Snopes and Guns

[DaleA]

Typically, AR-15 rifles are loaded with .223 Remington cartridges, which are housed in bullets with a diameter of 5.7 millimetres [sic].

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ar...le-size-wound/

Okay, if I’m running a ‘fact checking’ site, like Snopes, then I best make sure the stuff posted on my site is correct.

It’s obvious Snopes was lazy or ignorant or both concerning the above quote from their site and I think it says something about their credibility.

Background: Snopes is fact checking a poster that shows a black circle about three inches in diameter with the text:
“This is the size of a hole made by an AR-15. Tell me again why you need that?”
Snopes’ verdict on the poster is not ‘True’ and not ‘False’ but their rating is ‘Mixture’ which their definition is:

This rating indicates that a claim has significant elements of both truth and falsity to it such that it could not fairly be described by any other rating.

P.S. I don't want to argue the merits of the 'Mixture' rating as Snopes jumps through many hoops and even disregards an expert opinion they themselves solicited. I just want the very first quote, at the top of the post, to show that they do not do the work they should to get their facts 'checked'.

[jag2]

If they had labeled it as the size of the exit hole I would be okay with it. I don’t expect them to be ballistic experts with a bunch of data that most people wouldn’t understand, or care about. That’s what sites like this are for.

[Thomas Clarke]

I read the cited Snopes article which is from 2018. I do not see anything wrong with what Snopes held in the full article.

[101combatvet]

Total BS, show me a picture of an actual exit wound that size made from a .223 bullet.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jag2

If they had labeled it as the size of the exit hole I would be okay with it. I don’t expect them to be ballistic experts with a bunch of data that most people wouldn’t understand, or care about. That’s what sites like this are for.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Snopes claims to be a fact checking site. That means they have to have, find, or develop expertise in any subject on which they are pronouncing judgment. They don't get a free pass because they're not ballistics experts. They are reviewing the words of someone else, and proclaiming to the world that those words are or aren't true. If they can't get it right, they NEED to shut up.

[Mal H]

DaleA - which part of the quote in your post do you take exception with? If it is the "housed in bullets ..." part, I agree. That could be worded much better.

But if it is the "5.7 millimetres" part (which I think it might be since you added [sic] to the quote) then they are correct. I'm pretty sure you know this, but on a just-in-case basis .223 Rem bullets like almost all bullets for similar .22X calibers including the 5.56 NATO round are .224 inches in diameter which is 5.7 millimeters (5.69 to be exact).

"millimetre is the international spelling for the length in question, "millimeter" is the American spelling. I doubt that is the problem you had with the statement.

[jag2]

I haven’t looked at snopes for years but I don’t consider them to be Google or any sort of expert on anything. They were just a source to disprove some of the ridiculous rumors that showed up or report on some of the latest scams on the internet.

[DaleA]

You guys are giving me too much credit.

I'm PROBABLY making much to big of a deal about this but the thing that got me is the phrase:
".223 Remington cartridges, which are housed in bullets"
how do the cartridges get housed in the bullets?

And it just might be that I am WRONG...yeah it's happened right here on this site before. It could be I'm just not reading correctly or understanding the phrase.

Mal H...like I said you're giving me too much credit about the word 'millimetres' because my spell checker flagged it and I didn't want folk thinking I mistyped it so I threw in the '[sic]' after it and now, thanks to you, I find out that Snopes was correct about their use of the word and I was wrong.

I'm still don't get the 'cartridges housed in bullets' phrase though. However I'm willing to listen to an explanation and apologize if I also got that wrong.

[mehavey]

Be that as it may, to translate 5.56 (universal cartridge designation) to "5.7" displays just a "bit" of unfamiliarity w/ the whole topic...
and casts a shadow on the source write-up as a whole.

Not putting things in true context is the real problem, though, as the article goes into agonizing detail on what any high-speed bullet does since the Spanish-American War.
But leaves the impression that the AR/223.5.56 is some new uber-destructive development.



.

[4V50 Gary]

Originally snopes was a leftist leaning husband-wife team that opined biased views while asserting itself as an authoritative source. It has long been outed and has lost credibility on the net.

[Wag]

All of the fact checking that Snopes ever did was on Google. Anyone can do the same. Nothing special about Snopes except that they are highly biased and it always shows. Whenever they do run a Google search, they look for stuff that backs them up and they don't check any of the sources for their quoted material.

Certainly not reliable. Truthorfiction.com is a better starting place for fact checking.

--Wag--

[Mal H]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Be that as it may, to translate 5.56 (universal cartridge designation) to "5.7" displays just a "bit" of unfamiliarity w/ the whole topic...
and casts a shadow on the source write-up as a whole.

The author did not "translate" the 5.56 cartridge to 5.7. He said in no uncertain terms that 5.7 is the diameter of the bullet "housed in" a .223 Remington and he is correct.

I think we all can agree that "housed in" is not the proper way to say what he wanted to say. If you can get beyond that, and it isn't that hard to do, the article is fairly complete and accurate on the actual subject of debunking the image of the gargantuan hole that a bullet from an AR-15 makes.

Note that the author of that article is Irish, but mostly educated in America. I think some of his Irish language background showed up in that piece.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mal H

The author did not "translate" the 5.56 cartridge to 5.7. He said in no uncertain terms that 5.7 is the diameter of the bullet "housed in" a .223 Remington and he is correct.

Actually, Mal, he said quite the opposite.

Typically, AR-15 rifles are loaded with .223 Remington cartridges, which are housed in bullets with a diameter of 5.7 millimetres

That said -- as has been mentioned, Snopes is not a "source." They purport to be a fact checker, and the role of a fact checker is not to provide an encyclopedic source on any topic but simply to verify the accuracy of information provided by other sources. When they can't even get that right, they have no legitimate raison d'etre.

[44 AMP]

Using the English language correctly is a nearly lost art these days, and using it incorrectly describing technical matters seems to be a new art form in and of itself.

Typically, AR-15 rifles are loaded with .223 Remington cartridges, which are housed in bullets with a diameter of 5.7 millimetres

The issue with this is, to me, grammar, the lack of which damages the accuracy, and therefore the credibility of the author.

I am left to decide which of these is most likely....

The author is not a native English speaker and understands English grammar poorly...

The author is ignorant of the correct use of terms....

Or, possibly a cut&paste error, either leaving some words out or scrambling word order to make a nonsensical statement.

And while it may be just me, if someone shows me a 3" hole and says "“This is the size of a hole made by an AR-15." then I would ask them, "What part of the rifle did you shove through the target to make that hole?? The barrel?? pistol grip??....

sorry, your common slang is incorrect and inaccurate, but rifles don't make holes. Bullets fired from them do.

OF course, the most common response will be "its the same thing!" but the reality is, it's not the same thing.

And, I think if you claim to be a fact checker, you need to know AND USE the actual FACTS...

or go to work for MSN/NBC writing their headlines....facts don't seem to matter much there....

[mehavey]

If someone ever says to me "...that 5.7 AR..." I'm looking around for
something aside from the lingua franca of 233/5.56

Honest question: Has anyone ever heard of the 223/5.56 cartridge
(or bullet) being referred to as 5.7mm ?

[Mal H]

It's not the cartridge, it was never stated to be a cartridge or caliber designation! It's the diameter of the bullet expressed in millimeters which is very common almost everywhere except here in the US. What is so hard to understand about that? You are trying to make a simple statement about a dimension into something it isn't.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by mehavey

If someone ever says to me "...that 5.7 AR..." I'm looking around for
something aside from the lingua franca of 233/5.56

Honest question: Has anyone ever heard of the 223/5.56 cartridge
(or bullet) being referred to as 5.7mm ?

No, but there are 5.7x28mm uppers available for an AR. That is what I would think of if someone said "5.7 AR".

[Double Naught Spy]

I love it. Some of y'all are really just looking for trouble, complaining about couple of minor errors on a 3rd party website instead of taking the more magnanimous position of being helpful and sending in some corrected information.

I am sure they would appreciate the insight with appropriate facts and verifiable links, LOL.
https://www.snopes.com/contact/


Now, if you tried to be helpful and they blew you off, that might be another matter.

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by Double_Naught

I am sure they would appreciate the insight with appropriate facts and verifiable links, LOL.

Emphasis on the LOL....

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by DaleA

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ar...le-size-wound/

Okay, if I’m running a ‘fact checking’ site, like Snopes, then I best make sure the stuff posted on my site is correct.

It’s obvious Snopes was lazy or ignorant or both concerning the above quote from their site and I think it says something about their credibility.

Background: Snopes is fact checking a poster that shows a black circle about three inches in diameter with the text:
“This is the size of a hole made by an AR-15. Tell me again why you need that?”
Snopes’ verdict on the poster is not ‘True’ and not ‘False’ but their rating is ‘Mixture’ which their definition is:



P.S. I don't want to argue the merits of the 'Mixture' rating as Snopes jumps through many hoops and even disregards an expert opinion they themselves solicited. I just want the very first quote, at the top of the post, to show that they do not do the work they should to get their facts 'checked'.

Doing my best to not violate politics rule. Snopes is a Democratic leftist leaning propaganda tool.

[44 AMP]

The reputation, reliability, and credibility of anyone passing themselves off as "fact checkers" is 100% dependent on their accuracy, in ALL things.

fact checkers are expected to be impartial, unbiased and above all, accurate.

Snopes fails this standard time and time again, sometimes, apparently intentionally.

Any group, of any political leaning that fails the standard should not be considered a trustworthy source.

about ANYTHING....

[Double Naught Spy]

And yet, their verification process is often spot on. With that said, their process includes their sources and you can verify with their sources and move on from there to find more information. Just like this forum, Snopes is a resource.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

And yet, their verification process is often spot on. With that said, their process includes their sources and you can verify with their sources and move on from there to find more information. Just like this forum, Snopes is a resource.

Snopes is a biased resource. They are often just plain wrong.

[44 AMP]

am reminded of the phrase, "sometimes, even a blind monkey finds a banana.."

Even though there are matters where their process is "spot on" and verifiable by independent sources, when you get caught "lying to the jury in the court of public opinion" (and, they have been), your credibility, about everything, goes in the crapper.