Bob, at 23:51 on May 13 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> The Ruger has a 10-shot rotary magazine, and fires a 40g .22
BG> projectile at an approximate velocity of 1600fps.

BL> A rotary magazine? I've never heard of such a thing! Like to old
BL> Thompson submachine gun? Is that .22 long or something like a Hornet?

Standard .22 LR.  The Ruger's magazine looks like a 1" square box, and
the cartridges load in a rotary fashion, not unlike the old Thompson .45. 
The whole idea is to make it sit flush with the stock, without protruding.

Ruger also make a superb gas-operated .44 magnum SLR which is almost
identical in appearance to their .22 (at 10 feet, you can barely tell them
apart).  That one will now be classified as illegal too.  :(

BG> My Zs are subsonic, 25g at less than 1000fps.

BL> Yair... that's 1/4 the energy. It makes a huge differecne.

Not to cats though, if they're within 25m or so.  :)

BG> The SLR has a 20-shot magazine, and the 7.62mm NATO round fires
BG> a 220g bullet at 2760fps. Quite a difference in firepower,
BG> wouldn't you say? 

BL> Yes... it's 16x the energy, but even so, the .22 auto would be the
BL> weapon of choice for a drive-by shooting. 

Why is that?  Given a choice, why wouldn't a drive-by loony choose the
weapon with the greatest killing power and magazine capacity?  I sure
would.

BL> At close range, a .22 is the weapon of choice for the Mafia, for instance. 
BL> The bullet stays in there,

Sure, it's cheap and effective at close range.  One shot in the back of the
head will generally do the trick, but I think you'll also find that part of
the reason they use .22s is that they're very cheap, extremely quiet,
harder to match gun with projectile because the .22 is plain lead, and
fragments quite dramatically when it hits bone, plus they can also be
fitted with silencers (which only work properly with subsonic rounds
anyway).

BL> and is quite as lethal as a 76mm at a thousand yards.

Sorry Bob, but at 1000m the .22 has used almost all of its muzzle energy,
and is at the extreme end of its maximum range (and only then if it's been
fired at an angle of say 30-40 degrees).  At that distance, it would likely
not even penetrate the skin of a victim.  Not so the 7.62mm NATO cartridge
though.  Those things still have quite a large amount of ME remaining at
1000m, and are quite capable of killing at even 2000m (not accurately, of
course).

You're talking to somebody who was the only person in their intake to
obtain the RAN Marksman's Badge, and this was with the superb gas-operated
L1A1-SLR 7.62mm rifle.  Using the normal iron peep sights, I was able to
put 7 out of 10 shots into a 12" diameter bull's-eye (on a 4' target)
at 600m.  Now try doing THAT with a rimfire .22.  :)

BL> Harmless? I don't think so.

BG> Oi, I didn't use that word. NO gun is harmless, but the .22 IS lowly.

BL> In an urban situation, I think I'd rather face a loony with a 303
BL> than a hoon with a 22 semiautomatic.

Jeeze, I wouldn't!  You could probably take a few .22 hits and survive, but
a .303 will cause absolutely MASSIVE tissue and bone daamage as it passes
right through your body (and may even hit somebody behind you).

BL> The sane ones will turn in their guns anyway, and the loonies won't.

BG> Quite so. I strongly suspect that the only people who surrender
BG> guns will be the very ones who are probably sane (or decent)
BG> enough to own them. 

BL> Yair. What we'll end up so the only ones with dangerous weapons are
BL> dangeroous loonies.

Yep, plus all of those perfectly sane people who have instantly become
"criminals" because they refused to be kicked around by Jackboot
Johnny.

BL> Yair - that's the gun-lobby line.

BG> It's my line too, and I'm neither anti nor pro (although I'd flatly refuse 
BG> to hand in my miserable 5-shot bolt-action .22 if the law said I had to). 

BL> The weapon of choice for the serious cat-shooter...

Not too shabby for personal home protection either.  :)

BL> I find it difficult to understand the problem. In my day, we used
BL> 303s because the ammunition was cheap, and when it ran out and FN SLR
BL> took over we swapped to 0.308... but no one used the FN! In the 60s it
BL> was just a cheap rifle and cheap ammo that drove us.

BL> Bolt-action was preferred. A geniune hunter, or a shooter, is not going to 
BL> need an SLR.

A "sporting" hunter, you mean.  If I was a professional pig
shooter, I'd sooner have a rifle which was capable of rapid fire, just in
case I became surrounded by a pack of pissed-off boars (which has in fact
happened to me).

BL> I don't think so even then. As I understand it, the preferred pig
BL> option is a .357 at close range, and anything that requires aim is
BL> better done with a bolt action. 

That actually varies with the terrain.  In scrubby country where visibility
is somewhat limited (say 50m or less), a 12g pump shotgun is the preferred
choice (and is what I once specifically use on pigs), although the
professionals out around St George and Goondiwindi seem to prefer 7.62mm
SLRs or the Ruger .44 magnums (some prefer this calibre as they can use the
same cartridges in both their rifles and revolvers).  It's definitely a
regional thing though.

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20