Posted on 01/26/2013 3:13:31 PM PST by agondonter
Edited on 01/26/2013 3:25:39 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ohhh — sorry.
Did you read it???
"And they are neither gub’mnt or msm."
OK I'm from Missouri, show me.
(And its "Gub'ment" not "gub'mnt")
What good would that do?? I would have to use the internet to show you and you don’t trust the internet.
Of course I read it.
I also posted the actual info from the company.
QED
"As if the confusion regarding the .223 vs 5.56 chambers wasn’t enough, there is a third possibility in the mix, that is being used by at least one major manufacturer. The .223 Wylde chamber is a modified SAAMI-spec .223 chamber that allows for the safe use of 5.56 NATO rounds, but maintains tighter tolerances for better accuracy."
Is that saying that you could have a 223 AR-15 that is designed to safely fire 5.56 rounds???
Funny how Alinsky works both ways, ain't it?
Oh, and wipe your chin when you get done.
More like you were on your knees licking a boot.
Funny how Alinsky works both ways, ain't it?
Oh, and wipe your chin when you get done.
QED x 2
I have posted more than once that Bushmaster has said that their barrel has been developed to handle the 5.56 bullet. I even posted the link from Bushmaster.
Don’t tell me you didn’t read it.
You read every post that I wrote yesterday on that thread.
Your troll panties are showing.
Since Uncle Chip continues to play ridiculous games
HEre is some info from Bushmaster AGAIN
http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=1343
I’m sorry but I just remember you being very upset yesterday over an EMS referring to the casings at the scene as being 5.56 with posts like this:
“You aren’t suppose to use 556 in a 223 because of excessive pressure”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2981821/posts?page=120#120
But I’m glad you cleared that up because it appears that a Bushmaster 223 can safely fire 5.56 ammunition so it wouldn’t be a surprise to find 5.56 brass at the scene, now would it???
I've 2 "g"s
Hope you got all of the posts regardless!
She is correct, the wall thickness of the two cartridges are different.
The 5.56 case has thicker walls to handle higher pressures, meaning the interior volume of the case is smaller than that of a .223. This will alter the loading data used when reloading 5.56 brass to .223 specs.
Wrong again chippy....
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/15/223-remington-vs-556-nato-what-you-dont-know-could-hurt-you/
I did, no worries.
Oh then I guess you missed her link at #112 that reads accordingly:
"All Bushmaster barrels are chambered to accept 5.56mm ammunition and always have been.... so that the 5.56 ammunition can safely be used."
Video I came across that is interesting. Especially the early part on rifles.
WARNING - graphic in spots. First graphic picture is probably the worst and it is after the 8 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA
What is interesting is the wounds that rifles make vs. handguns. Also that the .223 fragmenting bullet may not start its devastating cavitation actions early enough in a small body and may still pass through due to the velocity. See at 7:05.
As for the powerful assault rifle .223 listen to the doctors comments at 7:34. ‘This is a very small caliber. This is one of the reason the military is looking at larger caliber ammunition’. So much for the powerful .223 ‘assault rifle’.
But the overall point is the dozens of wounds it should have been obvious not only to the ME but to anyone who was trained whether the wounds were rifle or handgun.
When everyone sees the surveillance video it will not be debated...
When is are the lapdogs like Brian Williams and Cooper Anderson and little Ms. Katie going to push for that? Or push for in the Aurora shooting? Lapdogs. Or useful idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.