RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think?

RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/23/2015 5:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] Hollow points, or any other round that avoids excessive penetration are always better for in town, let alone in house. Whether carrying my .38 special or my .45 acp I used hollow points for exactly that reason. Exactly but a .357 even with a 158 grain HP will over penetrate. My I initial loads are .357 Glazer safety slugs and then speed loaders with 158 grain .38 +P's. Yes, I know, that is the big drawback to the .357, and the .44 mag.

lovmuffin -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/23/2015 7:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] Hollow points, or any other round that avoids excessive penetration are always better for in town, let alone in house. Whether carrying my .38 special or my .45 acp I used hollow points for exactly that reason. Exactly but a .357 even with a 158 grain HP will over penetrate. My I initial loads are .357 Glazer safety slugs and then speed loaders with 158 grain .38 +P's. Yes, I know, that is the big drawback to the .357, and the .44 mag. The drawback to the .44 mag is the bulk and weight. Though .44 specials would work well for 2 leg predator defense.

lovmuffin -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/23/2015 7:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] After watching the videos again, it looks like it fully penetrated only 1 section of that cinder block.

BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/23/2015 7:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] After watching the videos again, it looks like it fully penetrated only 1 section of that cinder block. So there is a bit of false advertising.

lovmuffin -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/23/2015 7:48:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] After watching the videos again, it looks like it fully penetrated only 1 section of that cinder block. So there is a bit of false advertising. I don't know about that. Cinder block penetration wasn't on the list. I just didn't see what I thought I saw the first time I watched the videos. The center core did penetrate what's looks like 16 inches of ballistic gelatin.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 6:49:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail On the plusses side, they would be better for home defense than some of the stuff clowns have out there (particularly if there are others in the house). And they are more personal than drones, and you wont have to shoot up so many rounds. Minus side, cops are going to have a rougher time of it at traffic stops. How many criminals do you come across that are armed like this guy? [image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3xx7O4TyZs8/TY4GskNt_UI/AAAAAAAABvI/3Kd_fW1_qC4/s1600/Ultramarines.2.jpeg[/image] Since its been shown ammunition does a pretty good job of killing people. That's the primary reason why its created. This particular ammunition looks like something for the military and not civilian use. Since if everyday people can get a hold of it, so can criminals. Why is that bad besides the obvious (i.e. 'cop killer ammo'); you just giving more motivation to the gun controllers to pass....MORE...laws. Particularly after a few law enforcement officers are killed by these! FYI: Those bullets would not do crap against an Adeptus Astartes outside of his power armor. Care to guess how well it would do with his armor on? That's one Indianapolis Colts fan I wouldn't want to cross.

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:10:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Since its been shown ammunition does a pretty good job of killing people. That's the primary reason why its created. This particular ammunition looks like something for the military and not civilian use. Wrong again, bozo. Only one in three gunshot injuries is fatal. And military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:12:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill. [/font][/size] Really! Interesting. I'd be genuinely interested in support/rationale for that. Thank you. Googling offers this (no idea as to its accuracy): "Geneva Conventions go into some detail about the types of anti-personnel weapons and munitions that can be used. Specifically, they have to be designed to kill or wound with minimum maiming etc. For example a fragmentation bullet that 'corkscrews' through the body or 'tumbles' is illegal." So killing would be fine per se, yes? Anyway, looking forward to hearing more. Discussion boards are calling this statement a myth, but I'm sure you have better sources. There is this, though unverified by CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-911286

mnottertail -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:24:27 AM)
Couple things with no sharpened point to anyone. I can smash thru several layers of cinder block with a clawhammer. In military thought, it is better to wound than kill, dead folks is 'In the name of the Father and the Son, in the hole you go.' Wounded have to be taken care of and its a lot of money, look at our VA troubles right now. And 5.56 rounds tumble, they have made a big deal about that in basic training....

Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill. Really! Interesting. I'd be genuinely interested in support/rationale for that. Thank you. Googling offers this (no idea as to its accuracy): "Geneva Conventions go into some detail about the types of anti-personnel weapons and munitions that can be used. Specifically, they have to be designed to kill or wound with minimum maiming etc. For example a fragmentation bullet that 'corkscrews' through the body or 'tumbles' is illegal." So killing would be fine per se, yes? The prohibition has nothing to do with kindness, though it seems worded that way, and maybe that's what was in the Convention's mind. But ammunition designed to fragment or mushroom is more likely to kill, and while killing is most definitely okay in combat, the military rationale (from the days when armies used to fight each other) is that the more of the enemy you can wound, the more personnel he has to devote to removing them from the battlefield, transporting them to medical units, and providing care for them, which adds to his supply problems and ties up personnel many or most of whom would otherwise be armed and fighting you. K.

BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:08:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One thinks that the shear-split-spatter will be less penetrative (thru walls and studs and the like) than a typical 9mm, .40 or .45 metal jacketed slug. From your link they state it "Defeats all known barriers such as sheet metal, sheet rock, windshields, plywood, heavy winter clothing". On the video, the 9mm defeats 2 sections of cinder block. With that kind of penetration I would think it less safe for defense other than out in the woods or somewhere that penetration wouldn't be an issue. Even now I wouldn't use any .357 magnum for home defense or carry in public. I use a 158 grain .38 +P hollow point or a magnum safety slug. There was no mention of soft body armor. It'll probably make it to the status of "Cop Killer Bullet" before it's even out on the market [8D] After watching the videos again, it looks like it fully penetrated only 1 section of that cinder block. So there is a bit of false advertising. I don't know about that. Cinder block penetration wasn't on the list. I just didn't see what I thought I saw the first time I watched the videos. The center core did penetrate what's looks like 16 inches of ballistic gelatin. OK thanks for the info.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 9:39:04 AM)
FR to the OP. Mall Ninjas are gonna love this shit.

cloudboy -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 11:21:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And 5.56 rounds tumble, they have made a big deal about that in basic training.... What does that mean?

stef -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 12:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And 5.56 rounds tumble, they have made a big deal about that in basic training.... What does that mean? It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 1:18:46 PM)
I'm not entirely happy about the way they've chamfered the grommets in the casings, Ron - myself, I wouldn't have used a hydride based lubricant because, from experience, I know that this can alter the vectors of each round in an appreciable way. Also, the 'Hungarian-pineapple' motifs are by no means new: Schersczinky's famous attempt at that design, in June 1987, failed dismally, as I'm sure all readers of this thread know all too well. The reverse fluted-flux on the kickback issue was not resolved during those experiments (as I'm sure we all recall) and, to be frank, I see no sign that's been resolved here, either. Personally, I'd be happier at seeing the rounds overcasted, and with pure copper frenchings.

stef -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 1:41:52 PM)
You need to stop drinking from the bottles under the kitchen sink. Or perhaps you need to drink more.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 1:54:34 PM)
I'm saddened to see you trying to conceal your ignorance with passive aggression, Stef. May I suggest that if you're unknowledgeable about a given subject, you stay away from a thread devoted to it?

Politesub53 -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 5:37:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Since its been shown ammunition does a pretty good job of killing people. That's the primary reason why its created. This particular ammunition looks like something for the military and not civilian use. Wrong again, bozo. Only one in three gunshot injuries is fatal. And military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill. K. Hague Convention Requirements There is a prevalent rumor that some military ammunition is designed to wound but not necessarily kill the enemy. The rational is that wounded soldiers take considerably more resources to look after than dead ones. This theory is not only impractical and incorrect, it defies the requirements of nation-based warfare. The Hague Convention of 1899 states that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. Therefore, while civilian ammunition can maim or wound a target (this is often the case in hunting ammunition), military ammo must be designed by international law to kill instead of wound. Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8401641_differences-between-civilian-military-ammunition.html

stef -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 6:11:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I'm saddened to see you trying to conceal your ignorance with passive aggression, Stef. May I suggest that if you're unknowledgeable about a given subject, you stay away from a thread devoted to it? If you ever followed your own advice, no one here would ever know you existed.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 6:17:35 PM)
quote: There is a prevalent rumor that some military ammunition is designed to wound but not necessarily kill the enemy. The rational is that wounded soldiers take considerably more resources to look after than dead ones. This theory is not only impractical and incorrect, it defies the requirements of nation-based warfare. Interesting. That's a rumour I've often heard. I always did wonder, though, about the practicalities of it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875