Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: U.S. Army looking for a new rifle... [View all]ExciteBike66
(2,640 posts)69. gejohnston's argument appeared to turn on
whether the round was high-powered relative to .50 cal (considering how he also stated 7.62 is not "high-powered" .
I fully agree that a .50 cal is a higher-powered round than a .223.
This is not really relevant to my point that an AR-15 or .223 can accurately be considered "high-powered" as well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Time was, when the .223 was considered underpowered for anything larger than woodchucks.
Paladin
Jun 2017
#20
"(M)y guns are gathering dust in a closet." Have the courage of your convictions...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#74
A most amusing OP about the danger of 5.56 caliber rifles by a self-proclaimed 'expert':
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#22
There was indeed a large amount of pious fraud in those two threads...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#36
You might maybe want to lay off on the 'argument from authority' you've been using...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#37
I am interested to have my mistake pointed out to me, since I cannot find it.
ExciteBike66
Jun 2017
#40
Their concern may very well be genuine, but is often expressed in a less-than-honest way...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#48
Your main error was and is believing that your former status is somehow relevant...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#65
re: " My point is that gun-controllers are right to label it "high-powered", for more reasons..."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jun 2017
#52
I'm glad you mentioned definitions of different powered rounds and rifles:
ExciteBike66
Jun 2017
#68
That's the NRA, *not* the Army-the organization where you got the technical expertise..
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#70
I'm afraid the other military on the thread don't really back your argument:
ExciteBike66
Jun 2017
#78
"(I)t is certainly capable of killing unarmored civilians" As are almost all types of ammunition
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#85
Anti-gun threads and subthreads by self-described ex-military have gone awry before
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#73
I would counter thusly: 1) Squee may not have, but gejohnston certainly did...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#67
Your 'former employer' disagrees with you- and so do all his other 'ex-employees'...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#72
Is there any 7.62 rifle round that is not technically an "intermediate" round? nt
ExciteBike66
Jun 2017
#95
The accepted differentiation between "high-powered" and other rounds...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jun 2017
#83
Your arguments have been all over the map. What, specifically do you object to?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2017
#88
Think they'd be interested in a model designed around the old Gyrojet-type model?
Decoy of Fenris
Jun 2017
#31
The gun experts here have constantly been claiming certain cartridges are
ExciteBike66
Jun 2017
#109
rabbit trail??? more like Alice's rabbit hole and through the mirror...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jun 2017
#123