My Scary Gun Weighs a Ton

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I strongly disagree with your assumption that a bolt action 308 is more dangerous or "deadly" than a AR style semi with a .223 round. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Pending circumstance and objective is a huge factor in the equation. There is no absolute in your argument.

If I had a multiple of shooters firing on me, I’d rather have a assault rifle (preferably w/burst mode) than I would a single shot weapon of any caliber. I’d rather wound three, than kill one and to be shot dead by the other two. But even that scenario could change were a 308 bolt action would be weapon of choice.

Of course a 308 soft point is going to give you a higher chance of a mortal wound, but a 60 gr. Nosler tip .223 is a very deadly round in it’s own right, especially within a 100 yds.

I understand what you’re trying to say but when you factor in gun type, caliber, bullet type and all the other variables, I don’t see an ‘always' in favor of a bolt action 308 as being more deadly. If you were comparing caliber only it 's a no brainer.

a reply to: mtnshredder

The advantage in the war theater of a .223, is that it can, more often than not, cause severe injury without killing the target. For some enemies, this means you take multiple opponents out of the field by injuring one because it takes a few more to render aid. It depends on the mentality of who you are fighting. Some won't give a second thought to trying to rescue their own.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
I understand what you’re trying to say but when you factor in gun type, caliber, bullet type and all the other variables, I don’t see an ‘always' in favor of a bolt action 308 as being more deadly. If you were comparing caliber only it 's a no brainer.

Are you sure? This thread was not intended as a deep dive into terminal ballistics or composition, it was to demonstrate that the knee-jerk reaction of certain persons in the public is misguided. If presented with the two rifles in the Original Post the anti-gun crowd would select the .223 over the .308, even though the .308 as described would be more lethal.

I completely understand that we can outfit a .223 with additional enhancements, load our own specialized ammunition, select rifles not readily available to the public and specify distances in an encounter. This thread was more to show the absurdity that we, as gun-owners, face regularly, from Congressman Ghost Gun to cretins mandating you need a bullet button or non-pistol grip stock. This thread is satirical at its heart, hence the reason I used a Public Enemy song as the title.

Do you see what I am saying?

originally posted by: skunkape23
The advantage in the war theater of a .223...

The anti-gun crowd is not trying to restrict the semi-automatic in the Original Post for war theatre deployment, only use by private citizens.

this is my rifle this is my gun.......i think the cause of concern is the rate at which it fires, not the damage it does. Not my cause of concern,but those trying to legislate against the fully automatic and semi automatic rifles. Perhaps your'e right though, perhaps ammo is a good way for the government to start. You can bear arms, but we'll decide whats in em

originally posted by: generalspecific
this is my rifle this is my gun.......i think the cause of concern is the rate at which it fires, not the damage it does. Not my cause of concern,but those trying to legislate against the fully automatic and semi automatic rifles. Perhaps your'e right though, perhaps ammo is a good way for the government to start. You can bear arms, but we'll decide whats in em

Whats this WE? You got a mouse in your pocket?There can be no elimination of ammunition in this country,if the Gov tries there will be smugglers galore!

If presented with the two rifles in the Original Post the anti-gun crowd would select the .223 over the .308, even though the .308 as described would be more lethal.

I think you're missing the general consensus of most anti gunners, which is the fear of 'mass' shootings. Reason being is that a assault rifle would be the weapon of choice and more lethal in a crowd vs a bolt-action rifle of any caliber. You may not like this fact, but that's the way they see it and for the most part they're right. This is why IMO you're argument is mute and why I don't agree with you. You're saying that "as described would be more lethal", in regards to mass shootings this is not true and why they want them banned. No matter how you try and paint it, it's a flawed argument when talking about bolt action rifles.

And yes, I fully get the fact that one looks more sinister than the other. I also don't agree with a AR style ban or feel it would accomplish much in the big picture.

well, here is some info to add. First off, a .223 remington is not a military round. nor is it a .223 NATO. that would be the 5.56x45mm NATO round which is based off the .223 remington. you better not ever think about firing a 5.56 nato in a rifle chambered in .223 remington. You can however go the other way and fire .223 remington in a rifle chambered in 5.56. The reason is the outside dimensions of the two rounds are the same, essentially anyways. The NATO rounds generate more pressure than the .223 , the .223 chambering is also weaker which WILL cause a nasty little malfunction firing the 5.56 in it. Not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. SO, that said , get a rifle chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO /.223 remington and you are safe to fire both.

Now, the ballistics comparison of the .308 winchester (7.62x51mm NATO) and the 5.56mm NATO.....

Cartridge Model Cartridge size Bullet weight Velocity Energy

5.56mm NATO M855 5.56×45mm 4.02 g (62 gr) 991 m/s (3,251 ft/s) 1,974 J
7.62mm NATO M80 7.62×51mm 9.33 g (144 gr) 838 m/s (2,749 ft/s) 3,275 J


Rate of fire, while it looks great on TV, really does not matter in real life except for suppressing fire and wasting money. You are not going to hit a damn thing on full auto , well nothing you intend to hit anyways. Not that a person can own a modern M4 rifle anyways. So, i would take the .308 lever or bolt action most of the time. CQB would be a clear choice for the AR platform. Ideally i would rather have a semi auto .308 such as the M14, which is still issued to some units as a Designated Marksmen Rifle (DMR) or an AR10 which is the ar platform rifle chambered in 7.62NATO.

Hands down the .308 round is more effective at everything than the 5.56mm. The only drawback is the weight of carrying a like amount of ammo. You can carry over twice the number of mags and rounds with the 5.56 at the same weight.

I agree, an assault rifle is just a style to make it look badass. The .308 is a powerful round which beats the round spit out by a lot of assault rifles, but is carried by a deer rifle. It's just scare tactics by the media. Most mass shootings are not done by these type of guns. Usually , the killer(s) have multiple weapons.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Not bad, In my state we can use 30 round mags. I take it you are in California.

Molon Labe

So while the guy with the 308 is busy chambering the next round, the guy with the semi by time would be through half his magazine. 10 rounds of .223 are more deadly then one 308. With ten rounds you can disable at least 3-4 men considering every shot is a hit on both weapons in a very short time.
You are comparing oranges and apples.

a reply to: ANNEDHi ANNED, My all time favorite is my shotgun. There is something about the sound it makes when it is made ready for firing...that definite and immediate sound that should stop anyone in their tracks at least during a home invasion. I like the power, the sound of it. the feel of it. I like the 30/30 rifle and the 38 special and all but there is just something special about my good ole shotgun. It can be a devastating gun, no question.

Depending on the situation, any gun can and will serve the purpose intended. Mob hits often use a 22 to the back of the head and it does what they desire.

A lot depends on proximity, what the intended target is and where the target is and what the circumstances are. When a weapon is needed, one should know which one is necessary and will do the job and use accordingly. I do like my shotgun.
Thanx for listening.

originally posted by: verschickter
So while the guy with the 308 is busy chambering the next round, the guy with the semi by time would be through half his magazine. 10 rounds of .223 are more deadly then one 308. With ten rounds you can disable at least 3-4 men considering every shot is a hit on both weapons in a very short time.
You are comparing oranges and apples.

That is wildly innaccurate, if it takes the same time to fire 10 aimed shots from a semi as it does to chamber 1 round in a lever or bolt action, then the person with the lever/bolt action needs to just go the other way. Spray and pray is popular method of "marksmenship" i see heh

So again, I would say, use a semi auto .308.

The mind set of owning modern blacked out weapons like the AR is very militaristic... thus makes the AR more dangerous.

It's not the size of the bullet that is dangerous, it's the mind set of the gun owner.

originally posted by: neversaynever
Not realy. You can not shoot as accurate with a automatic than a bolt action. Why do snipers carry bolt action. 1 properly placed bullet do more damage than 20 wild once.

I read somewhere that a study was done in the vietnam war and it was found that for automatic weapons only 1 kill was registered for every 9400 rounds fired in the war. In comparison for snipers it was something like 2.3 rounds per killl. a reply to: Elton

concealedcarryconfidence.org...
In a real fire fight info above:

Vietnam and a host of other dirty bush wars introduced the ambush concept of very high rates of fire, light ammunition and firepower.

Ammunition had to be light, weapons cheap and easy to fix, and general tactics dictated spraying thousands of rounds during short firefights.

The number of rounds per kill tripled from WWII levels to a staggering 50,000 rounds for each kill.

In Vietnam, the light and deadly M-16 became the overwhelming choice of ground troops. 1.33 rounds per sniper kill...


Enemy Casualties caused by US soldiers

-----------------------------------------------
WW I -- 7,000 rounds/casualty
WW II -- 25,000 rounds/casualty
Korea -- 50,000 rounds/casualty
Vietnam -- 200,000-400,000 rounds/casualty

It appeared that GI Joe was losing his shooting skills as the years went by. In 1971, Major Lones Wigger Jr, a member of
the US shooting team in Olympics and World Championships, took command of the 23rd Infantry Division's Sniper School in Vietnam and his duties also included marksmanship training for the division's replacement troops. What he found didn't make him very happy at all.

He said, "I found the average replacement could not hit a silhouette target at 25 metres, knew little of basic marksmanship fundamentals and did not understand why he needed to zero his rifle."

At around the same time, Master Sergeant Emil W. Heugatter of the 25th Infantry Division at Cu Chi, was testing the marksmanship of selected line platoons. He placed one-foot square targets at a distance of 25 meters and found that only about 10% of the soldiers hit their targets.

Most was due to poor marksmanship knowledge, some soldiers didn't understand why they had to zero their sights, nor how to do it, and some due to poor maintenance of their rifles. Apparently, the front sights of some rifles had rusted beyond adjustment and one rifle was missing them. These findings extended to some officers and NCOs as well.

In order to cure this problem, they started to emphasize the Known Distance system of shooting, over the Trainfire training system (introduced in 1956) and the Quick Kill training policy (introduced along with the M-16 -- basically volume automatic fire). The new system of training worked very well.

In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new training program, Major John R. Foster (Wigger's counterpart in the
101st Airborne Division), started a marksmanship refresher course, where each company in sent two men each week for training.

When each weekly group of about 30 seasoned combat troops arrived, he had them select among themselves, the worst shot in the group, usually a "Gomer Pyle" type. Then, while the rest of the class went through the intro briefing,
instructors force-fed Gomer Pyle basic marksmanship instructions.

Afterwards, each man of the group, except Gomer, stepped to the firing line with his M-16 and two 30 round magazines.
The target was a single man-sized silhouette at 50 meters. The shooter was instructed to fire as many rounds as he could within one minute. His position and rate of fire was left up to him.

Most of the soldiers shot from a standing position on full auto. Many didn't bother to use their rear sights. The group averaged 4-6 hits total out of approximately 1,800 rounds of ammunition.

Then, Gomer Pyle, the worst shot in the group, was put to the firing line. Unlike everyone else, he had received five minutes of instructions on basic marksmanship and was told to fire only from the ****e position and only in semi-automatic mode. Invariably, Gomer would hit the target more times with his 60 rounds than the rest of the group with 1,800 rounds.

These successful demos caused the new training methods to be introduced to the troops .

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that larger, heavier ammo is significantly more dangerous than smaller, lighter ammo. Not to mention, once you start to factor in different types of jacketing or lack thereof, etc...

On the other hand, it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the more rounds your weapon can rapidly deliver downrange, the more lethal it becomes regardless of caliber.

What I have a problem with is the fact that in your OP, (specifically exhibit "D" where you show only the .308 soft point round) you seem to be implying that the .223 round is not available in the soft point version, much less in the even more dangerous "Total Fragmenting Soft Point" or "Light Armor Piercing" versions.

Seeing how most, (if not all) calibers of ammunition are available in most of the various versions, the lethality of the ammo being used, (in terms of tip design) is solely the choice of the shooter.

Are you saying that we should be concentrating our efforts on limiting the availability of more lethal ammunitions?

IMO, for you to imply that everyone who supports the idea that we need to implement some new gun safety legislation are ignoring the fact that different calibers have different levels of lethality, is disingenuous at best.

I am a gun owning Democrat/Progressive/liberal, (or whatever you choose to call me) who supports reasonable gun reform legislation and I assure you that I/we fully understand that larger caliber ammunition inflicts more damage and is therefore, more lethal than smaller calibers.

On the other hand, what we don't do is to IGNORE THE FACT that other factors also play a significant role in the lethality of the weapon. Things like variations of ammunition, magazine capacity and the speed at which one can deliver rounds downrange, not to mention the possible nut-job behind the trigger.

The fact of the matter is, that all of the various aspects of gun safety need to be taken into consideration when contemplating any new gun safety legislation and NONE should be ignored. I think this is the approach that most gun safety reform supporters embrace.

To IGNORE the other factors is just plain IGNORANT and that's why the two words have so much in common.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
I think you're missing the general consensus of most anti gunners, which is the fear of 'mass' shootings. Reason being is that a assault rifle would be the weapon of choice and more lethal in a crowd vs a bolt-action rifle of any caliber.

Based on many of the replies from experienced shooters this is not the case. The fact that most of the people instigating these shootings have training limited to Call of Duty underlines the premise in the Original Post.

You may not like this fact, but that's the way they see it and for the most part they're right. This is why IMO you're argument is mute and why I don't agree with you. You're saying that "as described would be more lethal", in regards to mass shootings this is not true and why they want them banned. No matter how you try and paint it, it's a flawed argument when talking about bolt action rifles.

There decision is mostly based around the appearance of the rifle and not its capabilities. I could have placed an M-1 in the Original Post with wooden furniture firing .30 caliber and it would be more lethal in action but would be overlooked because of its relatively innocuous appearance.
And for what it is worth, the .308 in the Original Post is a lever action.

And yes, I fully get the fact that one looks more sinister than the other. I also don't agree with a AR style ban or feel it would accomplish much in the big picture.

We are in agreement here.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
Not bad, In my state we can use 30 round mags. I take it you are in California.
Molon Labe

I am jealous.

I do not live in California, we are actually worse....

originally posted by: Flatfish
Are you saying that we should be concentrating our efforts on limiting the availability of more lethal ammunitions?

No, I am not for anymore gun laws, period. We have enough.

IMO, for you to imply that everyone who supports the idea that we need to implement some new gun safety legislation are ignoring the fact that different calibers have different levels of lethality, is disingenuous at best.

No, this is more of a satirical thread and regular firearms users know the capabilities of their weapons and the various forms of ammunition available. The average anti-gun proponent if asked which weapon in the Original post that would rather get shot with if they had to choose would pick the AR. Sucks to be them.

On the other hand, what we don't do is to IGNORE THE FACT that other factors also play a significant role in the lethality of the weapon. Things like variations of ammunition, magazine capacity and the speed at which one can deliver rounds downrange, not to mention the possible nut-job behind the trigger.

I agree and understand. The thread is a superficial look at the mentality of the anti-gun crowd and not a thorough breakdown of rifle performance.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that larger, heavier ammo is significantly more dangerous than smaller, lighter ammo. Not to mention, once you start to factor in different types of jacketing or lack thereof, etc...

On the other hand, it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the more rounds your weapon can rapidly deliver downrange, the more lethal it becomes regardless of caliber.

What I have a problem with is the fact that in your OP, (specifically exhibit "D" where you show only the .308 soft point round) you seem to be implying that the .223 round is not available in the soft point version, much less in the even more dangerous "Total Fragmenting Soft Point" or "Light Armor Piercing" versions.

Seeing how most, (if not all) calibers of ammunition are available in most of the various versions, the lethality of the ammo being used, (in terms of tip design) is solely the choice of the shooter.

Are you saying that we should be concentrating our efforts on limiting the availability of more lethal ammunitions?

IMO, for you to imply that everyone who supports the idea that we need to implement some new gun safety legislation are ignoring the fact that different calibers have different levels of lethality, is disingenuous at best.

I am a gun owning Democrat/Progressive/liberal, (or whatever you choose to call me) who supports reasonable gun reform legislation and I assure you that I/we fully understand that larger caliber ammunition inflicts more damage and is therefore, more lethal than smaller calibers.

On the other hand, what we don't do is to IGNORE THE FACT that other factors also play a significant role in the lethality of the weapon. Things like variations of ammunition, magazine capacity and the speed at which one can deliver rounds downrange, not to mention the possible nut-job behind the trigger.

The fact of the matter is, that all of the various aspects of gun safety need to be taken into consideration when contemplating any new gun safety legislation and NONE should be ignored. I think this is the approach that most gun safety reform supporters embrace.

To IGNORE the other factors is just plain IGNORANT and that's why the two words have so much in common.

Very well said

Based on many of the replies from experienced shooters this is not the case.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I have no idea how much experience or training the people that have posted on this thread have or their qualifications. I've personally shot thousands of rounds thru about every configuration of pistol and rifle you can think of. I do have some experience on the topic.

We probably agree on more things than we disagree. I get what you're trying say about the perception most have on AR style vs bolt-a/lever rifles. I had a tricked out AR style 10/22 with a 100 rnd clip that looked more deadly to most than a .700 nitro express elephant gun. So I do understand were your coming from in that respect. Cheers