Dimensionally, there are differences as well between the "NATO" designated rounds and the SAAMI designated rounds. Issues regarding throat depth have arisen, and chamber failures have occurred as a result. But there is no debate over the rough equivalence of the rounds themselves. There is also no debate over the lethality of hunting ammunition and military ammunition. Military ammo is steel cored, sometimes copper washed or jacketed. Hunting ammunition is lead cored and usually copper jacketed. It is usually "hollow point", and generally designed to "expand". Specifically prohibited under the Geneva Conventions for military use.
I'd certainly love for someone advocating "assault weapons bans" to acknowledge the issue and address it in a fact based and rational manner. Hunting and sporting ammunition is more powerful and more deadly than military ammunition. It's designed to kill quickly, where military ammunition has been designed to disable, and maybe kill.
"High powered" my behind. Smoke and mirrors, and an issue "designed" to split gun owners and generate, as the gun grabbers so eloquently put it, "a first step on the path to regulating all firearms".
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea... Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the Unisted States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet Washington Post, p. A19
Even the supporters of the "assault weapons ban" knew it did nothing about crime. It wasn't about that at all.
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
quoted by AP
"We must get rid of all the guns."
Phil Donahue Show
"The NRA is bound and determined not to allow the Brady Bill to be enacted. And they're a fearsome opponent. They see this as `threshold' legislation. Because they realize if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law, then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation. Of course, we hope that's true because, as you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to combat gun violence doesn't end with the Brady Bill - it just begins."
"I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun. I also believe that every new handgun sale or or transfer should be listed in a national registry, such as Chuck [Senator Schumer] is proposing."
"And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them."
I am here to tell you now, that so long as I can speak and write, none of this will come to pass. So long as I have a gun and bullets, I won't live to see the end of it, many of my friends and fellow gun owners feel the same way. Tell you something else to, and it's ugly, scary, and awful business these people trying to ban guns are up to. There'd be alot of people wouldn't live to see the end of it on both sides.
Best just stay away from it. Let sleeping dogs lay.