interesting observation...

Kareir

How come armies can shoot people with a .223, yet you can't shoot a deer in ireland with anything under a 22-250? i mean, a swift is still capable of the power at ~200 yrds, yet it's illegal to shoot a deer.
why?

-Kar

dos29

because, in a military war time environment, the .223, (5.56mm) is NOT supposed to kill. it is supposed to severely injure, thus incapacitating at least 2 extra persons at a time to carry,(stretcher,drag) the injured party to somewhere deemed safe for medevac. it is, in military, (NATO, UN) terms, an incapacitating round, NOT a killer.
in the world of hunting, i dont have any experience, but as an informed guess, the size of bullet is probably to compensate for poor shots, (as well as the DoJ being mis-informed). i have no doubt a .223 could take down a deer, as long as its at the right range, with the right bullet, and the right shot placement. BUT......get any one of these factors wrong and you end up with a severely injured animal needlessly.
by making the legal calibre .243, they at least reduce one of the risks. please dont get me wrong, i think education should be a much higher consideration on the governments part than calibre, but we'll be waiting a long, LONG time til this country's government shows anything more than a shred of common sense, which as we all know by now, is FAR less than common.

dos29

one more thing, the classifications of acceptable calibres for shooting deer are in my knowledge not strictly down to size of round. in fact i think .223 would be sufficiant so long as you could get the right muzzle velocity for the round. i dont know of a .223 round that passes the muzzle velocity test, but maybe you'll have better luck than i did!!!
if so, pass on details...............!!!!!:D
apoligies if i seem harsh on any point, i've only just realised that was your 1st post and you might be very innocent in the ways of firearms legislation. i really hope this in no way turns you off firearms. i am by no means an expert on anything ive commented on, its just that im in the army and id like to dispell any false rumours floating, like "why .223 is ok to shoot people with, but not deer".
hope to see ya stick around.

revan23

i cant say i know anything about deer hunting, but as far as i know the swift round is fine for deer in other countries, you have to take into account the bullet types too... soft-point bullets are basicaly dum-dum rounds which are illegal for military use because they fragment on impact causing much more damage than a FMJ, in my opinion a swift is more than enough to kill a deer, but that might not be shared by the powers that be

Kareir

It is. i know a guy who used to shoot deer with a Hornet (in the head, before the law stating the minimum calibre.)
and i thought that the requirement wasn't the speed of the bullet, just that it had to have a certain amount of energy. (i heard over 1000 Ft/lbs at 200yrds, cant confirm that, though), which the swift still has. Is it me, or should the DoJ have some representitives from the national shooting association? (cant remember the damn acronym ><)

-Kar

José Alaninho

Kareir wrote: »

How come armies can shoot people with a .223, yet you can't shoot a deer in ireland with anything under a 22-250?

As well as all the other points mentioned, isn't a deer a hell of a lot bigger by mass and weight than your average person, therefore requiring a lot more knockdown power (ft/lbs)?

foxshooter243

José Alaninho wrote: »

As well as all the other points mentioned, isn't a deer a hell of a lot bigger by mass and weight than your average person, therefore requiring a lot more knockdown power (ft/lbs)?

good point jose, and it must be remembered that the infantry soldier that serving in iraq and afghanistan are none too happy with the 5.56 , thats why there are more and more m 14s being issued and the sidearm calibre is being stepped up to 45 calibre. more knockdown power is required:D

José Alaninho

foxshooter243 wrote: »

good point jose, and it must be remembered that the infantry soldier that serving in iraq and afghanistan are none too happy with the 5.56 , thats why there are more and more m 14s being issued and the sidearm calibre is being stepped up to 45 calibre. more knockdown power is required:D

I read in Guns & Ammo a while back in an interview with a US Cavalry Lieutenant, that he shot one of the 'hajji' with his M16 and the bastard kept running, took two more rounds to put him down! He then said one round from an M14 took out an insurgent at four hundred yards in one shot. Just goes to show.... lot to be said for the old favourites.

foxshooter243

José Alaninho wrote: »

I read in Guns & Ammo a while back in an interview with a US Cavalry Lieutenant, that he shot one of the 'hajji' with his M16 and the bastard kept running, took two more rounds to put him down! He then said one round from an M14 took out an insurgent at four hundred yards in one shot. Just goes to show.... lot to be said for the old favourites.

as the saying goes " use enough gun":D

rob308

the minimum for deer hunting is .22-250 with a 55 grain bullet. i remember a few years back the miaximum legal bullet weight that ya could buy over here was 52 grains so therefore it was below the legal minimum. i dont know if this still the case or not with the swift

Manic Moran

dos29 wrote: »

because, in a military war time environment, the .223, (5.56mm) is NOT supposed to kill. it is supposed to severely injure, thus incapacitating at least 2 extra persons at a time to carry,(stretcher,drag) the injured party to somewhere deemed safe for medevac. it is, in military, (NATO, UN) terms, an incapacitating round, NOT a killer.

A very common misconception, but in fact this observation came as a bit of a side-effect.

The tests back in the 60s when they were looking at changing calibre simply revolved about the question of 'how many hits can the average soldier get when shooting his basic load'?

It became a balance between the ability of a soldier to carry lots of little rounds fired with less recoil, with the ability of a heavier round to avoid the effects of crosswind or cover. They didn't care much about the effect of the hit, they figured that anyone shot with a 5.56mm was going to take little more effective part in a battle than someone shot with a 20mm. After a minute or two, they'd probably sit down. The end result was that given that you could fire 50% more rounds of 5.56mm than 7.62mm (210 vs 140), it was far more cost-effective to give them the smaller calibre.

good point jose, and it must be remembered that the infantry soldier that serving in iraq and afghanistan are none too happy with the 5.56 , thats why there are more and more m 14s being issued and the sidearm calibre is being stepped up to 45 calibre. more knockdown power is required

I had no problem with the 5.56mm round in itself, and I think the while .45 thing is the peculiarly American philosophy that 'No real handgun round doesn't begin with a '4' or have the word 'magnum' in it. If there is an issue with the 5.56mm, it's that they're firing it out of a 14" carbine barrel with a lower velocity. Complaints seemed to be rare before the M-4 became all the rage.

NTM

Dvs

I also have an interesting observation......


The direction of this thread has very little to do with shooting sports,
and one would think the people posting should know better.

Dvs.

José Alaninho

Dvs wrote: »

I also have an interesting observation......


The direction of this thread has very little to do with shooting sports,
and one would think the people posting should know better.

Dvs.

Boo hoo...

foxshooter243

Dvs wrote: »

I also have an interesting observation......


The direction of this thread has very little to do with shooting sports,
and one would think the people posting should know better.

Dvs.

the direction of this thread hasnt deviated read the OP

foxshooter243

Manic Moran wrote: »

A very common misconception, but in fact this observation came as a bit of a side-effect.

The tests back in the 60s when they were looking at changing calibre simply revolved about the question of 'how many hits can the average soldier get when shooting his basic load'?

It became a balance between the ability of a soldier to carry lots of little rounds fired with less recoil, with the ability of a heavier round to avoid the effects of crosswind or cover. They didn't care much about the effect of the hit, they figured that anyone shot with a 5.56mm was going to take little more effective part in a battle than someone shot with a 20mm. After a minute or two, they'd probably sit down. The end result was that given that you could fire 50% more rounds of 5.56mm than 7.62mm (210 vs 140), it was far more cost-effective to give them the smaller calibre.



I had no problem with the 5.56mm round in itself, and I think the while .45 thing is the peculiarly American philosophy that 'No real handgun round doesn't begin with a '4' or have the word 'magnum' in it. If there is an issue with the 5.56mm, it's that they're firing it out of a 14" carbine barrel with a lower velocity. Complaints seemed to be rare before the M-4 became all the rage.

NTM

lots of veterans differ and it wont be long before the US adopts a new calibre ,maybe the 6mm NATO is in the offing:D

Mellor

I think people are mistaken on the swift. As it was pointed it is based on MV.
One of the rangers can confirm details, but with the correct grain round in swift, the legal limitations. I think a 70 grain is needed,
The problem is though, you may not get permission with one, so its not very common.


As for deer verses humans for .223 rounds, Deers are far bigger, pretty simple really.

Grizzly 45

Doubt it Fox,
There is millions of 5.56 NATO rounds out there,rifles and parts etc.Not to mind the industries making the rifles for the US Govt.IOW more than enough to accomplish the mission in Iraq or Ghanistan. Nor do you want to piss off the entire NATO allies again by telling them ..ooops you were right 40 years ago....sorry we are going up to a new calibre again.Despite that there is no more Cold War to justify this...sorry.
You dont change your main rifle and rounds in the middle of a war. Plus for what??Another improved gas piston M16 type weapon that costs $2k per pop.As one old Gunny Sgt said.We dont need that,we need a 200 dollar to make 308 rifle again.:rolleyes:

foxshooter243

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Doubt it Fox,
There is millions of 5.56 NATO rounds out there,rifles and parts etc.Not to mind the industries making the rifles for the US Govt.IOW more than enough to accomplish the mission in Iraq or Ghanistan. Nor do you want to piss off the entire NATO allies again by telling them ..ooops you were right 40 years ago....sorry we are going up to a new calibre again.Despite that there is no more Cold War to justify this...sorry.
You dont change your main rifle and rounds in the middle of a war. Plus for what??Another improved gas piston M16 type weapon that costs $2k per pop.As one old Gunny Sgt said.We dont need that,we need a 200 dollar to make 308 rifle again.:rolleyes:

Grizz the US millitary is activley buying up all the 5,56 mill surp it can get its hands on, the wars in iraq and afghanistan require over a billion rounds per annum to satisy the requirements. They are already investigating ways
to beef up the calibre with the least cost-necking up the 5.56 to 6mm is one they are already looking at-the 5.56 is a close quarter battle rifle not
suited to the longer engagements that are common in the sandpit.if they did decide to adopt the 6mm then the only cost to weapons is a rebarrelling job.and as for a huge stockpile of ammo there is only one plant making ammo for the us millitary in the states and that is working overtime-thats why they are looking offshore for ammo-and on the subject of ammo there are police departments in the states that are unable to put their officers through qualification with 5.56 weapons systems due to lack of ammo.
I shall stand corrected if the US doesnt adopt a new calibre in the next few years;)

Dvs

foxshooter243 wrote: »

the direction of this thread hasnt deviated read the OP

I did not say it had changed direction,
I said "The direction of this thread has very little to do with shooting sports,
and one would think the people posting should know better."

Apparently not given that
1.The original poster registered in April 2008 has 2 posts on boards.ie.

2.The use of firearms by the Military has nothing to do with hunting or shooting sports.

3.The fact is that the calibres for deer shooting are based on more,
than being able to hit the deer, it must have sufficent energy to kill the deer.

Dvs.

foxshooter243

Dvs wrote: »

I did not say it had changed direction,
I said "The direction of this thread has very little to do with shooting sports,
and one would think the people posting should know better."

Apparently not given that
1.The original poster registered in April 2008 has 2 posts on boards.ie.

2.The use of firearms by the Military has nothing to do with hunting or shooting sports.

3.The fact is that the calibres for deer shooting are based on more,
than being able to hit the deer, it must have sufficent energy to kill the deer.

Dvs.

no 1: i knever knew that there was a probationary period
no 2:the use of firearms by the millitary has quite a lot to do with shooting
thats one of the reasons that the 223 was seen as a particulary good varmint round because servicemen realised its potential whilst using it in the service- it didnt become one of the premier varmint calibers by accident.
no 3: are you trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs:D

Grizzly 45

Au Contraire DV on point 2.
It is very revelant to shooting sports.As .223 production can be converted over to 5.56 NATO ammo,we could face shortages on the civvie market in ALL milspec type ammo,9mm,223,45 ACP , 7.62 NATO ,308 and 7.62x39

dos29

2.The use of firearms by the Military has nothing to do with hunting or shooting sports.

i beg to differ. we consistently train and compete in the military to get the best possible groups and scores in shooting. Obviously enough, a FAIRLY KEY component to our job is being competent in hitting a target, so we train for that. please, if im wrong, please prove it, but i think living and training with a firearm gets us fairly in tune with it.

Rovi

I think what Dvs was getting at, is that the first post could have been better worded, and the discussion of the terminal ballistics of the round in humans went well beyond the remit of this forum.
I don't think there's any issue with the discussion of the effects of military operations on the supply/cost of ammunition on the civilian market; moving the discussion on to the military use of the ammunition is taking it out of bounds for this forum.
In 'The Old Days' (:rolleyes:), this thread would at best have been edited, and at worst, deleted.

Dvs

Well Rovi,
we obviously don't know what we are talking about...

The stated Forum charter and forum topic subject matter,
is not an issue to some members of the forum.:rolleyes:

Dvs.

Manic Moran

The OP's question can be a very valid one if someone (i.e. an uninformed Superintendant) decides that a military calibre is too powerful to own, but a standard deer calibre is fine.

NTM

Rovi

I fully agree that the point is valid (.220 Swift COULD be a viable deer calibre here, on the smaller species, given the use of proper hunting bullets and good shot placement), but I think that stating: ".223 works fine on humans" to an uninformed Superintendent would be somewhat counter-productive in the quest for a Firearms Certificate.
The argument over what is and isn't a suitable deer calibre is with the Parks and Wildlife people, the Gardai are just going on the guidelines issued to them on what's acceptable when someone looks for an FAC for the purpose of deer hunting.

Kareir

ah, right.
I simply meant to point out that the Swift is more powerful than the .223, and the .223 is the chosen army calibre.
(proof, http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=R220S1*R223R1, link gained from a 'reliable source', i.e. these forums :rolleyes:)
I was, in fact, unaware that the .223 is designed to wound rather than kill (in the army scenario ) as stated in the 1st reply. I had the idea that the army would be using something fairly deadly.
And i should have possibly stated i had small, sika deer in mind, rather than the bigger versions, that was a miscommunication on my part.

Apologies if i was slightly vague, it was kinda late.
Thanks,
_Kar.


P.S. i agree with Rovi that saying "But i could kill a person easily with a .223" is NOT the best way of getting a Firearm Cert.