Gun Control thread (merged many)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

While I am a big proponent for our constitutional rights, I have never been a big fan of Open Carry, and you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth because that's how I feel about open carry. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I understand what people who are open carrying are trying to achieve, because a person who is active in shooting sports, hunting, and firearms in general, yes, seeing someone carrying a firearm is quite normal. But for people not engaged in shooting sports, hunting, etc, it is anything but normal, if not alarming. So I don't think it's getting the results they think it does. I think the effect is quite the opposite by making gun owners look like fringe elements of society.


Still though, seeing someone carrying a firearm while in a department store or what not, is not normal regardless if your a gun owner or not. There is a place for open carry. Hiking perhaps, on a ranch, camping, outdoor recreational activities where your not near any major population center. Guns are often thought of as tools. As such, one does not go walking into a department store carrying a skillsaw, or wearing a tool belt and hard hat. You usually carry those things when your on a job site......

Good point. I'm not as anti-gun as some of my liberal bretheren, but doing something like this guy did just to be provocative and "in your face" is just hurting the cause. He does look like a loony and he's not accomplishing anything other than making all the other kids look at his kid and say "that's the one with the crazy dad." He clearly didn't consider that when he marched off on his stupid crusade. School is tough enough on kids. No need to make it harder.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

There's probably far too many people out there who do not understand nor respect the .22LR It's the smallest and cheapest caliber of ammunition on the market. It looks weak, like something you'd see an an old time carnival shooting gallery. However the .22 in reality, is can be quite a deadly round, as it is my understanding that once it enters a body, it can bounce around, thereby causing more damage to internal organs. For a point of comparison, the bullets that come out of the much debated AR-15, are .22 caliber in diameter.

What makes .22 and similar size rounds so deadly is their combination of high velocity and small weight.When they hit soft tissue they tend to tumble because of the low mass of the bullet with a large amount of kinetic energy behind it.So they tend to tumble only due to the small mass they will "bounce" off of harder tissue and bone.

Your larger rounds like .223 and .214(5.56mm & 5.54mm) take the effect and multiply it several times only they dont bounce they either explode or ideally "key hole" and they have enough mass to rip a massive laceration into internal organs.Nasty stuff indeed back in 1980's in Afghanistan when Soviets forces started used the AK-74 in combat the Mujaheddin thought that the rounds it fired must have been poisoned because they did not appear to be causing very much damage externally but men where dying within a day or two before they could get professional medical aid.The reality was of course that the bullets had torn internal organs apart and it just took time to die.The excruciating pain that fighters hit by 5.45mm rounds displayed must have of course added to the belief that the bullets where some how poisoned.

The Soviet/Russian 5.45mm has a special air pocket in its tip to increase it chances of expansion and improve the key hole effect it actually takes advantage of a loophole in the Hauge convention that bans hollow point and expanding rounds but the 5.54mm (5N7) cheat it because they have a solid tip.I have actually seen guys laugh at how small 5.45x39mm is my neighbor laughed at my rounds then I showed him this and he stopped laughing (5.45x39mm is the top one notice that it caused a cavity twice this is a US Army wound chart for doctors)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../RussianWP.jpg



You forgot about the .17 round currently the smallest mass produced caliber.

[Bilge_Rat]

All bullets will tumble when entering the human body, although all at different rates, even different types of 7.62mm or 5.56 mm ammo will differ.

To simplify, a round which hits a body will generally do one of three things:

1. go straight through. This is called a through and through wound and usually causes the least damage, depending on where it hits;

2. tumble. This causes more damage; or

3. shatter. This usually causes the most damage.

Generally a softer bullet is more likely to shatter, but it generally does not carry as far and may have trouble penetrating protective clothing, so there is always a compromise involved.

Incidentally, that is the theory behind the "double-tap", namely if you fire two bullets, the odds are very high that at least one will tumble and cause a serious wound.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

This is called a through and through wound and usually causes the least damage, depending on where it hits;

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted about a T&T!

A T&T, depending on round fire, distance to impact, and round type, can be the most devastating hit one could ever take.

At close combat ranges the smaller rounds are used for the tumble effect.

At distance? You want a heavy round for the shear impact it puts on target.

A .22 round will hit target at great distances.
The .50 cal makes sure that target is blown nearly in half at the same distance.

Last time I fired a .50? It didn't tumble. It was T&T!

I forgot to ask him what he wanted to be hit with.

[Bilge_Rat]

I was not talking about all rounds, I was talking about military 7.62mm/5.56 mm.

a straight through shot will enter and leave the body leaving just a small hole, obviously if it hits a bone or major organ or shatters, that is a different story.

It is more of an issue with a new type of 5.56 mm ammo. There has been criticism that it is not as effective as the older round.

Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

some have theorized that this is caused by the fact that Taliban fighters are malnourished and very thin, so the 5.56 mm ammo tends to go through as a clean through and through.

most of the damage caused by 5.56 ammo comes from tumbling and/or shattering inside the body.

There has been much criticism of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[23] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the Vietnam War, first Gulf War, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The change of the original 1 in 14 inch barrel twist rate of the AR15 to the 1 in 12 inch barrel twist rate in the M16 and XM16E1, resulted in greater long range accuracy and better bullet stability. However, it also resulted in making the bullet less likely to tumble on impact with soft tissue. Much of the spectacular wounding ability of the original AR15 in the Vietnam War was on account of the 1 in 14 twist and the bullets tendency to tumble and possibly also fragment after impact. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[23] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

The original russian made 7.62x39mm rounds used in Vietnam in AK-47s were too stable, they tended to go straight through and through and cause only a small wound:

Although the new cartridge represented a great leap forward from previous designs, the initial bullet design was flawed. The complete solidity of the M43 projectile causes its only drawback—it is very stable, even while traversing tissue. It begins to yaw only after traversing nearly 26 cm (10 in) of tissue.[4] This greatly reduces the wounding effectiveness of the projectile against humans. These wounds were comparable to that of a small handgun round using non-expanding bullets. Unless the round struck something vital, the wound was usually non-fatal, small and quick to heal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3...ese_steel_core

[MH]

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted about a T&T!

Is he?
.... bringing in the 12.7 mm browning is a bit out of place here dont you think.

Reading stuff is totally different from actually seein what a round does to the human body.

It's the main reason a .22 is used for close up wet work.
A behing the ear shot with a .22 at close range will allow that round to bounce off the skull and usually circle around and exit very near the entry point depending on the angle of the entry.

That destroys the brain sack.

In combat situations? The malnutrition is not a proven fact. I'd suspect many who died in Vietnam would even argue it if they could!
I'd even go so far to say BS on that type theory!

Now, given we're talking about Gun control? IF I used a .22 for home defense? I want as many rounds as I can pack into a weapon as at that range it would be a T&T for most hits.
So your theory works there.

Originally Posted by MH

Is he?
.... bringing in the 12.7 mm browning is a bit out of place here dont you think.

Well if one wants to talk misconceptions? How out of place is it really?
And as far as the thread topic? It's Gun Control.
That .50 cal may or may not be accessable to me at this time.
Should the unknowing have thier way? I may not have access to it unless I become a criminal.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by privateer

Reading stuff is totally different from actually seein what a round does to the human body.

It's the main reason a .22 is used for close up wet work.
A behing the ear shot with a .22 at close range will allow that round to bounce off the skull and usually circle around and exit very near the entry point depending on the angle of the entry.

That destroys the brain sack.

In combat situations? The malnutrition is not a proven fact. I'd suspect many who died in Vietnam would even argue it if they could!
I'd even go so far to say BS on that type theory!

Now, given we're talking about Gun control? IF I used a .22 for home defense? I want as many rounds as I can pack into a weapon as at that range it would be a T&T for most hits.
So your theory works there.

so you think you know more about wound ballistics than the U.S. military?

now that is ridiculous.

The U.S. Military is known to use what is provided to them by decisions from above.


The M-16 was a piece of junk at first introduction during Vietnam!
And has anyone counted with facts how many Troopers died because of that POS?
Wonder who made money on that deal!


And YES! I have experience with all versions of the M-16 ever released to field troopers!

Military weapons, as issued, are not subject to newest attempts to limit Guns in the U.S.
The act of 1968 pretty much fixed that issue.

And as to my qualifications during service and the years since?
I can not disclose that type information.
I might be telling tall tales.
Then again?
I may be the boogie man.


I do travel alot.

[Bilge_Rat]

this on the malnutrition part:

Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.


Interesting, few of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

From Dr. Roberts:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

Doesn't matter what the report says.

Still useing that same M-16 since for ever.
And no concret plans to replace it service wide.

Engage at proper distance?
No one walks forwards after taking a round to the chest.

But it's like a torpedo. It don't arm till a certain distance is passed.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by privateer

Doesn't matter what the report says.

Still useing that same M-16 since for ever.
And no concret plans to replace it service wide.

Engage at proper distance?
No one walks forwards after taking a round to the chest.

But it's like a torpedo. It don't arm till a certain distance is passed.

Indeed some rounds at certain ranges do not get the chance to tumble before they pass through and some rounds will not tumble ever.For example many pistol caliber rounds tend not to tumble.

At any rate I am sure the expert Bilgerat will prove you other wise it does not mean that he is correct.

If one searches they will find the reason that the M855 round (the US military version of the SS109) round has issues is because it was designed with a ceramic plate body armor wearing WARSAW Pact solider in mind.Against an unarmored target it maintains higher velocity and is not slown down enough to effectively tumble.Several ballistics experts ran test years ago when the SS109 was still in development and raised concerns.Fuuny that the Dr. that wrote that report said that Taliban fighters where malnourished most people I know that fought them said that they where pretty healthy well where pretty healthy prior to bullets such caused them to expire.

The US military now uses M855A1 rounds which do not rely on yaw to cause wounding which shatters your claim Bilgerat that every bullet tumbles (yaw) is 100% incorrect.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The US military now uses M855A1 rounds which do not rely on yaw to cause wounding which shatters your claim Bilgerat that every bullet tumbles (yaw) is 100% incorrect.

No you are wrong, I was talking about the existing design, pay attention.

The M855A1 is designed specifically to engage targets at longer ranges like you find in Afghanistan. It is designed to have a flatter trajectory. Whether it will cause as much damage to humans is another story.

ammo design is a tradeoff, you can design for a long range or you can design for maximum damage, very hard to do both.

[mookiemookie]

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.