Carrying guns leads to confrontations....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

If I'm going to do that I'm going to need my knife.

Oh, that's even better. I was suggesting pushing it through the skin, but a handy hole is even better.

[Tero]

Seth keeps thumping his chest at me.

Why is it difficult to see that if 47% of the country are entitlement sucking low IQ folk, then 47% of gun owners are as well. You are not protecting some noble savages.

Doesn't mean that they are any more or less likely to misuse a firearm.

And even if true, we don't engage in prior restraint when it comes to ...bla bla...license is the power to destroy.

Tero sounds discriminitory towards persons of "low" IQ.

Absolutely. ADHD, fine. Depression, fine. Sociopath, stay in your hole. Idiots, always in my way.

[Gallstones]

So, point blank is max velocity and expansion occurs when entering the target, then there should be max potential expansion from point blank.

Yes?

Yes. The only possible downside is overpenetration as some bullets are designed for controlled expansion at range, but that applies mostly to rifle rounds and non-expanding pistol bullets like full metal jacket rounds used by the military. By law (Geneva Accords and US military rule) rounds used in combat MUST be solid-core non-expanding bullets. This is specifically intended to REDUCE the lethal potential of military arms, since in "civilized" warfare it's assumed that any bullet injury is sufficient to take the soldier out of the fight, and therefore using expanding rounds that are intentionally designed to maximize lethality are "barbaric" under the laws of war. Of course these days, enemies like Al Quaida don't abide by the Geneva accords while we still do, so they use hollow-point rifle bullets to maximize damage while we still use FMJ rounds.

Civilian defensive pistol rounds are designed to reliably expand (if they are designed to expand at all) at all reasonable velocities and ranges. Get too far out with a pistol round and it might lose enough energy so that it won't expand reliably, but that's in the hundreds of yards category.

There is actually some legal risk to using expanding defensive ammunition because in some cases the crook's lawyer (or his family's lawyer) will accuse you of intentionally "murdering" the suspect by using highly-lethal hollow-point rounds, and they will claim that using this sort of ammunition proves that you went out armed "looking for a confrontation."

That's why many police departments (and almost all of them until fairly recently) mandated the use of solid lead or full metal copper jacketed non-expanding bullets. That's changed quite a bit as the police finally realized what civilians knew for a long time: If you're legally authorized to shoot someone, it's because you are authorized to use deadly force, and since ipso facto the situation must be serious enough that you MAY use deadly force, it's in your best interests to use ammunition that will stop the threat as quickly and reliably as possible, which means hollow-points. And that's the rebuttal argument your lawyer makes when it's brought up by the plaintiff in a civil suit.

The ban on "Black Talon" pistol ammunition came about precisely because there was an outcry that it was "too lethal" because of it's astounding expansion performance. It was also falsely characterized as "Teflon" armor-piercing ammunition simply because it had a black Teflon coating to help prevent bore fouling with copper (and to look cool and menacing to consumers), which it was not.

Today there are many expansion rounds on the market that work as well or better than Black Talon, they just don't coat them with Teflon anymore.

As an aside, the actual "Teflon armor piercing ammunition" that COULD penetrate police officer's vests was called "KTM" and it was actually a solid bronze projectile that was coated with Teflon to prevent excessive bore wear (bronze is much harder than copper or lead). It was intended for sale by the manufacturer ONLY to law enforcement and the military, but enough seeped out into the hands of civilians that the anti-gun hoplophobes in Congress were able to insert the ban in Clinton's "assault weapons" ban (as I recall) out of pure misplaced panic and evil intentions. KTM was, as far as I know, never used to shoot a single police officer by a criminal.

I have a small stash of KTM socked away for the zombie apocalypse that I bought up right before the ban was enacted (while I was still a cop).

The shame is that the police NEED good armor-piercing ammunition, but have a hard time getting it now. They have to get it through the military because no commercial sources can make it.

BTW, the BATFE knows the difference between "Teflon coated" and "armor piercing" and it's illegal to manufacture for civilian sale any non-expanding bronze (or depleted uranium or steel...essentially any non-expanding "armor piercing" ammo) pistol or rifle bullets. This is why ultra long-range shooters shooting calibers like the .416 Barrett use turned brass high-accuracy projectiles.

This is why "pulled" armor-piercing steel or carbide core bullets manufactured for military use (against material targets) that have been pulled from old surplus ammo are popular at gun shows for people who reload their own ammo. The bullets are not newly manufactured, and it's not illegal to load them for personal use, you just can't sell a complete armor-piercing round on the open market.

Thank you ever so much.
Know any good references on ammunition and ballistics so I can do some homework?

[FBM]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

If I'm going to do that I'm going to need my knife.

Oh, that's even better. I was suggesting pushing it through the skin, but a handy hole is even better.

I was thinking 'ballistic gel' when I posted that.

[Seth]

So, point blank is max velocity and expansion occurs when entering the target, then there should be max potential expansion from point blank.

Yes?

Yes. The only possible downside is overpenetration as some bullets are designed for controlled expansion at range, but that applies mostly to rifle rounds and non-expanding pistol bullets like full metal jacket rounds used by the military. By law (Geneva Accords and US military rule) rounds used in combat MUST be solid-core non-expanding bullets. This is specifically intended to REDUCE the lethal potential of military arms, since in "civilized" warfare it's assumed that any bullet injury is sufficient to take the soldier out of the fight, and therefore using expanding rounds that are intentionally designed to maximize lethality are "barbaric" under the laws of war. Of course these days, enemies like Al Quaida don't abide by the Geneva accords while we still do, so they use hollow-point rifle bullets to maximize damage while we still use FMJ rounds.

Civilian defensive pistol rounds are designed to reliably expand (if they are designed to expand at all) at all reasonable velocities and ranges. Get too far out with a pistol round and it might lose enough energy so that it won't expand reliably, but that's in the hundreds of yards category.

There is actually some legal risk to using expanding defensive ammunition because in some cases the crook's lawyer (or his family's lawyer) will accuse you of intentionally "murdering" the suspect by using highly-lethal hollow-point rounds, and they will claim that using this sort of ammunition proves that you went out armed "looking for a confrontation."

That's why many police departments (and almost all of them until fairly recently) mandated the use of solid lead or full metal copper jacketed non-expanding bullets. That's changed quite a bit as the police finally realized what civilians knew for a long time: If you're legally authorized to shoot someone, it's because you are authorized to use deadly force, and since ipso facto the situation must be serious enough that you MAY use deadly force, it's in your best interests to use ammunition that will stop the threat as quickly and reliably as possible, which means hollow-points. And that's the rebuttal argument your lawyer makes when it's brought up by the plaintiff in a civil suit.

The ban on "Black Talon" pistol ammunition came about precisely because there was an outcry that it was "too lethal" because of it's astounding expansion performance. It was also falsely characterized as "Teflon" armor-piercing ammunition simply because it had a black Teflon coating to help prevent bore fouling with copper (and to look cool and menacing to consumers), which it was not.

Today there are many expansion rounds on the market that work as well or better than Black Talon, they just don't coat them with Teflon anymore.

As an aside, the actual "Teflon armor piercing ammunition" that COULD penetrate police officer's vests was called "KTM" and it was actually a solid bronze projectile that was coated with Teflon to prevent excessive bore wear (bronze is much harder than copper or lead). It was intended for sale by the manufacturer ONLY to law enforcement and the military, but enough seeped out into the hands of civilians that the anti-gun hoplophobes in Congress were able to insert the ban in Clinton's "assault weapons" ban (as I recall) out of pure misplaced panic and evil intentions. KTM was, as far as I know, never used to shoot a single police officer by a criminal.

I have a small stash of KTM socked away for the zombie apocalypse that I bought up right before the ban was enacted (while I was still a cop).

The shame is that the police NEED good armor-piercing ammunition, but have a hard time getting it now. They have to get it through the military because no commercial sources can make it.

BTW, the BATFE knows the difference between "Teflon coated" and "armor piercing" and it's illegal to manufacture for civilian sale any non-expanding bronze (or depleted uranium or steel...essentially any non-expanding "armor piercing" ammo) pistol or rifle bullets. This is why ultra long-range shooters shooting calibers like the .416 Barrett use turned brass high-accuracy projectiles.

This is why "pulled" armor-piercing steel or carbide core bullets manufactured for military use (against material targets) that have been pulled from old surplus ammo are popular at gun shows for people who reload their own ammo. The bullets are not newly manufactured, and it's not illegal to load them for personal use, you just can't sell a complete armor-piercing round on the open market.

Thank you ever so much.
Know any good references on ammunition and ballistics so I can do some homework?

Pick up a Sierra Bullets reloading manual. There's a lot of good info in it that will get you started. You can download several free or cheap iPhone ballistics apps too.

[amused]

bullet porn

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think FBM was just taking it all the way to the other end, "Let's push the bullet in with our finger so it doesn't fragment.)

If I'm going to do that I'm going to need my knife.

Oh, that's even better. I was suggesting pushing it through the skin, but a handy hole is even better.

I was thinking 'ballistic gel' when I posted that.

You lost control of that line shortly after you posted that.

[Jason]

...that would have been avoided.

Do I need examples? Zimmerman. And at least half the gun owners are potentially dangerous.

Prove that they aren't. Including criminals.

This is not a discussion of the law or constitutiion. Merely human failures and stupidity.

Not a necessary conclusion, but often true. Armed citizens often needlessly escalate situations for everyone around themselves, involved or not, by going all 'Dirty Harry' and asking 'Do ya feel lucky, punk?'.

Education and reformation of laws governing self-defence would help a great deal.

[Tero]

Education and reformation of laws governing self-defence would help a great deal.

I'll start a thread on that, something to annoy the libertarians in the title.

[Seth]

...that would have been avoided.

Do I need examples? Zimmerman. And at least half the gun owners are potentially dangerous.

Prove that they aren't. Including criminals.

This is not a discussion of the law or constitutiion. Merely human failures and stupidity.

Not a necessary conclusion, but often true. Armed citizens often needlessly escalate situations for everyone around themselves, involved or not, by going all 'Dirty Harry' and asking 'Do ya feel lucky, punk?'.

Except of course that you have absolutely NO actual documented or verifiable evidence that this has ever actually happened, much less happened "often."

Education and reformation of laws governing self-defence would help a great deal.

Er, that's what the NRA, among many other firearms advocacy organizations have been doing for the last 100+ years and have successfully achieved education that has reduced gun accidents by 98% since 1912 and which has reformed the laws governing self-defense radically in virtually every state now (Illinois, the last holdout state that absolutely refused to issue concealed carry permits under any circumstances was just spanked by the federal court and told to fashion a reasonable CCW policy within the next 180 days) to provide greater protections for the victims of crimes, particularly when they lawfully exercise their inherent, unalienable, fundamental right to self-defense.

[Jason]

Oh look it's a response by Seth. Let me see

'derp. derpa derp. derpa derpa trolling derp. derp derp. derp.'

Right. Moving along.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh look it's a response by Seth. Let me see

'derp. derpa derp. derpa derpa trolling derp. derp derp. derp.'

Right. Moving along.

Great is the power of Ignore.

[mozg]

...that would have been avoided.

Do I need examples? Zimmerman. And at least half the gun owners are potentially dangerous.

Prove that they aren't. Including criminals.

This is not a discussion of the law or constitutiion. Merely human failures and stupidity.

Not a necessary conclusion, but often true. Armed citizens often needlessly escalate situations for everyone around themselves, involved or not, by going all 'Dirty Harry' and asking 'Do ya feel lucky, punk?'.

How bout you back this claim up with some evidence of its veracity?

[Tero]

This thread is not about gun rights or the law. The gun proponents have failed to convince me that giving idiots (50% of owners) the right to carry a concealed weapon improves my safety on the street. In fact there is nothing in the NRA agenda that improves my life. Sure, you can educate all you like. If you already have a gun it makes sense.

Giving the idiot the gun wipes out any benefit from the smart responsible half.

Give me a news story where the armed vigilante saved a citizen from evil doers.

[Jason]

...that would have been avoided.

Do I need examples? Zimmerman. And at least half the gun owners are potentially dangerous.

Prove that they aren't. Including criminals.

This is not a discussion of the law or constitutiion. Merely human failures and stupidity.

Not a necessary conclusion, but often true. Armed citizens often needlessly escalate situations for everyone around themselves, involved or not, by going all 'Dirty Harry' and asking 'Do ya feel lucky, punk?'.

How bout you back this claim up with some evidence of its veracity?

Um.. which gun thread was it where gun proponents (which I am one, just not as nuts as some others here) posted about a dozen or so news stories about people hauling iron on some punk and scaring him off? I think anyone of those would do. Use the search function and fuck off.