not different. With no actual evidence, you are committing a fallacy of faulty generalization. This may also be a fallacy of the appeal to authority where you are treating yourself as the authority on the matter and as that authority, you consider the statement to be correct.
Additionally, while reloading books may not say military brass is 10% thicker and that you should adjust your powder accordingly, this lack of information does debunk that the rounds are the same. An absence of data neither justifies or refutes such claims. In rhetoric/logic, this is a fallacy called "affirming from negative."
lonegunman
New member
444...
i think your last post was a thread-within-a-thread...
How many of you are there?
i think your last post was a thread-within-a-thread...
How many of you are there?
Double Naught Spy, I am going to be the first one to offer to shake your hand for debunking the myth of JMB and the god-inspired 45 Auto design. There is so much hype and myth about this weapon that it rivals the claims about Harley Davidson motorcycles as being handed down from the mountain by divine authority as it were.
The gunwriter-whose-name-may-not-be-spoken (r) is an example of niche marketing, kinda like insurance or other products people can't really figure out why they need unless they are required by law. Pick a subject no one knows or cares much about, scare the bejesus out of the sheepish ones by saying "what if?" long enough and loud enough until you get an audience and they begin repeating your "what ifs" as if they were facts on file.
I must bow to your criticism of my self appointed authority about the difference between the American and metric versions of the NATO cartridges, as I certainly did not state any particular credentials nor do I have any except for being an avid shooter of as many years as anybody my age on this board. My opinion is that you can take a factory military ctg and fire it in a civilian chamber or vice versa and I have and will continue to do so. No ill effects, thus far. Now, my weapons are standard factory weapons. My AR15s are Colts with 1:12 or 1:7 twists. My current 308 and the others I have owned are factory guns, also. There are no non standard 1:9 or 1:8 or other twist or any match chambers or such in my 223/5.56 guns. I do not know why they have these features except that they must be made to fire other than M193 or M855 ammo.
If you are a reloader, imho, you are on your own and must follow your own common sense, which I do when I crank up the press. I maintain that just because SAAMI has issued a warning about mil brass being different in some way it may be more about product liability than a real difference that will make it unsafe to shoot in a reasonable quality factory weapon. If you read most owners manuals it will say the warranty is void if other than commercial ammunition is fired in the weapon, no reloads, no surplus. That is a total cop out unless there is some difference which I seriously doubt. This is an analogous story. The original 1911 pistol first made by Colt was drawn up in theory complete with detailed measurements by the original Springfield Armory when they were chosen as an alternate source. When they tried to manufacture the pistol according to the drawing, it did not work. Baffled, they went to Colt and asked why. Colt showed them the pistol was different from the theoretical model. Springfield redrew their blueprints according to the pistols actually produced by Colt and began to manufacture acceptable 1911 pistols.
Many warnings are made because of the lawsuit happy public. Remember the lady who spilled hot coffee on her genital area and got a big settlement from McDonalds which prompted them to label their coffee cups as containing hot liquid?
Again, great reasoning.
444: It never fails, the minute somebody says something can't be done, danged if somebody doesn't do it. The 223 can shoot well at 1000 yards, but is what it takes to do it everybody's cup of tea? It ain't mine, I can tell you that, but if it's yours, welcome brother!
The gunwriter-whose-name-may-not-be-spoken (r) is an example of niche marketing, kinda like insurance or other products people can't really figure out why they need unless they are required by law. Pick a subject no one knows or cares much about, scare the bejesus out of the sheepish ones by saying "what if?" long enough and loud enough until you get an audience and they begin repeating your "what ifs" as if they were facts on file.
I must bow to your criticism of my self appointed authority about the difference between the American and metric versions of the NATO cartridges, as I certainly did not state any particular credentials nor do I have any except for being an avid shooter of as many years as anybody my age on this board. My opinion is that you can take a factory military ctg and fire it in a civilian chamber or vice versa and I have and will continue to do so. No ill effects, thus far. Now, my weapons are standard factory weapons. My AR15s are Colts with 1:12 or 1:7 twists. My current 308 and the others I have owned are factory guns, also. There are no non standard 1:9 or 1:8 or other twist or any match chambers or such in my 223/5.56 guns. I do not know why they have these features except that they must be made to fire other than M193 or M855 ammo.
If you are a reloader, imho, you are on your own and must follow your own common sense, which I do when I crank up the press. I maintain that just because SAAMI has issued a warning about mil brass being different in some way it may be more about product liability than a real difference that will make it unsafe to shoot in a reasonable quality factory weapon. If you read most owners manuals it will say the warranty is void if other than commercial ammunition is fired in the weapon, no reloads, no surplus. That is a total cop out unless there is some difference which I seriously doubt. This is an analogous story. The original 1911 pistol first made by Colt was drawn up in theory complete with detailed measurements by the original Springfield Armory when they were chosen as an alternate source. When they tried to manufacture the pistol according to the drawing, it did not work. Baffled, they went to Colt and asked why. Colt showed them the pistol was different from the theoretical model. Springfield redrew their blueprints according to the pistols actually produced by Colt and began to manufacture acceptable 1911 pistols.
Many warnings are made because of the lawsuit happy public. Remember the lady who spilled hot coffee on her genital area and got a big settlement from McDonalds which prompted them to label their coffee cups as containing hot liquid?
Again, great reasoning.
444: It never fails, the minute somebody says something can't be done, danged if somebody doesn't do it. The 223 can shoot well at 1000 yards, but is what it takes to do it everybody's cup of tea? It ain't mine, I can tell you that, but if it's yours, welcome brother!
My favorite myth that needs to be dispelled: the idea that because you can't find a case on point, that the issue (i.e. safeties, reloads, etc) is a nonissue. People who cling to this myth demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system, and more particular the case law reporting system, operates.
Good point, Buzz.
Actually, this PART of that myth has been true in a few places. Because of the eeeeevil reputation of the horrible man-killing-baby-raping-rain-forest-burning Maaaaagnums (tm), some agencies bowed to public pressure (read: activist whining) and dropped the use of anything called a magnum. One such was Santa Ana PD in S Cal. The boys were told they could carry any revolver that was NOT a magnum caliber. So most of them went out and bought S&W 25s in 45 LC. Winchester Silvertip was the ammo of choice. No hollowpoints here, boss! (This was in the neighborhood of 1980 or so, IIRC.)
And I recall reading (in a gun rag, so we know it was true!) about a cop who was prosecuted by a DA for murder. He shot the perp 3 times with a .357. According to the DA, he "shot him too many times with too powerful a gun!"
'Course they are! Those rounds will easily travel that far! Got a big enough target, you might even hit it!
Actually, this PART of that myth has been true in a few places. Because of the eeeeevil reputation of the horrible man-killing-baby-raping-rain-forest-burning Maaaaagnums (tm), some agencies bowed to public pressure (read: activist whining) and dropped the use of anything called a magnum. One such was Santa Ana PD in S Cal. The boys were told they could carry any revolver that was NOT a magnum caliber. So most of them went out and bought S&W 25s in 45 LC. Winchester Silvertip was the ammo of choice. No hollowpoints here, boss!
(This was in the neighborhood of 1980 or so, IIRC.)And I recall reading (in a gun rag, so we know it was true!) about a cop who was prosecuted by a DA for murder. He shot the perp 3 times with a .357. According to the DA, he "shot him too many times with too powerful a gun!"
'Course they are! Those rounds will easily travel that far! Got a big enough target, you might even hit it!
Mike Irwin
Staff
Depends on what you call the engine block, Jim.
And I'd say it also depends on what it's made out of.
I've seen .357 Mag. rounds penetrate the water jackets on an aluminum engine block.
And I'd say it also depends on what it's made out of.
I've seen .357 Mag. rounds penetrate the water jackets on an aluminum engine block.
No, but it would amaze the ".308 is the only battle rifle!" crowd. I ain't one of them. But I don't think the .223 is generally as accurate as the .308 at that range. It IS a lot more accurate than a lot of folks realize. In Basic Training, using issued M-16s, I shot pretty well at the KD range. IIRC, that was 500 meters. But in combat, if I KNOW I'm going to need a 1000 yard shooter, I'll try to bring a Barett .50, thank you!
And where you hit it. (main body vs. lower end in the skirt)
And what condition it's in. (stripped of all internal parts, on a stand in the desert, vs. in a car in functional condition.)
VARIABLES! YOU GOTTA CONTROL THE VARIABLES!
This whole .223 thing is a drum I am beating because I am on a major AR15 kick. I freely admit that I have never done any formal match target shooting but in my research on the subject I was utterly amazed at what is being done with the AR15.
"But I don't think the .223 is generally as accurate as the .308 at that range."
I would say that the word generally is the operative word there. It is true that if you take the run of the mill AR and run of the mill ammo vs. the same type of setup in .308. The average guy would probably have a better chance out at those extreme ranges with the .308. . But appearently when it comes to the real players in the long range target arena, they are easily holding their own with all comers, and beating them on a regular basis. Yes, they are using highly specialized guns and loads. But the proof is out there for all to see. I am talking about potential accuracy and not what the average joe can do with his sporter or carbine and factory/surplus ammo. The human element is certainly the most important factor in an;y accuracy discussion, but I am talking about the best shooters who focus their goals on this type of shooting. Again, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, this probably has nothing to do with combat, but in any discussion we have to stick to one subject to make it meaningful.
"But I don't think the .223 is generally as accurate as the .308 at that range."
I would say that the word generally is the operative word there. It is true that if you take the run of the mill AR and run of the mill ammo vs. the same type of setup in .308. The average guy would probably have a better chance out at those extreme ranges with the .308. . But appearently when it comes to the real players in the long range target arena, they are easily holding their own with all comers, and beating them on a regular basis. Yes, they are using highly specialized guns and loads. But the proof is out there for all to see. I am talking about potential accuracy and not what the average joe can do with his sporter or carbine and factory/surplus ammo. The human element is certainly the most important factor in an;y accuracy discussion, but I am talking about the best shooters who focus their goals on this type of shooting. Again, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, this probably has nothing to do with combat, but in any discussion we have to stick to one subject to make it meaningful.