quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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?

Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56?

Hint: Read the link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
what I found interesting is the fact that the military round has a 62 gr bullet while the nonmilitary round has a 55 gr bullet. There is a difference in performance. Both are commercially available. Is the ATF saying that the 55 gr bullet is also a military round?

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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?

Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56?

Hint: Read the link.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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?

Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56?

Hint: Read the link.

How many terrorists use hunting rifles over assault rifles? One is typically semi-auto if not single shot (i.e. bolt action). When the other is full-auto if not semi-auto? Helps the body count grow. That's why they often have firearms the spew bullets rather than accurate shots.

How many school shootings involved hunting rifles?

How many criminals use hunting rifles over all other types of firearms? Ok, I'll grant you, they are used more often than muskets.....

Hunting rifles are not used to kill people in quite the same manner as other firearms. Because if they were, they would be ...EVEN MORE RESTRICTED...than they are now. That's what we call 'logic', Kirata. Yes, people have used them to kill people. Not because of their 'armor defeating' abilities of the ammo either!

Why not the 5.56? Maybe they haven't gotten around to it. Maybe its for the legislative's branch of government to do ITS FUCKING JOB. Why don't you go ask those NRA-bought Republicans why they aren't creating laws to restrict or ban the 5.56....

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.

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.

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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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?

The fact that they claim it is armor piercing rounds doesn't make it true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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.

Yes, it is sort of a 'misdirection' to call it 'bullet proof'. I was on the belief people would understand it. Since I took so much flak when I stated it as 'bullet resistant' last time. There are a bunch of other variables that would determine if a bullet could penetrate into the human body or not. A medical topic for another day?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
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.

Call it an educated guess, but I think....ANY....US President would dislike someone waving around a firearm aimed in their direction by someone hell-bent on killing them. Even those Republican presidents that like the NRA.....

If handguns are being made to handle such ability as a hunting rifle, would it not be fair to discuss the issues that could crop up from it? Not talking just the President, but other public officials. Since there are a fair number of conservatives that dislike Democrats in the nation. Of those, a small percentage whom.....REALLY HATE....Democrats. Of those, (hopefully) a small percentage that would take violent action.

It only takes one conservative gun nut, doing this towards a Democrat and succeeding for all sorts of gun laws to erupt from nowhere! Imagine if Gabby Giffords was shot by one of these people, rather than the unstable guy that did it?

Can you prove to me it won't happen? You know and I know you cant. So a better discussion might be "Who would use this firearm, given its abilities'? A fair question, yes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
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.

I've never really gotten involved in 'bullet physics' element in science. Its a sub-section off 'ballistics' in Physics. I suppose if I did the research, I could give you quite the volume of text for you to learn as well. For now, lets table it. Unless your physics skills have a college degree behind it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms.

I talk about firearms from the legal, medical, and human perspective. I talk about it from the historical viewpoint as well. If I wanted to learn the science that goes into firearm manufacturing, testing, and production (along with all that goes with it), I know where to look. As I stated, I'm not big on the 'bullet physics'. But that doesn't mean I couldn't research and learn it.

The Law of Kinetic Energy is different from the 2nd amendment. Yes, they are both 'laws'. But one is a scientific law and the other is a legal law. You want to talk about the physics of bullets fired from these guns? Which guns are we talking about? What is the question(s) being asked?

But I think we'd have to ask the ATF why its going about its action, rather than create a side-long topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy.

A 62 grain 5.56x45 will achieve between 2400fps and 2500fps at the muzzle of a 9" barrel. The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel. When fired through a 9" barrel it produces hellacious sound and flash levels and has marginal stability. But a 5.56 pistol isn't anything the average person would think of as a handgun. It's basically a short-barrel rifle without a shoulder stock (see here and here). Additionally, it would appear that the green tip M855 isn't even technically an armor-piercing round, because it has a lead-alloy core (see here). Even leaving that aside, Level III ballistic armor with a chest plate will stop 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO rounds.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy.

A 62 grain 5.56x45 will achieve between 2400fps and 2500fps at the muzzle of a 9" barrel. The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel. When fired through a 9" barrel it produces hellacious sound and flash levels and has marginal stability. But a 5.56 pistol isn't anything the average person would think of as a handgun. It's basically a short-barrel rifle without a shoulder stock (see here and here). Additionally, it would appear that the green tip M855 isn't even technically an armor-piercing round, because it has a lead-alloy core (see here). Even leaving that aside, Level III ballistic armor with a chest plate will stop 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO rounds.

K.