Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/23/2002 8:05:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 8:12:50 AM EDT
hey, i like guns and i don't like the atf, but i don't know much about the technical stuff. could somebody list everything that was wrong with that, and what the right answer is? thanks
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 8:16:33 AM EDT
The 223 rem caliber uses a .224 diameter bullet - the same bullet that is used in a 22-250, 222 Mag, and a few other calibers. Twist rate might narrow it down as most recent ARs, as y'all well know already, are 1-7 to 1-10 twist, and most bolt action 223s are in 1-12 twist, generally speaking. I'd like to know what the twist is on the recovered bullets.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 8:43:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/23/2002 8:46:12 AM EDT by AlphaBobRI]
Actually, I'd like to know what point Hawkeye was trying to make. The stuff in red seemed pretty accurate to me. Hell, if we are beating the point about it being .224 rather than .223, I might mention that Dillon Precision lists all their bullets at .223 (just a name, not a dimension). See [url]http://dillonprecision.com/template/p.cfm?maj=40&min=5&dyn=1&[/url]. Hell, even Sierra lumps them in as .22 on their web page [url]http://www.sierrabullets.com/bullets/caliber.cfm?Type=rifle&Caliber=.22[/url] (See the Caliber=.22 at the end? Coming from their main page you select .22 caliber to find their catalog of bullets in that general range.) The statement about 100 different firearms using a '.223' seems about right to me (again, I think it is a trivial issue to argue about it being .223 vs .224 - yes, I know .224 is right, but see the links above, and you will see the ATF isn't the only group taking liberties with the bullet diameter.) The statement about .223 caliber bullets tending to break up more is a well known fact, under certain conditions. See the excellent [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url] post by Tatjana which includes some information on this. It is a combination of the bullet shape (boat tail) which causes it to pivot sideways due to the location of it's center of mass, the velocity, and the thickness of the metal jacket which lead to fragmentation under these conditions. And, although I have never reloaded a .22LR (has anybody [:)]), I suspect the comment about the powder load vs a .223 Remington is in the ballpark (perhaps even on the low side). As for the maximum ballistic distance, it wouldn't surprise me either. The FBI ballistic database has been in existence for years. Unlike the one proposed by the anti's, this database contains only information on bullets and casings recovered from crime scenes, and it is used to compare with test rounds shot from weapons recovered from suspects. The ATF guy even goes on to make a case against the anti's by saying that ballistic matching is a tedious process. Imagine if the current database is small (only crime guns), that a national one would be impossible. Are those your issues, Hawkeye?
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 8:53:52 AM EDT
Other than the assault weapon bullshit and the assumption that this actually is a .223 and not a .22-250 or other caliber, I don't really see much wrong with anything that they said. Mostly they were just stating facts. The .223 does tend to break up more compared to many other bullets, this is due to it's speed. It's also a fact that it holds more gunpowder and travels about three times as fast than a normal .22LR cartridge.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 8:59:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:03:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Other than the assault weapon bullshit and the assumption that this actually is a .223 and not a .22-250 or other caliber, I don't really see much wrong with anything that they said. Mostly they were just stating facts.
View Quote
Well, I suspect the .22-250, or other cartridge issue has been resolved by the .223 cases found on the scene multiple times (yep, I know, could be a plant, but I'd rather go with the more obvious assumption first). Also, I suspect that the sales of AR-type firearms exceed the total sales of everything else in .223 combined. So odds are they are correct (it is an evil black rifle). But I felt he was very clear that there were plenty of other possibilities. Perhaps you mean the AR-15-style firearms aren't Assault Weapons because they don't fall under the definition of banned weapons? I totally agree. I guess I'd have to say AW-styled to be most correct.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:03:50 AM EDT
I don't have too many issues with the parts in red. However, this part does bother me:
Every firearm has individual characteristics that are as unique to it as fingerprints are to human beings, ATF says. However, an ATF database that helps firearm examiners match ballistics evidence contains only images of casings or bullets from crime scenes or from test firings of weapons used in crimes. It doesn't include images of every gun sold in the United States, so a gun that hasn't been used in a previous crime isn't included in the computer database.
View Quote
This is BS. Since the "fingerprint" changes over time and with modification. In addition, they generally don't return guns used in crimes. So, why keep a DB of ballistics evidence? This is BS to try and sell the ballistic fingerprinting crap to the public.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:11:19 AM EDT
Hawkeye, believe me, I'm not trying to give you grief, just perspective. I'm very frustrated about the hysteria surrounding this. I think the comment about the .223 vs .22LR is just trying to 'ground' the discussion somewhat. A whole bunch more people have had experience with the .22LR. I think the data reported was accurate, and even served to point out (in a very indirect way) that there are different kinds of .22 bullets/firearms. Compared to the total crap I've hear from the press concerning "High-velocity speed", "High-powered fragmentation bullets", "Exploding bullets", etc., I found the particular post that you mentioned to be almost refreshingly accurate in comparison.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:19:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:19:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MrP: This is BS. Since the "fingerprint" changes over time and with modification. In addition, they generally don't return guns used in crimes. So, why keep a DB of ballistics evidence? This is BS to try and sell the ballistic fingerprinting crap to the public.
View Quote
I agree that the use of the term DNA and Fingerprint is very misleading, and this is my biggest issue with the article. However, it does go on to indicate why it is unlike DNA or Fingerprints later on. First, it points out that the ballistic marks change with time or modification. Second, it says it is very tedious to do (with a small database, so the conclusion one might draw is that a national database would be a disaster). No, I don't think this person was doing much more that trying to provide some useful information. Belive me, I hate BF (or BS-Ballistic Snapshot) as much as you do, but I just didn't read into the article that it was a call for a national database. As for why they keep the data, I guess the do because they can, and the rules of evidence probably tell them they must (you don't dispose of evidence from a crime scene easily). Kind of like why they keep other evidence around from felons. I've got no problem with them keeping a database of criminal information, including any ballistic data. I think we all have a huge problem with them keeping a database of non-crime information. And I fully agree that would be total crap.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:21:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hawkeye: No grief. Maybe I should have had another cup of coffee before reading the article. Just struck me wrong for some reason.
View Quote
Hey, guy, I understand! I'm jumpy as all hell over this too. Frankly, if you read it that way, I suspect an anti would be having a field day. Pretty easy to quote the Fingerprint part and leave off the stuff that countered that several paragraphs down the page.
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:27:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:29:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/23/2002 9:30:56 AM EDT by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 9:39:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brouhaha: [Hey! Don't leave out Troy! He is the original author of the Ammo FAQ! Tatja and I simply updated it a little with info from our experiments and changed the format! Troy did most of the leg work long ago.
View Quote
[:I][:O][:I]My very BIG bad!! Very sorry Troy and Brouhaha. I LOVE that FAQ![:I][:O][:I]
Link Posted: 10/23/2002 11:08:06 AM EDT
When ATF identifies the "caliber" of the recovered projectile fragments as being from a ".223 caliber" weapon they are being very specific as to the exact cartridge used to fire the projectile. A ".223 caliber" cartridge or round is a .224 diameter bullet loaded into a very specific size and shape shell casing. The actual name is a .223 Remington. There are many different cartridges that use the same projectiles as the .223 Remington. Some of these other cartridges are .221 Fireball, .222, .22-250. There is no .223 caliber cartridge other than .223 Remington. There is however a 5.56X45mm Nato round which is very similiar to the .223 Remington but it is loaded to a different SAAMI specification. ATF Agents are supposed to be educated in the finer aspects of ammunition terminology and for them to use mis-leading terms in their description of the projectiles recovered from the victims of the sniper is gross negligence. If in a court of law an ATF agent testified that the projectile in question was fired from a specific weapon and that the caliber of that weapon was identified as a .223 and the weapon was actually a .22-250 (.224 diameter) he would be guilty of perjury. There is an agenda being furthered by the mis-use of terminology and it is contrary to the facts relating to the evidence.
Top Top