epiphiny43
Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops?
Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical.
Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol.
The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds.
I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point.
And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms.
A 10mm through normal body armor can kill without penetrating.
More so a .44 magnum.
For the unenlightened it will brake bones and cause internal injuries.
Ok, let me ask the dumb questions: What is considered 'normal body armor'? Is there an industry standard or bench mark value? Or is it separated between military and civilian spec?
Most cops wear what is know as soft body armor. That is made solely of kevlar. Military (and some swat units) wear re-enforced body armor with up to and including metal or ceramic plates. These provide much more protection. As pointed out earlier (by bounty I think) this military grade body armor can stop a .308 (which can, for reference, drop a dear at 400 yards). Unfortunately this armor is too heavy to wear in a normal police environment and generally too expensive for departments to be able to afford. Virtually any rifle from a 30-30 on up (30-30 was state of the art in 1894) will penetrate soft armor. Any handgun from a .45 long colt (developed for the 1873 colt single action) on up can harm the wearer of soft armor though most will not penetrate it.
This makes calling the 5.56 armor piercing because it will penetrate soft armor a fallacy to misdirect people who know little or nothing about firearms.
"Armor piercing" sounds scary and many will, as you did, automatically support banning it. However you are being mislead with deceptive terminology. Much like calling semi automatics that look like assault weapons assault weapons when they are clearly not.
I am Not a Conservative (Or Liberal though most neocons probably wouldn't ever grasp any differences among their many opponents) but am very familiar with weapons and terminal ballistics (What happens when the projectile interacts with the target) and I approve this message. (BamaD's last post)
No discussion can be productive if any participant gets to redefine commonly used terms to suit what emotional loading they prefer to that of accurate descriptions. People ignorant of the terms and principles discussed participating in such discussions that involve actual physical objects and the various Physics, Biology or other dynamics that governs their performance damage democracy and communication. By being manipulated by disingenuous arguments if nothing else. Learn the language pertinent to the discussion or stfu and listen/study till you do understand the terms, issues and shades of any controversy.
Firearms are only the poster child here. Nuclear power, immunizations, GMO, Global Warming, Autism and most actually complicated matters fall under this problem. For those interested, I find remarkably few egregious errors in Wikipedia (Though conscientious and effective use requires looking at ALL the linked terms you aren't very familiar with), though often not as comprehensive as some would like, and Google searches can be toil, but the information is almost always out there. Sorting through the commercial BS and salesmanship gets simpler with practice, tone helps to spot extreme positions remarkably often.
< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 2/28/2015 2:49:51 PM >
|
RE: ATF tries the back door.... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread