Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Modern Warfare: Firearms 101 - Small Arms Ammunition

By thelizman in Technology
Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 11:47:09 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

It's been over a year since the first multipart installment ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in the Modern Warfare series has graced the queue here at K5. A few people have asked me when I will commence with the next step in the series. Today, I begin the first installment in Firearms 101 - Small Arms Ammunition. This article will introduce the reader to the "cartridge" and the "shell", and will discuss types, sizes, construction, and applications.


Types of Ammunition

The two main kinds of ammunition are are the cartridge, and the shell.

A cartridge consists of a bullet, a shell casing (sometimes referred to as a casing or a shell, but not to be too confused with the shell), a charge, and a percussion cap (also known as the primer cap). The percussion cap is inserted into the base of the shell, and then a carefully measured quantity of charge is poured into the shell. Finally, the bullet is inserted into the open end of the shell casing, which is crimped onto the bullet.

This is known as the center-fire cartridge, and is by far the most common bullet design. When fired , a pin strikes the percussion cap, which contains a small amount of explosive. The energy of the impact is sufficient to detonate the explosive, which in turn generates the thermal energy needed to detonate the charge. The rapid expansion of gasses accellerates the bullet down the barrel, and out of the firearm.

While the center fire cartridge is the most common, small caliber cartridges also come in a "rim fire" version. In this case, the percussion cap is part of the shell. The firing pin strikes the shell anywhere on the back to fire the catridge. Rim fire catridges cannot be reloaded, nor can they withstand high pressures, so typically they are used for small caliber catridges such as the .22, .22 Magnum, .22 LR (Long Rifle), .25, and the antiquated .32 calibers.

Another type of ammunition is the "shell". Fundamentally, a shell is basically a cartridge without a bullet, where the end is crimped off. In fact, blanks, often used for training or simulation, are made by building a cartridge without a bullet, and simply crimping the ends off. However, shells differ in two ways from cartridges. Most commonly, shells are used in shotguns. For starters, modern shells are made from plastic, whereas almost all cartridges still use metal (brass or steel) for the shell casing. (Older shotgun shells did use metallic casings, but the plastic casings are less expensive to manufacture, and will still work properly in a shotgun). Secondly, the projectiles used by shells are placed inside the shell casing, instead of at the end of it.

The most common projectile used is " shot", or small balls made of metal. The shot is separated from the charge by a plastic plug. When the shell is fired, the shot is propelled out the end of the firearm. Unlike a single bullet, the shot spreads out proportionally to the distance covered, in what is called a "spread". This makes shotguns more effective for hunting small, fast moving game that cannot be easily hit with a single bullet.

In some cases, a shell will actually have a single projectile, called a slug. A slug operates as a bullet would, albeit an exceptionally large and slow moving bullet. In other cases, the shell will be filled with small dart-shaped pieces of razor sharp metal called "flechettes". The shape of a flechette makes it more efficient in flight than shot, so they fly farther. Capable of penetrating body armor, flechettes produce a more gruesome wound, and are outlawed for combat use by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Cartridge Types

Catridges come in a variety of sizes, usually associated with the size of its bullet measured by caliber. As you may have already noticed, bullet sizes are measured in either English caliber or metric caliber. The English measure of a caliber is a hundredth of an inch, thus the .22 caliber bullet is .22 inches in diameter. A caliber doesn't convey information about the length of the bullet. However, bullets that are named according to their metric caliber do, because they are typically described by their diameter and length, such as the 9mm x 19mm. In addition to the bullet size, the differences in cartridges also occur in the size of the case, and the mass of the bullet, and the amount of charge. For instance, the .50 AE is a half inch in diameter pistol catridge which measures approximately 1.25 inches in length. The .50 BMG, on the other hand, is a half inch in diameter, but is over 5.7 inches in length, and can only be safely fired from specially designed rifles.

The most common cartridges are:

    Calibers

  • .22 - The 22 caliber is the smallest cartridge commercially produced. A .22 is typically used for target practice, small game hunting, or for instructing children in firearms safety. A .22 is commonly used in revolvers and single-shot rifles.

  • .22 LR - With the same diameter bullet as the .22, the LR - for Long Rifle - has a longer shell casing and a more powerful powder charge. The .22 LR is used anywhere a .22 would be used, but more power is needed. The .22 LR is typically only used in rifles, though some hand guns have been produced to take advantage of the still compact but more powerful cartridge. The more powerful charge also allows the .22 LR to be used reliabily in semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

  • .223 - The .223 (essentially a 5.56mm) is a powerful cartridge which uses a small bullet propelled at very high speeds. The .223 is widely used for hunting large game, and by various militaries as the 5.56mm x 29mm

  • .25 - The .25 provides an even more powerful cartridge and a bullet with more mass than the .22, allowing it to be used for not-so-small game.

  • .3006, or 30.06 caliber - The "thirty ought six", although just slightly larger than the .25, is a much more powerful catridge and was widely employed during World War II. It is the most powerful of the small caliber class of bullets . The 30.06 caliber is still widely used by

  • .32 Auto - This cartridge was initially developed as an automatic pistol cartridge, but is actually more commonly used in older Police service revolvers. Because it was underpowered, it was unreliable for pistols, and not very well received as a revolver cartridge. 32 caliber revolvers were cheaply produced in the 20's and 30's, so they became a standard issue firearm for law enforcement officers who could not purchase their own sidearm.

  • .357 Magnum - The .357 Magnum is one of the most powerful handgun cartridges in mass production. Though fired from a handgun, the .357 Magnum packs more power than many modern small caliber assault rifles. Its legendary stopping power made it a very popular cartridge for law enforcement use, even though actual studies proved that it was not much more effective than other more commonly available cartridge when used against "soft" targets.

  • .357 SIG - This small cousin of the .357 was designed to put the power of the .357 into a cartridge suitable for semiautomatic pistols. In spite of having the same caliber, the .357 has nowhere near the power of the .357 Magnum, but is competitive. Notably, the .357 SIG is one of the few "necked" handgun cartridges, and the first one in over 80 years. Necked means that the diameter of the cartridge is larger than the diameter of the bullet, with the cartridge being the size of the .40 S&W.

  • .380 - Also known as the "9mm Short", the .380 is a .38 caliber cartridge designed for automatic pistols. The .380 can be used in 9mm pistols, although it usually is not as reliable as the round the pistol was designed to use.

  • .38 Special - Th .38 caliber cartridge is a popular round because it provides a respectable degree of stopping power, but in a compact case which inspired equally compact revolvers. This made 38 caliber handguns easy to conceal, which had a dual edged benefit. On the one hand, the .38 Special became known as the "Saturday Night Special", because they were cheaply made, easily concealed, and thus became a common firearm used in robberies and muggings. By the same token, the .38 "Snub Nose" became popular as a backup weapon for the police community, because it could be concealed in a back pocket, or in increasingly popular ankle holsters.

  • .40 S&W - The .40 Smith & Wesson starts the large caliber category, and is also one of the newest cartridges in use. It was developed as a bridge between the popular 9mm bullet, which typically allowed higher capacity magazines, and the powerful .45 ACP. The development of the .40 S&W followed an investigation into a shootout between FBI Agents and robbery suspects in which it was determined that the standard issue 9mm handguns were not powerful enough take down the suspects, who were armed with more powerful .357 handguns and .223 assault rifles.

  • .44 S&W - The 44 Caliber Smith & Wesson is a revival of the classic .44 caliber. During the late 19th and early 20th century, a number of gun makers began to experiment with the incredibly popularized .44-40 cartridge made famous by the cowboys and outlaws who used them. The .44-40 was an overstatement in terms of its power, so gun makers devoped cartridges they could call .44 caliber, but that would fit their existing frames. The .44 S&W is actually 43.4 caliber, and was designed for the Model 3 break action revolver frames.

  • .44 Magnum - This is the infamous "Dirty Harry" catridge. The .44 Magnum, like the .44 S&W, was designed to bring the mystique of the .44 to an existing frame. Also, since "Magnum" means big, it allowed owners of .44 Mags to gloat over other .44 owners, since their bullet was actually 44.3 caliber. The .44 Magnum is also known as the most famous pistol that used it, the .44 Colt.

  • .45 ACP - The 45 caliber is the progeny of the legendary John Browning, who developed the cartridge for use with his Model 1911. Though the 1911 initially used a .380 cartridge as manufactured by FN, Colt was trying to sell the 1911 to the US Army, who was only interested in large caliber handguns. Browning chose the .45 caliber bullet both for its ballistic properties, and because it was larger than the common .44 caliber rounds the Army used in their revolvers. ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol

  • .50 AE - The 50 caliber Action Express was developed by Action Arms on contract with Israeli Military Industries to "increase ballistic performance". In short, IMI was looking for a handgun with the power to definitively defeat body armor. The .50 AE was made famous by the Desert Eagle .50, and is featured prominantly in such movies as "Snatch", or as used by Agent Smith in "The Matrix".

  • .50 BMG - The 50 caliber Browning Machine Gun cartridge is the most powerful cartridge commercially manufactured. So powerful in fact, that there are only a handful of man-portable firearms which can fire the round. Typically, the .50 BMG is used on crew served weapons.


    Metric Cartridges

  • 5.56mm x 45mm NATO - Equivalent to the .223, this is the standard cartridge for the assault rifle and automatic rifle in NATO countries such as the US. The 5.56 is a high velocity round capable of piercing lightly armored vehicles, and is fairly accurate. However, the high velocity has the draw back of creating clean wounds with tapered bullets that do not immediately incapacitate. This is the round used by the US M-16.

  • 7.62 x 39 BLOC - The standard round of most Kalishnikov assault rifles, the 7.62x39 is a versatile round which has the stopping power and accuracy to fill a wide variety of roles. This cartridge is easily the most popular in the world, since it is used in every AK-47, AK-74, and subtypes of those two Russian rifles.

  • 7.62 x 51 NATO - This cartridge is commonly used on machine guns, where long distance accuracy in addition to a powerful bullet is required. The 7.62 x 51 is capable of accurate fire from most weapons out to 3/4 of a mile, and can engage light armored vehicles effectively at less than 100 yards.

  • 7.62 x 54 BLOC - This cartridge is the Soviet answer to the 7.62 x 51, and is used in light machine guns. The 7.62 x 54 is slightly more powerful because of its mass and increased cartridge length, and is also sometimes used in sniper rifles.

  • 9mm Makarov - Measuring 9mm x 18mm, the 9mm Makarov is used in older pistol cartridges and Soviet Block handguns.

  • 9mm Parabellum - Measuring 9x19, the 9mm Parabellum (aka the 9mm Luger) is a powerful high velocity round, but because of its ballistics, it tends to leave cleaner wounds. 9mm's were largely abandoned for law enforcement use because of this, but has seen some persistance due to its favored use in sub machine guns, where the smaller cartridge means higher magazine capacities. The 9 has also been glorified in pop culture through references in gangster rap.

  • 10mm - The 10mm is a popular alternative to the 9mm, and is essentially an elongated .40 S&W cartridge. The 10mm was developed in the early 80's by Dornhaus and Dixion for use in their Bren Ten automatic pistol.


This is by no means a complete list of cartridges, but merely represents the most common. Some of the rarer and more extravagant types, such as the Wildey .475 Magnum were left of because of their near exclusive use in a few rare firearms.

Shell Types

Shells are less diverse than cartridges, owing partly to the fact of their limited use in shotguns and combination shotgun/rifle firearms. Unlike cartridges, shells are measured in "gauge", and commonly available in 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 28 gauge sizes. The gauge is the diameter of the shell. The length of the shell is specified simply in inches, and typically come in 2 3/4 inch, 3 inch, and 31/2 inch shells. The exception is the .410 gauge, which is actually a 41 caliber shell. Aside from the .410, all shells used in firearms are used in long guns. The .410 can also found in Derringers and revolvers, but largely for novelty and collectible purpouses.

One more consideration in a shell is the type of shot, itself measured in a gauge different from that used to determine the shells size. The size of the shot is related to its use. Very small shot is typically used for hunting fowl, or for blowing the locks off doors (special frangible materiel is used for this purpose). Larger shot is used for game hunting, the largest being 00 ("double aught") buck shot, which is used for hunting Deer. Specially shaped shot called "slugs" are also used, delivering the power and punch of a very large caliber bullet. A 12 gauge slug is equivalent to a 73 caliber bullet.

Bullet Types

While there is a wide variety of cartridges, there is a comparatively small variety of bullets. Bullet technology has remained essentially unchanged since bullets evolved from ball musket shot to the commonly accepted tapered bullet shape.

For starters, there is a small deviation in bullet shapes. Typically, bullets will either be ball or tapered. Ball ammunition is exactly what it sounds like. Either the bullet is a complete ball, or it is a cylinder that is tipped by a ball. Ball ammo has very poor aerodynamic performance at high speeds, and is rarely used in rifles where accuracy is of great concern. Because of the blunt end of ball ammo, it transfers more of its energy to the target on impact. By contrast, tapered ammo is very aerodynimically efficient at high speeds. Tapered bullets are almost the exclusive bullet of rifles. Although they do not transfer as much of their energy to targets on impact, tapered bullets are designed so that when they strike a target, they begin to tumble causing a large "wound channel". For marksman competition use, bullets are balanced on their center of pressure to maximize stability. In addition, marksman style bullets are boat-tailed - that is they are slightly tapered at their back end in order to improve aerodynamic flow and prevent drag inducing eddies behind the bullet.

Less common is the "semi-wad cutter", or "flat tip" bullet. These are typically used for target practice, and with handguns. The flat tip produces a clearly defined hole in a paper target, allowing a shooter to gauge their accuracy from afar. Typical ball or tapered ammo will produce a hole smaller than the bullet itself, with tears radiating from the center. These are difficult to see beyond about 10 yards.

Pistol ammunition can also have "hollow points". A hollow point is where the tip of the bullet is burrowed out. While this makes the bullet lighter, it promotes expansion and fragmentation of the bullet on contact with a target, making even low power bullets very damaging.

Other bullet designs have experimented with cross-cut tips, which provide the fragmentation of a hollow point with the stability of a solid tip for higher velocity pistol rounds. There is a slight danger of hollow points fragmenting in flight, which is why they are rarely - if ever - used on rifle cartridges. Yet another bullet design was the subject of great controversy - the Black Talon, which consisted of a pyramid shaped bullet tip. Although this tip had no greater impact than a standard tapered tip, it was advertized as an armor piercing bullet which led to it being labelled "the cop killer bullet". Although it was legal under Federal Law, The manufacturer pulled the design from the market, but licensed the design to other manufacturers, and the black talon-styled bullet is commonly available under a Talon name, but widely considered not worth the expense.

Most bullets are jacketed - that is the solid bullet is coated. That is because the majority of bullets are made from lead, which is used for its density. However, being a soft material, lead tends to deform heavily changing its ballistics. A jacket is applied to stabilized the bullets ballistics. Manufacturers have experimented with various amounts of jacketing, from partial jacketing of the rear of the bullet, to full jackets which cover the bullet from tip to tail, and in between. Another benefit of jacketing is that it reduces the amount of lead the shooter is exposed to. Lead, even in small amounts, is toxic and can cause health problems (up to and including death, which is kind of ironic).

Finally, there have been recent developments that redesign the bullet itself. New bullets called "frangible" are made by compressing metal powders into a solid bullet. Because the granules of powder are not molecularly bonded, the bullet fragments on impact with solid surfaces. This means a reduction in accidental shooting where the bullet ricochets, or passes through its intended target. Frangible bullets received much attention in the post 9/11 debate over arming Sky Marshalls and airline pilots. Other technologies include gelatin bullets, which improve upon the rubber bullet by delivering a heavy stun, but being far less likely to be lethal than traditional rubber coated bullets which can kill. Less than lethal technologies will not be discussed in this series of articles.



The selection of a cartridge is as important as the selection of a weapon. Characteristics such as accuracy, take down power, and portability are considered when selecting a firearm at a given caliber. Special purpouse ammunition can also be employed to accomplish particular phases of a mission, without requiring a change in weaponry. In the next article, we will discuss firearm types, and their employment in the field.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Coolest Movie Gun
o "Desert Eagle Point Five Oh" 24%
o "Replica" 9%
o The Tommy Gun 6%
o That minigun the Terminator used in T2 9%
o Whatever they were using in Aliens 14%
o .44 Magnum, The Most Powerful Handgun in the world... 9%
o SDF-1's Main Gun 9%
o Anything that uses an Illudium Q35 Explosive Space Modulator 17%

Votes: 149
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o cartridge
o shell
o cartridge consists of
o bullet
o percussion cap
o center-fire cartridge
o fired
o rim fire
o shell is basically a cartridge
o shot
o slug
o flechettes
o Fourth Geneva Convention
o caliber
o .50 AE
o .50 BMG
o a shootout between FBI Agents and robbery suspects
o Model 3
o Dirty Harry
o Desert Eagle .50
o Snatch
o The Matrix
o type of shot
o wound channel
o jackets
o frangible
o Also by thelizman


Display: Sort:
Modern Warfare: Firearms 101 - Small Arms Ammunition | 350 comments (338 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
Got my 0 (3.16 / 6) (#3)
by Vesperto on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:03:08 PM EST

Like i said, interesting to read (and well written) but i don't care, hence the 0. I'd +1SP an article about fancy hightech geekdrooling weaponry, though.

If you disagree post, don't moderate. Alimaniere forf
+1 Good Christian Americans need to know about (2.93 / 16) (#4)
by sellison on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:04:31 PM EST

these things, being surronded by atheists and socialists with no real morals on the one side and terrorists blinded by heathen superstitions and criminals who are just plain evil on the other!

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

By the way, democrats, my guns are legally registered, well secured and even trigger locked so keep your itchy paws off of them!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Please do pray... (1.40 / 5) (#182)
by Fen on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:12:31 PM EST

It's so much easier to get a good headshot on someone who is praying. Kneel down, now...
--Self.
[ Parent ]
Registered!? (2.80 / 5) (#217)
by theElectron on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:56:43 PM EST

In my state (and most others) the only firearms we have to register are machine guns.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]
Poll: Write-in Vote (3.00 / 4) (#5)
by Cloaked User on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:13:19 PM EST

The rail guns from "Eraser".
--
"What the fuck do you mean 'Are you inspired to come to work'? Of course I'm not 'inspired'. It's a job for God's sake! The money's enough and the work's not so crap that I leave."
A phased-plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by kitten on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:29:50 PM EST


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Just what you see, pal. [nt] (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by monkeymind on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:03:09 PM EST


I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.
[ Parent ]

The Uzi nine millimeter. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by kitten on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:07:29 PM EST


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
You know your weapons, buddy. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by monkeymind on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:13:27 AM EST


I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.
[ Parent ]

Favourite _____ gun. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Vesperto on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:42:44 PM EST

Quake II's RailGun.

If you disagree post, don't moderate. Alimaniere forf
No, no. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by TheEldestOyster on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 11:24:20 PM EST

It's all about the BFG.
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
Too slow, but does glow in the dark. <nt> (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Vesperto on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 11:55:39 PM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate. Alimaniere forf
[
Parent ]
UrbanTerror guns... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by ixian on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:05:32 AM EST

As I was reading the article, I was trying to remember what caliber bullets are used by the weapons in Urban Terror. At least in the specs, the weapons in that game are pretty realistic.

[ Parent ]
hey thelizman, (2.23 / 42) (#9)
by rmg on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 06:55:54 PM EST

there is a lebanese woman next door who has this very loud child. it wakes up in the middle of the night, usually around 4am, and screams louder than i have ever heard a baby scream. it is ear piercing. wakes me up every damn night.

she's a pretty cute kid... big brown eyes, laughs a lot when i see her in the daytime. and her mom is pretty nice too. she sometimes makes baklava and gives me a piece. good stuff. good people really. her husband was killed by the israeli army a year and half ago. he was on his way to work and got caught in some kind of crossfire... i don't really know all the details.

it's really kind of a sad deal... but then again, that kid has woken me up every night for the past several months. well, at least once a week anyway. and i can tell her mother doesn't like my SUV. and they're muslims...

so i guess what i wanted to ask you is what sort of munitions would be most appropriate for killing this child. i want to do it quick and get out. something that doesn't make a lot of noise. i would like to avoid killing the mother if possible. it would be a real shame to see that baklava go. i need something with "surgical precision" so to say. but i also want to make an impression on the other arabs in the building, so it should be something that will surprise and impress them.

okay, thanks.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks

Feed them all pork [nt] (3.71 / 7) (#23)
by StormShadow on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:47:46 PM EST



-----------------
oderint dum metuant - Cicero
We aren't killing enough of our [America's] enemies. Re-elect Bush in 2004 - Me
12/2003: This account is now closed. Password scrambled. Its been a pleasure.


[ Parent ]
heh (3.50 / 3) (#35)
by vile on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 10:58:54 PM EST

you're a sick mother fucker

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
*bows* /nt (1.87 / 8) (#43)
by rmg on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:11:08 AM EST



_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

Hey RMG (4.27 / 11) (#37)
by Bios_Hakr on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 11:10:45 PM EST

There are all these North Korean soldiers a few miles north of me.  They are all pretty bad people.  They, while being well-fed, keep the starving population in line through brutality and murder.  They like to look at all the starving children and try to guess how old a group of children are.  You see, the children are all so malnourished that their bodies never begin puberty, so a 16yo looks exactly like a 10yo.

Other than that, the soldires are horrible guys.

The thing is, they all want to march south and make South Korea exactly like North Korea.  Apparently, having the population of their own country starving to death isn't enough.  They need another country to share in their mysery.

Anyway, when these soldiers come marching south with their guns, artillery, chemical, and nuclear weapons, what type of wit would you reccomend I use to stop them?  I really don't want any innocent people to get hurt, but the wit must be powerful enough to stop soldiers and tanks.  I think satire would be too weak, and "toilet humor" would be too crude.  Maybe some good-quality Gallagher for the conscripts with Penn and Teller for the more intellectual officers?

Anyway, tell me what you think.

p.s.  People are bad, not the guns they carry.  Try not to confuse me with an M-16 for some Middle-Eastern religous zealot who thinks all christians/muslims/jews/capitolists should die.  I hate seeing stories about gang-bangers shooting up grocery stores as much as the next guy, but would taking guns away (even if it was possible) help?  Do you think they'd use bats or rocks, or would they just be to lazy to continue fighting?


[ Parent ]

hey bios hakr (2.87 / 8) (#59)
by rmg on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:33:31 AM EST

i run a civic society in my neighborhood. i live on a block with mostly white, lower middle class people who bought the houses there because of the relatively high sq. ft. to dollar ratio. the land value is lower because the next block over has a very high asian population. the houses are a bit smaller and mostly rented, but about three times as many people live there. they are mostly southeast asian, but there is really a good mix of indians and east asians too.

the civic society collects dues from the neighboring blocks to perform various services for the community. for example, the bowling team, the bridge clubs, ads for garage sale day, etc. etc. etc. anyway, the people from the other block don't participate much in any of the activities (except for buying our junk on garage sale day) and none of them were elected to the civic society council. they have to work all the time to afford their houses, so you know, they don't have much time for that stuff.

lately, though, some new people moved into that block, japanese i think, and they aren't pleased with the situation. they say that the people of the other block are getting screwed. so they started their own civic society and stop paying their dues. we managed to get a few households to stay with us, but most went over to the other side. now we can't fund bridge nights and we have to buy crappy bowling shirts for our team. meanwhile, their civic society is totally lame and does not even have a bowling team.

now the other civic society is making its move on the households we managed to keep. the new civic society is getting better and it's even going to have a bowling team next season. we're pretty pissed off about that, as you can imagine. it looks like those households are going to go to the other side now...

since you seem like a people person, i thought you could tell me: what sort of people should we get to deal with them? we want to make them an offer they can't refuse. ultimately, we would like for them to disappear and for new neighbors to move in. we also want to make sure that the few households that were on our side but were thinking of crossing lines have something to think about. we are not violent people ourselves, but as long as someone else pulls the trigger, we are willing to look the other way. we want people who will make the other block willing to pay their dues for years to come, regardless of their feelings about the benefits they reap from our arrangement.

i hope you will be willing to share your wisdom with us.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

hey, you don't want a gun for that... (4.00 / 7) (#62)
by alizard on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:37:08 AM EST

Go to the middle of an empty parkinng lot. Take a can of gasoline. Pour it over your head. Strike a match.

With any reasonable luck, that kid will never, never, never bother you again.

Glad I could help.

BTW, nice troll.
"The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico
[ Parent ]

Gauge (4.75 / 5) (#12)
by dennis on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 07:25:38 PM EST

The gauge is the diameter of the shell.

Only true of the .410. For the rest, 12-gauge means that a lead ball the diameter of the barrel weighs 1/12 pound. A 12-gauge is bigger than a 20-gauge.

Also, it'd be worth mentioning that the 7.62 NATO is not just a machinegun cartridge, it's also used by military snipers, and is very popular with civilian hunters and long-range target shooters as the .308.

7.62mm (4.50 / 3) (#74)
by Aemeth on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:57:13 AM EST

Of course the 7.62mm owes it's history to .308/.303 military rifles, and was used as a battle rifle cartridge until only recently (experiments in the west with smaller catridge sizes began post WW2).
The use as a machine gun catridge was based simply on the idea that the types of ammunition used should be standardised as much as possible, so machine guns (at least at what would now be called the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) level and LMG level) were made to be able to interchange ammunition with the standard longarms.
The change to 5.54mm for combat rifles (what were to become assault rifles) was not generally carried through with SAWs and LMGs. Some SAWs are now being used that are 5.54mm, such as the Minimi (known to the U.S. military as M249 SAW).
Naturally the 5.54mm catridges do not have the power of the 7.62mm, so 7.62mm is retained (as mentioned in the previous post) for accurate long range fire, such as sniper/marksman rifles, and heavier machine guns (such as the British GPMG).

...mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
5.54 vs. 5.56 (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by enkidu on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:18:21 AM EST

the 5.54x39 is a Russion round. The NATO standard round is 5.56x45.

[ Parent ]
Even "smaller" gauges... (4.50 / 2) (#163)
by atreides on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:25:11 AM EST

For the rest, 12-gauge means that a lead ball the diameter of the barrel weighs 1/12 pound. A 12-gauge is bigger than a 20-gauge.
4-gauge shotguns used to be used for hunting geese. They're terribly illegal to hunt with now because they could take out entire flocks with a shot. Heck, they even had to have special mounts because they'd break your arm if you fired one...

"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
[ Parent ]

"Stopping Power" (4.50 / 4) (#13)
by idiot boy on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 07:39:30 PM EST

You mention stopping power a couple of times in the article and then go on to link to a web page which attempts (seemingly) to debunk the whole concept:

"In a word, stopping power is a myth."

I know bugger all about the subject so I could be misinterpreting. Either way, the page is:

http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/mechanics.html#lethality

Either way - seems odd.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself

Thats only because Stopping Power Is A Myth... (4.33 / 3) (#31)
by thelizman on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:36:23 PM EST

...to the extent that a single round is expected to neutralize an opponant, it just doesn't happen. Except for the average head shot, or a lucky shot through the heart, most bullet wounds are highly survivable.

Stopping power has no measurable definitive property. It cannot be reliably replicated. Instead, people use terms like "wound channel", "trauma" and "ballistic behavior".
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Heart Shots (4.50 / 2) (#102)
by gunner800 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:17:10 PM EST

A shot through the heart doesn't kill instantly unless the person goes into shock. He'll die soon, but while he has oxygen in his brain he's still a threat. According to the grizzled cop who taught my concealed handgun licensing class, whether a single shot will stop a person depends more on the person than the organ. People watch a lot of TV and think they're supposed to fly back and fall over dead when they're shot in the chest. So when they're shot, that's what they do. They fall down because they think they're supposed to, they go into shock, and they die.

---Ignore poorly-chosen handle for purpose of gun-control discussions.
[ Parent ]
Thats why I said 'lucky shot' [n/t] (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:07:49 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Pistols (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by dennis on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:22:58 AM EST

Well, it does happen, just not reliably. Even head shots are iffy...I read a book by Jim Cirillo, a NYC cop who survived 17 gunfights, and he talked about instances of bullets skidding around the outside of people's skulls. In one case, they shot a guy in the head several times, and after a couple minutes he woke up (scaring the crap out of the cops casually standing around their "dead" perp), and peacefully staggered down to the police car. After that Cirillo went down to his basement and worked on a custom bullet design for biting into skullbone.

Anyway, I'm sure this is what you meant, but stopping power is a myth for pistol cartridges. A .308 will drop you right in your tracks.

[ Parent ]

Stopping power (4.50 / 2) (#132)
by gundaddy on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:59:11 PM EST

I remember reading an article on stopping power. This is from memory so some of it is a bit hazy. The US law enforcement or someone on their behalf did tests on different ammunition to determine what kind of ammo has the best stopping power. The tests were primarily on the kinds of ammuntion law enforcement carry in the field. Some of the stuff tested is not available to the general public. They tested on a special breed of live goats that have similar bone structure to humans. The results of the test were that the best ammunition would take 4.5 seconds to incapacitate the subject. Some ammo left the goats standing. This seemed to agree with what people had noticed in the field. Im sure that 4 seconds would seem a life time when being charged by a crazy with a gun. I now understand why police stand right back and put multiple shots into people they have to shoot.

[ Parent ]
Urban legand (4.66 / 4) (#220)
by sobiloff on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 02:08:51 AM EST

You're referring to the "Strasbourg Test." Unfortunately, even though MagSafe advertises it heavily, there have been no independent verifications that this test ever actually took place.

For a much more enlightened discussion of terminal ballistics (the scientific term for "stopping power"), see Fr. Frog's discussion.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#249)
by gundaddy on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:15:33 PM EST

Got caught in the "its on the internet so it must be true" trap.

[ Parent ]
-1 (1.73 / 26) (#14)
by Dinner Is Served on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:00:42 PM EST

On a site that largely supports gun control, I don't see how this will belong here. It's almost like posting housekeeping tips on the bulletin board of a homeless shelter.

Furthermore, this type of information is highly suspect. I'm not sure I'd feel safe if this type of information was presented on the front page for *everyone* to see. Imagine what a few disgruntled school boys/office workers could do with this information! Haven't we learned anything from Columbine!?

Thanks in advance for pulling the story.
--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
Gah (2.83 / 6) (#16)
by idiot boy on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:11:52 PM EST

Frankly, if you're so worried about the information, it must be pretty good. I hadn't rated it yet but you've persuaded me to +1 it.

Newsflash: All the info is out there. If someone wants it, they'll get it. Yours is a tired and spurious argument for censorship. Information is not inherantly dangerous - get over it.

Idiot Boy. A Brit with no desire to see his country overrun with guns and one who can't quite understand people's obsession with the damn things.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
[ Parent ]

Eh (2.22 / 9) (#17)
by truth versus death on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:17:29 PM EST

He actually first posted it. His argument was meant to make those who want to vote against it seem stupid and pro-censorship. It's a typical pro-gun mentality to label people who don't care to discuss hard ons from devices for killing people as pro-censorship.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
Dude (4.66 / 4) (#24)
by Resonant on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:03:55 PM EST

If you vote it out because its badly written, or in poor taste (this is neither) then you are right. If you vote it out because your incapable of researching for yourself (e.g. an idiot who complains about "making the knowledge available") or because you think its against the general flow of k5, thats cencorship. Dont confuse gun nuts with pro-gun sentiments. Just remember: the reason you live in a country in which we can say the things we believe is because someone stuck a rifle up a British ass. Crude, I know, but I am completely and utterly serious. Remember this attempt a quote:

I can envision a world without guns or hate or war. I can envision a world without jealousy or malice. I can envision us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

Note: Yes, I know thats not a perfect quote, I dont even think its close, but you get the point.

-Resonant

"I answer, 'This is _quantitative_ religious studies.'" - glor
[ Parent ]

Dude (2.16 / 6) (#27)
by truth versus death on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:12:31 PM EST

"if you vote it out ... that[']s cen[s]orship."

Just keep on telling yourself that.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
Information is less dangerous when it's obfuscated (3.00 / 7) (#18)
by Dinner Is Served on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:19:45 PM EST

'Security through obfuscation' is one of the more successful and prominent techniques used in all facets of security. Get with the times.
--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
[ Parent ]
Is that why Microsoft uses it? (3.00 / 5) (#29)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:16:04 PM EST

There's worms and trojans and virii for Linux, but since the Microsoft code is completely kept under lock and key, you'd think that it would be more secure. But no.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
UGH! (2.66 / 6) (#67)
by ixian on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:47:44 AM EST

WTF does software security have to do with gun security, or personal security, or national security, or any other kind of security???

Do you know why security through obscurity does NOT work in software? Because peer review is simply more effective. Any security mechanism (be it software, electronic, mechanical, or even social, as in, among people) can be cracked. Take it as an axiom, and start with it. Concealing your software security mechanisms makes it more difficult for many (but not all) people to break through. On the other hand, open-sourcing your software security mechanisms exposes them to peer review, eliminates many mistakes, and adds more ideas to it. It is just that practice has shown that open-source software security ends up being stronger than security through obscurity. However, whatever path you choose to create your defenses, eventually it may (no, will) be possible to break them.

Now imagine a government adopting an open-source model to border security -- telling everybody what kinda detection mechanisms they use, how often the patrols are, what kinda dogs they use, how many people they have guarding the borders, etc, etc, etc -- and then inviting other people to make suggestions about how to make it all better... you'd think that it would be more secure... but would it?

I'm mentioning border security because it's about as relevant to software security as software security is relevant to gun security (or whatever the previous posters meant... national security, anti-terrorism security, whatever you want to call it...)

P.S.: Oh, and who the fuck rated this a 4. Just cuz a comment says Linux...Open-source...Good... Windows...Sucks... Rah-Rah-Rah... it doesn't automatically mean it's a good comment...

UGH!...

[ Parent ]

actually (5.00 / 2) (#201)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:59:39 PM EST

that's exactly what I meant. One of the tenants of cryptology is that the mechanism for encoding must be transparent. Why? Because the over reliance on hiding the mechanism creates its own set of vulnerabilities. That's why one of the big breaks in World War II was to discover Germany's enigma box. Because Germany never suspected that the Allies had a copy, they didn't really change the methods. But when they did change boxes, guess what the Allies did? They stole that second box. Piece of cake.

Reliance on the obscurity of the machine didn't make its secrets unbreakable. It just gave a target to aim at. Eventually, when the Germans realized that the allies did have a copy of the box, they implemented real security measures that were utilized to a much more successful degree.

Your analogy about the border is not well chosen. I cross the San Diego/Tijuana border about once per week. Every hour, about 100 illegal immigrants are walked across the border from the US to Mexico. They estimate that 5 times that number just succeeded in gaining entry. Are you really calling our border secure or the timetables to prevent crossing unknown? The border would improve through peer review at this point.

So, yes, let's make this knowledge about guns available. And then let's work on real methods for keeping the world safe like, I don't know, education instead of ignorance.

Besides, there is no one so superior--no, not even you-- who should be granted the choice of what another human being should be so graciously permitted to know.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
again... (5.00 / 2) (#252)
by ixian on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 12:27:25 AM EST

OK. First. I agree with your argument about cryptology, and one of its tenets . The strength of the encryption should be in the algorithm/mechanism/whatever is used, not in the device. However, if Germany did what you suggest they should have done (and I'm not really familiar with the history of the Enigma machine th at well...), then it's still not like they'd be willing to give out the Enigma machines to just anybody, even though the strength of the encryption was in the method, and not in the machine itself. It would still be a prudent thing to keep the Enigma machine secret, lest it falls into the wrong hands and makes the job of a code breaker ever so slightly easier...

Second. There are probably other reasons why the US Mexico border is insecure, besides US's inability to make it secure on its own. Availability of cheap labor, fear that making things too militarized will raise objections from the population, or maybe just stupidity of the people who are currently in charge of the border. Peer review would probably help -- but it would not be an open-source review. You'd just want to invite other specialists, and those people would examine the situation, discuss the problem among themselves, and make suggestions. But there is no need to share these details with the world.

Third. I haven't said a word about guns. My comment was prompted by your analogy of open-source software to gun control. More on that in a moment.

Fourth. Yes, I am so superior as to have the choice of what another human being should be so graciously permitted to know. Just an example -- no other human being is permitted to know what color underwear I am wearing right now. Should they try to find out for themselves, I'd probably shoot them, if I had a gun, or beat the living crap out of them with whatever comes in handy, like a stick or something...

Fifth (back to guns and open-source). Basically, people were complaining that a story about guns on K5 is going to give terrorists information, which they will be able to use. Some have suggested keeping such information secret. You suggested that we cannot keep it secret, since security through obscurity does not work, and look how open-source worked so well for Linux. Let me ask you another question. What the fuck does cryptology, and the observations made from the study its history, have to do with gun control?

[ Parent ]

snide comments aside (3.66 / 4) (#253)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:00:50 AM EST

I wasn't praising open source so much as damning obfuscation. Simply put, it never works. You're much more fixated on the Linux connection than I ever intended, although I can see how you'd read it that way.

Ignorance about a field has never in history led to positive solutions. In societies which require its citizens be well informed, you presume much to say that certain kinds of knowledge are dangerous and must be secreted. I'm not arguing that this information is not dangerous, many ideas are dangerous. I take issue with the effectiveness and wisdom of hiding it. We're not talking about accidental facts like your underwear but about general science and engineering. Go burn down the Alexandria Library; after all, there's documents in there that contradict the Bible. We'd have a much better world without it. That just about sums up your case.

Will this article lead to new manufacturing plants opening? No. Will it lead to more people fashioning their own bullets? Only a slight maybe, but the people who would are probably on the verge of doing it anyway. What exactly about this article is so dangerous that it must be censored and hidden from the public for the sake of the public?

Ultimately, you're arguing for a reprehensible solution (censoring knowledge) to ineffectually fix a real problem. Further, the only example you could come up with to support it was one of the worst in the world. Show me an actual example where hiding knowledge of a mechanisms has ever been effective. Ever. Throughout history. I'm giving you a slow lobbed pitch here. And not just "effective enough", mind you. If they hid it long enough to do what they needed to do, that doesn't count. For the rest of history, people will always be capable of making guns and you need to show that your method will work. So prove it if you think you can. Make the end justify the means.

If you think this information will create the next Columbine, then I guess we should also ban stories on archery, fencing, geology and gardening. Sticks and stones, after all.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Alrighty :) (5.00 / 2) (#256)
by ixian on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 03:28:29 AM EST

First of all, you really misunderstood me. I'm not for suppressing the info. about guns. Seriously. If fact, if you re-read my comments carefully, I haven't stated an opinion about this one way or the other. The reason I replied to your comment was because it really irritated me that you'd draw an analogy between the open-source method, and gun control.

There are lessons to be learned from the success of Linux. It's a great OS, but it's more than that. It's also sort of a philosophy. And it does apply to many of the topics discussed on K5. Software (naturally), copyrights (to some extent), patents, technology, science... But it does not apply to gun control. You can't just throw it out everywhere...

No, obfuscation would not work for gun control. For one thing, the information is already out there. Also, things forbidden have a tendency to attract more attention than those that are freely available. Of course, the effectiveness of obfuscation certainly depends on just how much effort is put into it. If the gov't destroys every gun out there, every plant that makes guns, and every book about it... well, it's be kinda difficult (though not impossible) to get started again.

Now, I rather like your challenge (to show you an example where hiding knowledge has been effective). Here is an example: blacksmiths.

Blacksmith possessed the knowledge to fashion tools out of metal. They passed on this knowledge only to their apprentices, or to their children (traditionally, at least). This allowed them to keep a monopoly on their craft, and it has worked for centuries (if not millenia), until the advent of the industrial age.

[ Parent ]

actually, i agree with you kind of (5.00 / 2) (#323)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 04:59:48 PM EST

after issuing my challenge I mulled it over and arrived at a similar conclusion: Japanese swordmakers jealously guarded their secrets to the point that we no longer know for certain exactly the techniques on how they made them. That's really the criteria of success I was talking about.

I don't know if blacksmithing secrecy was successful or merely an attempt at a guild, plus I'd have to know how widespread the practice was. Also, you'd think that blacksmiths would have most wanted to protect their interests in the face of industrialization: toolmakers would be more valuable. Industrialization was capable of rendering the secrecy pointless. But those are quibbles. If a secret is kept several lifetimes, that's pretty darn good. I'll take your word for it and concede the point. The Japanese really were capable of keeping the secret under all circumstances.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
You *are* joking, right? (3.16 / 6) (#30)
by dennis on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 09:24:49 PM EST

On a site that largely supports gun control

Since every gun control article that's been posted has resulted in a pretty vigorous back-and-forth, so I don't think you can claim this. Either way, if you want to make it illegal for me to own something, I'd kinda like it if you at least take the trouble to learn a little something about it. Ignorance by gun controllers has resulted in a lot of awfully silly laws.

Your second paragraph is pretty funny, assuming you're joking...just on the off chance you're not, I'll point out that this is extremely basic information, and anyone who's into guns at all already knows all this stuff. In fact, a lot of people get into enthusiastic debates over it all.

[ Parent ]

Scenario (4.50 / 3) (#36)
by vile on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 11:01:32 PM EST

Your woman comes home.

A man followed her from work, she's a cashier.

He attempts to rape her.

Bang.

Enough said. If you don't think it happens, your bad, noone else's.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
"Your woman" (2.41 / 12) (#41)
by Dinner Is Served on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:01:33 AM EST

I don't know what this "your woman" crap is, but I suggest you stop. Womyn are not owned by men. Get with the times, pal.

And, no, I don't think there is "enough said," because I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You first demoralize womyn, and then you talk about some guy "banging" a poor cashier without her consent. If anything, you've reinforced my opinion about gun owners--bloodthirsty womyn haters.
--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
[ Parent ]
Your Woman...get over it feminist prick. (3.16 / 6) (#108)
by gte910h on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:53:03 PM EST

"Your Woman" and "Your Man" are two phrases that just mean your signifigant other, while specifying the sex of the other.

The original commentor was making a point about looking at the specific wellbeing of someone close to you versus an academically stated objection to guns.  

He was making a very valid point about protection that guns can give and the immedeacy of the wellbeing of someone close to you. You're trying to slant his comment however you can for your own motives. People like you are what allow fox news to have some credability when they talk about liberals twisting language.

[ Parent ]

Obvious troll, please ignore [N/T] (4.33 / 4) (#195)
by Qwaniton on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 05:25:28 PM EST


I don't think, therefore I
[ Parent ]
Banging (2.25 / 4) (#223)
by An onymous Coward on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 03:42:02 AM EST

The bang was from the gun. Try to keep your mind out of the gutter, you pervert.

"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
[ Parent ]
That kind of scenario is oftern unrealistic (4.50 / 3) (#133)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:05:52 PM EST

You're in bed.

You hear someone breaking into your house.

You pull your gun out and start to walk around the house looking for the intruder.

They see you, and the fact that you have a gun.

They see you as a threat, and pump you with lead.

Sure, guns can save lives, but they can also endanger them. A lot of people believe that a robber wants to come in and kill them all or something. Unless they have come there to kill you (because they probably know you), all they want to do is get into your house and make off with some goodies they can sell. A murder incident is not in their interests--it means they are more likely to be caught, since more effort is put into solving murder crimes.

A lot of things like rape are by catching people off guard. A gun ain't much use unless it's in you're hands. And too bad if they discover you have one when they've got you, because now they can use it against you.

[ Parent ]

correct way to deal with an intruder with a gun. (4.75 / 5) (#166)
by unstable on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 09:05:20 AM EST

1: make gun ready to fire. (loaded and locked)
2: Dial emergency services (911, police, local equiv)
3: tell operator that you think you have an intruder, your address, and that you are barricaded in your room with a firearm for defence.
4: while still connected to operator yell out. "who ever is in my house, I have just called the police and I have a gun, LEAVE NOW!"

what this does.  
you are protected.
you let the intruder know you have a weapon.
you let the intruder know the police have been notified.
and its ALL ON TAPE.

if the inturder comes into your room and you are forced to shoot him/her, later when the court case comes around you have proof that you gave him plenty of warning that his life was at risk if he attempted to come after you.  also by staying in your room you have the advantage of making him come through the doorway while you can hide behind cover.  insuring you a better chance at survival. NEVER go looking for an intruder.




Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but... (4.33 / 4) (#218)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:58:48 PM EST

Unfortunatly, that's not what happens a lot of the time. My point was not what should happen, but what does happen.

Like I said, a gun can save lives. And that's more likely if you know how to use it, as you have pointed out. But apparently there are a lot of people out there who don't really know what they're doing, if you take a look at the stats.

[ Parent ]

What we learned from Columbine? (3.83 / 6) (#60)
by alizard on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:34:13 AM EST

A couple or three armed adults in that school could have bagged a couple of crazies before they killed other students by the dozen.

Too bad laws designed to "protect" kids are written by imbeciles more interested in getting votes from idiots like you than in actually protecting kids.

Of course, our elected officials can get armed protection paid for by our tax dollars for the asking, and the ones who ask loudest tend to be the "anti-gun" politicians.

BTW, the info in this article is available in any high school and most elementary school libraries. Ever heard of encyclopedias? Look up FIREARMS in anything like the Britannica or Compton's.
"The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico
[ Parent ]

Bookburner [N/T] (2.83 / 6) (#90)
by Lenny on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:36:24 AM EST


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
K5 does not support gun control (4.50 / 3) (#216)
by theElectron on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:53:05 PM EST

On a site that largely supports gun control, I don't see how this will belong here. It's almost like posting housekeeping tips on the bulletin board of a homeless shelter.

Just because K5 seems to have a liberal slant does not imply that the majority of users support gun control. Search past articles, look at the way comments in this article have been rated. I find it surprising myself, but the fact is that K5 is relatively Second Amendment friendly.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

-1, good for al Qaeda training material (2.31 / 19) (#19)
by United Fools on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:24:48 PM EST

But bad for everyone's safety. After 9/11, some people still refuse to be careful and still potentially provide lessons for possible terrorists?

And remember, thelizman, you are helping the Palestinians killing the Israelis! How dare you do such a thing?
We are united, we are fools, and we are America!

The terrorists have already won. (3.72 / 11) (#21)
by mfk on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:37:12 PM EST

Clearly, anyone who takes such an interest in guns, learning about what the different parts (the "buttstock", "cartridge", to name a few, is a potential terrorist. On top of that, the author goes into the different types of shells used. Frankly, nobody needs to know that.

Thanks to this article, a potential terrorist could learn that a .22 really doesn't have much stopping power. I'm disgusted at the lot of you. +1 FP.

[ Parent ]

I hope you aren't a sysadmin (3.85 / 7) (#58)
by alizard on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:30:02 AM EST

Security by obscurity is an oxymoron

You don't protect yourself by hiding your eyes when you see things that frighten you. You protect yourself by finding out what the hell is really going on.

Do you react to finding 50 copies of Sobig.F in your INBOX by hiding under the bed?

Terrorists already know this stuff.

They learned it from things you might remember. They're called books. Were you planning to burn all the books on guns you could find?

It's free people who don't know about guns who need to find this out so we can deal with terrorists.

Any voice in your head that says the police will or can protect you is the voice of Darwin.
"The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico
[ Parent ]

Perhaps. (4.16 / 6) (#80)
by Motekye on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:34:12 AM EST

Perhaps I should point out that the terrorists used a plane to bring down the wtc, not a gun. In fact, It's always been a bomb or a knife and only a gun in the most extreme cases.

Now, if the pilots had guns, then we'd have a few Arab corpses instead of thousands which died in the wtc attacks. As well, New York would still have it's economic bazaar — which may be even more important to the city than the lost lives, you decide.


Grrr....
[ Parent ]
Are you insane? (4.33 / 4) (#135)
by gundaddy on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:05 PM EST

What in this article is dangerous? Answer: Nothing.

[ Parent ]
+1FP, ESR died for YOUR sins. [n/t] (3.50 / 6) (#22)
by Random Liegh on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 08:46:50 PM EST


--
Fives for the funny, one's for the spelling flames, and 0's for the assholes ^W geeks.
Excellent. (2.23 / 13) (#32)
by BinaryTree on Sat Aug 23, 2003 at 10:00:31 PM EST

Your articles on warfare kick ass.

Why the fuck didn't anyone tell me about them?

They're almost too good for K5.

I think it's because kurofucks generally prefer fucking shit over 24k gold.

What is your military background? Or did you just read a lot and distill the gleaned knowledge into K5 article form?

the only ammunition that matters (3.10 / 10) (#42)
by turmeric on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:03:27 AM EST

is mindshare

propellant doesn't detonate (4.00 / 6) (#44)
by Polverone on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:23:31 AM EST

The primer ignites the propellant. The primer does not detonate the propellant. If it did, the gun would be damaged or destroyed. The charge merely burns very quickly.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
Correct. (5.00 / 4) (#66)
by enkidu on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:26:54 AM EST

In fact, detonation does happen on occasion with poorly handled or (more often) improperly loaded ammunition. A classic example is loading a .357 Mag shell with too little powder, allowing all of the powder to "detonate" at once, instead of the controlled burn that happens with well loaded ammunition. A detonation is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and will undoubtedly destroy the gun and possibly kill or main the shooter and bystanders. A cure to prevent this from happening in cartridges with small amounts of powder (another misnomer) is to tilt the barrel of the gun up, seating the powder against the back of the cartridge. In fact, you often see old-timers do this by habit on the firing line. Typically, filler or a different powder is used when low charges are desired.

Detonation of a cartridge can also happen when ignorant morons "roll" or "tumble" cartridges to "improve" performance. What happens then is that the carefully designed coating of the powder is abraded off and sometimes the powder really becomes powder. Of course, then the flame front progresses much more rapidly, sometimes resulting in a detonation.

This is also why published loads should not be modified by those without extensive hand-loading experience.

[ Parent ]

did this freak anyone else out? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by auraslip on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:40:47 AM EST

"but because of its ballistics, it tends to leave cleaner wounds. 9mm's were largely abandoned for law enforcement use because of this,"
___-___
not really (4.33 / 4) (#52)
by Symmetry on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:18:36 AM EST

The point of shooting someone is to hurt them, the only differnece is in how. I don't think many police officers are good enough shots to place bullets in exactly the right spots to disable a suspect without killing them.  You can also try to shoot for a vital spot, like the brain or heart, or you can carry a powerful enough gun that the trauma you induce is enough to put the person down to some extent regardless of where you hit them.

Policemen aren't trained to shoot casually, and when they do their lives are generally in danger.  Using a gun which might not take down the suspect, in exchange for easier treatment at the hospital, doesn't strike me as a bargain that our police forces would accept, or that we would want them to.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume you opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you. -M.N. Plano
[ Parent ]

police (3.50 / 3) (#76)
by auraslip on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:08:10 AM EST

only shoot to kill, is how I understand it.

I disagrea.

Just because it leaves cleaner wounds doesn't mean it doesn't have the same stopping power as any other gun. Being shot is usally enough to disable someone. Even IF it didn't have the same stopping power, the officer could just shoot again. It would save more lives to use a 9mm at very little risk to the officer.

at least if I was a cop thats what I'd do
___-___
[ Parent ]

Shoot to kill? (2.66 / 6) (#87)
by Lenny on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:28:49 AM EST

Police shoot to stop someone from being a deadly threat. They do not shoot to kill. Besides, police departments changed from 9mm to .40cal because the .40 is better at going through obstacles and still stopping the threatening individual than the 9mm.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Difference? (3.00 / 4) (#95)
by losthalo on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:38:27 PM EST

If there's a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to stop someone from being a deadly theat, I think it's negligible. Injuries which stop you from being a threat almost invariably also threaten your life. Blood loss and shock are what stop you from being a threat.

(Losthalo)

I was shocked by a sequence showing ducks in magnificent flight against the sky, and then dropping one by one as hunters kill them. The birds have flown exhaustingly for days to arrive at this end. It's not so much that I blame the hunters as that I wish the ducks could shoot back.
(Roger Ebert)

[ Parent ]
Police shoot to stop... (4.50 / 3) (#103)
by Amorsen on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:18:56 PM EST

...and it is a problem when the shot fails to deliver that. In Denmark there has been a few cases lately where the bullet either did not stop the person shot at, or the police officer shot at a very vulnerable area in order to be sure. Danish police recently upgraded from Walther 7,65mm to Heckler og Koch 9mm. It is hard to say whether the additional power has been helping or hindering.

If someone could invent a magic bullet that would stop people while not injuring them too badly, I am sure there would be a very large market.

[ Parent ]

The real deal (4.00 / 5) (#146)
by SwampGas on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:32:43 AM EST

This comment also goes for the other replies to this comment.

only shoot to kill, is how I understand it.

Not really.  You do not shoot to wound.  You do not shoot to kill.  You shoot to stop the threat.  If they die, tough.  If they live, tough.

Furthermore, stopping power is practically irrelevant.  Most LEOs (law enforcement officers) do not enjoy firearms, do not own a million guns and only use their duty weapon when required to do so for the yearly qualification.  The majority of LEOs are NOT "gun people" and get pretty upset when you label them as such.  Back to point....if you don't have a LOT of training, a LOT of live fire and a LOT of stress fire practice, you will NOT hit your target.  If you don't hit your target, you have ZERO stopping power.

Shooting a handgun is NOT easy.  It requires precise aiming, relaxation of your muscles (locked arm and tight muscles = weak), breathing control, stance, grip, etc.

With that being said, put yourself in a position where you're so fatigued from running that you're about to pass out.  You have so much adrenaline in your blood stream you can't keep your hand still enough to dial 911; you don't hear anything; you don't feel anything.  Place 2 shots center mass at a moving target with follow up head shot at 15 yards (~50 feet) because in approximately 2 seconds he will be on top of you putting a knife through your face.

Decision time.  Did you pick that .32 auto or .380 auto that you can handle perfectly or that .45 acp that the gun shop owner was rambling about having the best stopping power...but you can't even hit the target at 5 yards?

The choice is yours.  I carry 9mm...and hollow points at that (hollow points make the bullet "mushroom" so it does more damage and it doesn't go through the target to kill some 8 year old standing behind them).  I don't care if you big bad .45 fellas say 9mm is the sissy calibre.  When the sh*# hits the fan, I hope you can handle that as well as you think you can.

[ Parent ]

Not the REAL issue (4.66 / 4) (#185)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:47:08 PM EST

Most experienced male shooters are able to handle the recoil from a .45 just as well as they can from a 9mm.

The real issue with shooting in the situation you are describing is that your hands are likely to be unsteady. That means that you want a heavy gun (not neccesarly caliber, but physical weight). A gun that weighs more helps reduce the impact of hand tremor. You also want decent barrel length for accuracy in general.

Stopping power is also NOT irrelevent in such situations. The main reason the U.S. millitary chose the .45 was because of stopping power.
When conducting operations in the Phillipines, the Fillipino warriors had a bad habit of not going down after they had been shot...and the army wanted something that would literaly "knock them off thier feet". That can also be a consideration for law enforcment especialy when dealing with suspects who are wired up on a pharmacetucal of choice.

As I understand it, the main reason most police departments standardized on 9mm's (as opposed to .357's which seemed to be pretty popular with patrolmen) was because of magazine capacity and concerns that the higher powered rounds would penetrate the backstop on a miss and had greater chance of unintended casualties.

[ Parent ]

what type of drugs (4.00 / 3) (#224)
by auraslip on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 04:45:36 AM EST

would keep a person going after being shot?
just curious
___-___
[ Parent ]
Supposedly (5.00 / 3) (#227)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:05:36 AM EST

PCP was notorious for that sort of thing. But really just a high level of adrenalin can have a similar effect.

[ Parent ]
No, it wouldn't. (5.00 / 3) (#202)
by Kadin2048 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 07:04:54 PM EST

For several reasons, using 9mm ammunition would probably, almost undoubtedly, have the exact opposite effect.

Firstly, there is a significant risk of over-penetration with 9mm ball ammunition. Against an unarmored human target, the bullet has a substantial chance of exiting out the other side of the target with enough velocity to injure someone else. This is bad for two reasons: first, because of the obvious risk of injuring a bystander; second, it indicates that the bullet did not transfer all of its energy to the target.

If forced to use 9mm handguns, I suspect most law enforcement officers would probably just compensate by using frangible ammunition (like Glaser Safety Slugs, etc.) in order to guarantee the rounds wouldn't over-penetrate. Better to accidentally kill the perp with a nasty bullet than to injure someone in the next apartment.

Instead of this, most departments simply issue larger-caliber guns, the .40S&W being the most popular. That way ammunition can be used which creates more survivable wounds than frangible (and is less expensive), without overpenetration problems or having to worry about not stopping the target.

And, let's face it: if you're shooting at someone, you should already have come to terms with the fact that you're willing to take the risk of killing them. Better to do it in a way that creates the least amount of secondary risks.

[ Parent ]

One drawback to clean wounds... (4.75 / 5) (#109)
by Mike the Kid on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:58:42 PM EST

If you shoot someone with a bullet that does not leave a clean wound more of the energy from the shot is transferred to the target. If you shoot someone with a bullet that does leave a clean wound, the bullet transfers less energy to the target. So if you transfer energy to the target, the bullet will not have as much energy if it exits the target and will therefore do less collateral damage. One thing that always bugs me in Hollywood type movies is when there is a shootout with machine guns and somebody ducks behind a table or drywall to avoid getting hit. I have never tried it, but I don't think that a piece of furniture or sheet rock is going to stop a .223 fired from an AR-15 or an M16. I am speaking out of school here, but I think you need about 3 feet of water to stop most bullets (forget about supercavitating bullets). That doesn't sound like much, but water is very good at absorbing and spreading out the inertia in the bullet. Humans are 70% water, maybe 1 foot thick, so a bullet could probably travel through 3 people and wound the fourth to boot. So I'm all for law enforcement using ballistics that don't exit cleanly.

[ Parent ]
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (4.66 / 9) (#46)
by ktakki on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:41:55 AM EST

You've covered the NATO cartridges pretty well but you're a bit off the mark on the Soviet/Warsaw Pact rounds.

  • 7.62 x 54 BLOC (should be "7.62x54R") wasn't designed as an answer to the NATO 7.62 round. It predates the Soviet Union, having been adopted by Czarist troops in 1891, when the Moison-Nagant bolt-action rifle was first introduced into service. It's a rimmed cartridge, full length (as opposed to the 7.62x39 intermediate length ammo), and it's still in service with the Dragunov sniper rifle and various light machine guns.


  • You've omitted the Soviet/Russian 5.45x39 round, adopted in 1974 with the introduction of the AK-74 (a variant of the AK-47). This was an answer to a NATO round (unlike the 7.62x54R), in this case the 5.56, intended to achieve greater penetration of body armor.


  • 30.06 should be written as .30-06. The 06 refers to the year 1906, when the cartridge was redesigned (three years after its introduction with the Model 1903 Springfield rifle).


  • There were a couple of other omissions, like the .300 Win Mag and .338 Lapua rifle rounds and the .40 Corbon pistol round. Though the latter is pretty rare and fairly new, the rifle rounds are popular with both hunters and law enforcement. Also, I'm surprised that you didn't mention that any .357 revolver can also chamber and fire .38 ammo (though the inverse isn't true since the pressure produced by a .357 Magnum cartridge isn't safe in the typical .38 frame).


  • I'd like to have seen a brief mention of rounds (other than frangibles) that are in development, like the 5.7mm pistol round or the 4.7mm caseless H&K round.

Wish I'd been around to mention this when the article was still in the Editorial Queue. Pretty good piece otherwise.


k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Browning was a fucking genius (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by lnxcwby on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:51:25 AM EST

.45 ACP - The 45 caliber is the progeny of the legendary John Browning, who developed the cartridge for use with his Model 1911. Though the 1911 initially used a .380 cartridge as manufactured by FN, Colt was trying to sell the 1911 to the US Army, who was only interested in large caliber handguns. Browning chose the .45 caliber bullet both for its ballistic properties, and because it was larger than the common .44 caliber rounds the Army used in their revolvers. ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol

The original cartridge for the 1911 style pistol (which were acutally named for the year they were designed, 1903, 1908, etc...) was NOT a .380 ACP. It was a .38 Automatic round which is the same dimensions as today's .38 Super round, but a lower powder charge.
--
"Bother," said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Factual errors (4.42 / 7) (#48)
by laudre on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:56:22 AM EST

.25 ACP is a centerfire round, not rimfire.

10mm is properly designated as 10mm Norma, as it was actually developed by the Swedish company Norma, not Dornhaus & Dixon -- they merely got it out on the market in the States with the Bren Ten.

On a related note, 10mm is not elongated .40 S&W -- it's the other way around.  .40 S&W was developed by Smith & Wesson and Winchester, basically duplicating the FBI downloaded 180-grain 10mm load in a shorter case.  The net result of this was the near-death of 10mm -- to this day, the only production 10mm handguns are the Tanfoglio Witness (marketed in the US by EAA), the Glock 20, and a S&W revolver or two.  Furthermore, few ammunition companies actually load 10mm to the original specs, instead loading it to underpowered 180-grain .40 S&W specs.  Honestly, calling 10mm "popular" is vastly overstating it -- the only pistol service calibers that can be called popular are 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

---------
"All tribal stories are true, for a given value of 'true.'" -- Terry Pratchett

More 10mm vs. .40 facts and figures (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by stodd on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:28:57 PM EST

There are a couple of other differences between the .40 S&W and the 10mm cartridges. Most noticible is that the .40 uses a small pistol primer, while the 10mm uses a large primer. This change was made to insure that the ejector from the smaller guns the .40 is used in won't impact the primer when you unload a chambered round.

The 10mm required a frame capable of handling large cartridges, and it was commonly chambered in guns which were also offered in .45 ACP. Most guns chambered for the .40 are usually beefed up 9mm frames with heavier slides.

The idea of a round in this form factor was around for a while. First out was a round called the .41 Action Express. This round chambered a .41 caliber bullet in a case with the same overall length as the 9mm Luger. It also had a rebated rim so that only a barrel/magazine swap was necessary to chamber it in a 9mm handgun.

When Smith and Wesson developed the .40 S&W round, they based it on the Centimeter wildcat cartridge developed by Liebenberg, who they had just hired to run the Smith & Wesson Performance center. This was the original cut-down 10mm round which became the .40 S&W with a few modifications. Also, the .40 was the first major round developed around a hollow point bullet shape, and it has been widely adapted faster than any other cartridge in history. (Or at least since they started keeping good marketing data.)

[ Parent ]
AK-47 vs. AK-74 Error (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by nihilatron on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:01:58 AM EST

The Soviet AK-74 does *not* fire 7.62 x 39 BLOC, as stated in the article; it is chambered for 5.45 x 39-mm ball, ball-tracer, and incendiary-tracer rounds. 5.45 x 39 mm is the Soviet answer to 5.56mm x 45mm NATO. See The Soviet Army - AK-74 Assault Rifle

Couple of points. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by m0nkyman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:04:26 AM EST

The .17 is the smallest commercially available cartridge, and you failed to note that a .22 is a rimfire cartridge.
If I can't dance, then I won't join your revolution-- Emma Goldman
My bad... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by m0nkyman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:15:30 AM EST

Next time I'll read the article properly and notice that you spent a paragraph pointing out that the .22 is a rimfire. Oops.

If I can't dance, then I won't join your revolution-- Emma Goldman
[ Parent ]
The Gender Genie has analyzed this story (3.00 / 3) (#53)
by Gender Genie on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:30:10 AM EST

The algorithm predicts that the author of this article is: MALE

Words: 3327; Score=5540.

Male keywords: Thes:267 As:121 Somes:4 Numbers:167 Its:27

Female keywords:24 s-Possessives:5 Possessive Pronouns:27 Fors:37 Nots:12)

Guns are for wimps (2.85 / 7) (#54)
by smallstepforman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:59:44 AM EST

Real men use their hands...

Or a Knife (2.33 / 3) (#64)
by monkeymind on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:06:43 AM EST

You have to look into their eyes. So that you can watch the light go out of them...

I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.
[ Parent ]

I tried that once (4.60 / 5) (#98)
by Polverone on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:50:22 PM EST

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to sneak up on a ground squirrel and strangle it.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]
drop from a tree (n/t) (4.00 / 2) (#197)
by fishling on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:22:44 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Single-walled carbon nanotube suits ... (5.00 / 4) (#55)
by codingwizard on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:11:18 AM EST

Caught this article after it had been up for a while. I wonder if the author and crew might comment on recent developments proposed to use single-walled carbon nanotube fibers as projectile protection far superior to Kevlar. This is pretty obvious to people familiar with CNT technology, although CNTs are far too expensive for common use right now.

Indeed, I commented on my blog about 6th August that:

It was not that difficult to read papers on nanotechnology and infer from them that carbon nanotube ("CNT") fabrics would be an application. The thing about carbon nanotubes is that they are very strong, due to the covalent carbon-to-carbon binding that is the physical feature of their structure. Nanotubes are long, very thin, and can be produced in bundles. Converting bundles to fibers is a common task with other materials. So, I reckoned, creating a CNT fabric is simply logical. What might such a fabric have as properties?

Well, for one, it would be impervious to bullets and shrapnel. People wearing such clothes could be killed, for the garment could not dissipate the effects of blunt force trauma resulting from fast impact of an artillery shell. Still, having a true bullet-proof shirt or whole body suit may well tip the balance of power between sophisticated terrorists or thieves and police or army. While these suits wouldn't guarantee survival, they may well vastly amplify the body count from a terrorist attack and greatly improve thieves' chances of getting away. How long away? Estimates put it at ten, maybe fifteen years.
Except, of course, as I noted in the following paragraph, I was shocked to learn people have made such stuff already. Now, it may not be as good as things can be eventually, and it certainly is expensive, but the covalent carbon-carbon bonding really poses a challenge for bullet penetration.

Naturally, this won't stop the development of other weapons that circumvent the protection CNT fiber suits can provide. But, given the longevity and importance of gunpowder and guns as a technology, it's interesting that their preeminence in, say, warfare and police work is poised to be threatened.

Incidently, I say "suits" rather than "vests" for these things because CNT fiber materials have the potential for being full-body, light, and cool. As suggested, they won't stop blunt forces transmitted through the material but could conceivably stop piercing. The 17x factor over Kevlar of the current fiber could, in principle, be improved by an additional factor of ten or twenty.



--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

Do CNTs dissipate force well? (3.75 / 4) (#83)
by wanders on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 09:14:33 AM EST

What strikes me is that preventing penetration of the fabric may not in and of itself be sufficient to stop deadly wounds. If the fabric fails to dissipate force, it would seem to me that you would have sections of your expensive new bullet-proof suit sucked halfway through your body with the bullet wrapped in them.

Put, ahem, bluntly, the main feature of body armour is to convert penetrating force to blunt force.

This is not to say that I have fully understood the capacities of CNT fabrics, or indeed that such fabrics would not be useful in body armour.
~
~
:x
[ Parent ]

Haven't actually manipulated such a fabric, but... (3.75 / 4) (#89)
by codingwizard on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:35:50 AM EST

There well may be limitations along these lines, and it's tough for me to say, never having manipulated such a fabric. All I've figured out is through reading and, initially, by doing calculations.

The covalent carbon-carbon bonds which make this material so attractive are identical to those which make diamond so strong. Unlike diamond, however, CNTs are not brittle and can bend and fold easily.

CNTs are simply "buckyballs" (buckminster fullerene, to get technical) formed into cylinders. See, for instance, SWNT pictures and information about structure.

To make a fiber, large numbers of CNTs are layed down together and formed into bundles. The reason that they are flexible, as near as I can figure it out, is that the carbon-carbon bonds will permit rotation about their axis but are highly resistent to being pulled apart or squished. So, if the side of a CNT is "pushed in" the geodesic-like structure comes into play and the force of the push is dissipated as rotations of large numbers of CNTs about their axes. A force trying to push all the way through, however, eventually gets to a point where it is trying to force apart the carbon-carbon bonds. If the impenetrable garment were made of a single layer of CNTs I'd say the "bringing the layer along with the bullet" idea would be a possibility. But it has to bring along bundles of these things formed into cloth-like fibers.

This said, I should also note that CNTs have a tendency to restore their cylindrical structure, as that is an equilibrium position for them in terms of molecular energy. In other words, even where rotation of bonds is involved, CNTs push back. Quoting from the latter reference:

The Young's modulus (elastic modulus) of SWNTs lies close to 1 TPa. The maximum tensile strength is close to 30 GPa.
Do the math.



--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

[ Parent ]
Yah but that's how it becomes blunt force (5.00 / 1) (#272)
by Anonymous Hiro on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:52:17 PM EST

If the fabric is tough and not very elastic then the bullet is likely not to go through.

If the bullet doesn't penetrate then the force is spread out and it's the equivalent of being hit by a rock or being punched. The momentum of the "punch" would be less or near equal to the recoil when the bullet was shot (unless the bullet accelerates as it travels).

While you can kill people by punching them,it usually takes many punches or you have to punch the right spot (blow to unprotected head). Whereas you can more easily kill people with something that penetrates.

Bleeding is one of the main causes of death if you are shot. People are looking into zeolite compounds to rapidly stop bleeding and improve survivability during a tactical situation.

"If it bleeds it can die" - Conan.

[ Parent ]

Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by codingwizard on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:16:37 PM EST

Folks interested in other implications and uses of nanotechnologies like CNTs for war fighting and other applications might want to check out these links, at MIT's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies. In particular, there is a research team devoted to energy absorbing materials. There is also a video presentation by Professor Edwin Thomas, Director of the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies.



--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

[ Parent ]
Mention of nanocomposite bullets (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by codingwizard on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:09:40 PM EST

Professor Thomas mentions in response to a question that there are people looking at using composites of nanomaterials to replace bullets, basically looking at having a material which conducts heat as well or better than brass yet is lighter.

Apparently, 30% of the weight of a bullet is in the brass and the principal function of that is heat conduction. For the unmounted soldier, the thing which accounts for the plurality of the weight they carry is ammunition, so reducing the weight of ammunition is attractive.



--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

[ Parent ]
Nanotubes (5.00 / 1) (#278)
by MrAcheson on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 04:00:27 PM EST

There is one huge problem with nanotubes. They're short. I have yet to see anyone propose a methodology to make nanotubes longer than about a centimeter and most are lucky to get into the millimeter range. This limits nanotube's application to simple composites like injection molding and rules out more advanced composites with vastly superior properties. The cool applications for nanotubes require long fibers to disperse load. Otherwise you end up with the weak link syndrome where the nanotubes are strong, but the stuff holding them together fails so everything comes apart anyway. Might be nice if you could make s-hook shaped nanotubes and monkey-chain them together with a polymer to hold them in place, but I have no idea how you would do that since we are talking about the nano level here.

These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


[ Parent ]
Manipulation is not difficult (5.00 / 2) (#330)
by codingwizard on Sat Aug 30, 2003 at 10:20:31 AM EST

Among the geometries successfully constructed for CNTs are bearing-like structures, where one CNT is formed within another one, and are intended to be used for bearings in nanomachines, and loops.

If a loop is possible, an intertwined loop is as well.

The stated limitation on length of manufacture of CNTs is an anachronism. See Figure 2 in that paper, as well as consider the quote:

The maximum strain observed, 5.860.9%, gives a lower bound of 4567 GPa for the tensile strength specifically, yield stress of single-wall nanotube ropes.
These ropes are samples of a kind produced earlier and it is believed the length of such ropes can be increased by appropriate scaling. In any case, such scaling is needed to realize certain heralded applications of CNTs, such as the space elevator, and it is risky to extrapolate limitations on today's manufacturing capabilities giving the rapid advance of this field. (CNTs as SWNTs were only discovered in 1991.)

The current thought on constructing long, macroscopic ropes of carbon SWNTs involves a two-stage process wherein a weakly-linked CNT mesh is put down on a surface, acting as direction guide and catalyst, and then a nearly parallel and intertwined network of carbon SWNTs is grown on top of it.



--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

[ Parent ]
Carbon Nanotube Chainmail? (5.00 / 1) (#337)
by iimty3 on Mon Sep 01, 2003 at 09:20:34 PM EST

Could rings or loops of CNTs be used in some form of ringmail or chainmail fabric? Or is that the "weakly-linked CNT mesh" described above?

[ Parent ]
Yes, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#338)
by codingwizard on Mon Sep 01, 2003 at 10:26:08 PM EST

Yes, well, it would be a kind of "chainmail" if the linked hoops were used. But the hoops would not be very big and, so, there'd be no perceptible holes in the weave or anything similar.

From what I understand, it's easier to make long threads of CNT fibers than these hoops, although such structures might be useful as part of NEMS. See also the section of this Scientific American article about "twirling motors".


--

Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)
ANON,Tcl/Tk,ETL,SQL,ANSI C,SAS,BI,InfoViz
"There is nothing new/Beneath the sun." (Koheleth 1:9)
Yes, there is: Carbon nanotubes, for one.

[ Parent ]
Those are ropes not single nanotubes. (5.00 / 1) (#343)
by MrAcheson on Thu Sep 04, 2003 at 12:17:14 PM EST

Nice article.  Its really cool that people are making nanotube ropes on the microscale and that is a huge technology advance that I was unaware of.  What sucks is that these ropes are held together by intermolecular forces so they are orders of magnitude weaker than nanotubes themselves.  Nanotubes are on the order of 1.2 TPa, the ropes are on the order of 45 GPa (not 4500 as your post indicates).  Thats a big loss of stiffness.

My point is that many of the heralded applications of nanotubes are somewhat premature.  It really is unknown whether the excellent properties of nanotubes on the nano- and microscales will translate to excellent properties on the macroscale.  Its nice that you can make microfiliments, but what about macrofiliments.  What about brittleness?  Thats the primary flaw of most carbon fibers.  More fundamentally how much will making a macrostructure using this technology cost?

Theres a lot of questions to be answered before you can say that this is the future.

These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


[ Parent ]
A Few Comments. (4.71 / 7) (#56)
by Kadin2048 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:11:43 AM EST

I really like the article and am glad you posted it and that it got voted to the front page, but you have a few inaccuracies that I think need to be brought up:

Firstly, your description of the .22 versus .22 LR is all off. I'm not really sure what you're talking about, to be honest. There are 3 .22-caliber rimfire cartridges in common use: the .22 Short, .22 LR, and .22 Hornet. .22 Short is a very small cartridge used only (that I've ever seen) in derringers. Theoretically, you could load it into a firearm designed for .22 LR, but it have so much less power, it'd never function properly. The most common rimfire cartridge is .22 LR, which is about an inch long and is common in pistols, rifles, and revolvers. When you hear someone call something "a twenty-two," nine times out of ten, .22 LR is what they mean. .22 LR is principally used for target shooting and varminting. .22 Hornet is basically a 'magnumized' .22 LR--it's actually a slightly necked-down cartridge, it's diameter at the base is .299, so it won't fit in a .22LR-chambered firearm. And for good reason--it has a much larger, hotter powder load. It's designed mostly for varmint hunting, although the new .17 HMR round is looking better for this purpose.

Your comment in regards to the 5.56x45mm NATO that "the high velocity has the draw back of creating clean wounds with tapered bullets that do not immediately incapacitate," I take issue with. Both M193 and M885/SS109 ("Ball" and "Green Tip," respectively) bullets will fragment and produce particularly gruesome wound channels at less than 100 yards. (A particularly rigorous paper on the subject available here.) What you say is true only at great distances when the fragmentation effect is negated, or through body armor--hardly a practical assessment.

I don't mean all this just to nitpick, I figure just as long as you're passing along a lot of good information, it should be as factually correct as we can all possibly get it. Anyway, other than those things, I think it's a very informative article. I'd have given it +1FP, had I not missed the voting completely.

.22 Hornet is a centerfire cartridge (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by baron samedi on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:14:00 PM EST

and thus not really related to the .22LR. The .22 Long Rifle, .22 Short and .22 Long as well as the .22 Magnum are all rimfire cartridges, and there are many different kinds. You are correct in that when most people talk about .22s, they are generally talking about .22LR, but the .22 Hornet is a rifle cartridge of an entirely different stripe.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
pah (4.40 / 5) (#61)
by wji on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:35:51 AM EST

no, 7.62x39 is not used in ak-74. ak-74 is a rechambering of ak-47 for a sov 5.45 mm catridge similar in role to the nato 5.56.

Really, why did this get published? I don't know anything about guns and i could have written it. And what's the obsession with weaponry anyway? didn't we all get over that in the early stages of puberty?

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

Weapons give you power (5.00 / 1) (#215)
by TheModerate on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:38:26 PM EST

And power is good.

"What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
[ Parent ]

The truly coolest movie gun (4.00 / 4) (#63)
by Golden Hawk on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:52:25 AM EST

Clearly, the minigun in Preditor, stands head and shoulders above the rest.

"I ain't got time to bleed"
-- Daniel Benoy

That gun is cool (4.00 / 2) (#231)
by nebbish on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:33:59 AM EST

So why is the one in Unreal Tournament so pathetic in comparison?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Raufoss (3.50 / 2) (#65)
by sakusha on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:14:55 AM EST

Your article fell one step short, it failed to mention the current top-end ammo, the .50 Raufoss explosive-tipped ammo. It is currently in use by Special Forces snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Raufoss is sold only to government militaries, and many antiwar activist groups are trying to get Raufoss banned completely. I agree with them, it's horrible stuff.

That's just silly (5.00 / 3) (#112)
by dn on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:30:17 PM EST

The whole point of war is to break things and kill people. The better you do those jobs, the fewer people get killed and the less stuff gets broken.
It is currently in use by Special Forces snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... many antiwar activist groups are trying to get Raufoss banned completely.
Putting those two sentences together is idiocy. Iraq and Afghanistan were already at war. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were being killed as a matter of routine, and torture was institutionalized on a vast scale. Afghan stadiums had been converted as show houses for public executions, and Iraq didn't have an Olympic team because the Husseins had "punished" the athletes. These protestors don't give a rat's ass about the poor folks on the other side of the world eating bullets. They're in many cases the exact same people who rejoiced when Cambodia was fed to the Khmer Rouge. What they really want is to gain domestic political advantage. If they could succeed in villainizing the military, they'd gain power, prestige, and funding for their social agenda.

I'll tell you what a .50 explosive round means: It means a US sharpshooter can reach into a village from a mile away and whack just the bad guy, instead of calling in a B-52 strike and erasing the whole town. It means a soldier can detonate a leftover Soviet landmine from a safe distance, instead of leaving it for the locals to deal with using their bare hands.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

not the point... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by mikelist on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:42:45 AM EST

...wounding enemy personell is often preferred to outright killing them, once they are dead, they require no more immediate care, when wounded they tax the enemy medical services and transportation in getting to the medical facilities.

[ Parent ]
Depends (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by dn on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:52:25 AM EST

That's true in a high-intensity industrial war like WWII. But in a low-intensity war, like the Islamist problems the US is dealing with, suffering is encourages the opposition and creates martyrs. Having the bandits vanish is generally better, preferrably with the occassional witness to say "His head just exploded!"

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

I question that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by mikelist on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 05:13:37 PM EST

In the case of a conflict that has 'hostiles' melting into civilian population, there is another reason to wound rather than kill, tracking the wounded parties, ie anyone in an area having obvious trauma injuries might be candidates for observation, as well as those whom he/she/it interacts with. Such combatants tend not to be lone wolf types, so some intelligence can be gathered by identifying their associates. Plus, gunshot damage is never as spectacular as shown in the movies, so the head explosion comment isn't likely. You want a spectacular death, walk someone into a helicopter tail rotor.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#219)
by dn on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 12:41:55 AM EST

...ie anyone in an area having obvious trauma injuries might be candidates for observation, as well as those whom he/she/it interacts with.
Good point.
Plus, gunshot damage is never as spectacular as shown in the movies, so the head explosion comment isn't likely.
I was originally talking about a .50 caliber round with an explosive core. It would be movie-style spectacular. (Well, if bone sets it off. It'd likely just go right through without blowing up.)

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

Big frigging deal (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by theElectron on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:08:15 AM EST

You can by U.S. military surplus .50 API bullets from your computer from any one of a number of online milsurp merchants. API = Armor Piercing Incidiary (incindiary = explosive).

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]
A missing classic (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by TomV on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:11:18 AM EST

I've fired .22 rifles, 7.62 SLRs, 9mm SMGs, but your list omitted the one calibre to which, forgive me, I have an emotional connection, having earned my RAF Marksman qualification with it.

The classic British Army .303 rimfire cartridge as used in the standard issue Lee Enfield rifle from 1888 to 1957, when we moved over to the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

For sheer Number Of Cartridges produced, and for it's geopolitical effects, this is a Big Star in the Ammo world. This was the bullet of the British Empire. I remember reading a couple of months ago when the troops in Iraq were starting to impose the 'one firearm per household' rule, that one problem with this was that most households had at least two - an AK47 for everyday swanking and posing purposes, and Grandad's Lee Enfield, worn for special occasions like weddings and funerals - the 'Sunday Best' rifle!

I feel before I leave this post it's appropriate to stand at attention and declare: "I have no blanks, misfires or spent rounds in my possession SIR!" ;-)

TomV

Little correction (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by cybergibbons on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:44:34 AM EST

I'm pretty sure it would have been "I have no live rounds, blanks, misfires or spent rounds in my possession, sargeant!"

I've never seen an officer as a range officer on the many RAF and army ranges I've been on

[ Parent ]

I stand half-corrected (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by TomV on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:42:58 PM EST

You're right on the live rounds, of course :-) Quite an important bit, the live rounds. I did my shooting as a CCF cadet, so our range officers, what with needing to be adults, were our officers (PO Cowley and FO Austin, usually). It was Sergeant when we were on someone else's range (for the SLRs and the SMGs). Looking back on it, I find the image of a Flight of 21 boys aged between 14 and 17 marching down the street from the School Armoury (!!!, in the Science Block basement next to the room with 3 ZX80s which was our first Computer Room) to the TA range every Thursday afternoon, toting Lee Enfields, completely astonishing. TomV

[ Parent ]
Bowling for Columbine! (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by duffbeer703 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:31:53 PM EST

Where is the Michael Moore expose!


[ Parent ]
Correction to the correction. (5.00 / 1) (#259)
by rasilon on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 07:17:28 AM EST

In (at least my bit of) the army, the range officer is (or was) an officer whatever their rank. On the range, the range officer outranked everyone. So despite the fact that you were usually addressing and NCO you'd call them Sir.

[ Parent ]
Rule 303! (3.33 / 3) (#92)
by hovil on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:09:30 AM EST

When I read the introduction about ammunition, the 303 was the first to spring to mind, probably because of this movie.

[ Parent ]
303 cartridge (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by gundaddy on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:12:26 PM EST

The 303 is NOT a rimfire cartridge. It is a centrefire cartridge. It is however a rimmed cartridge as opposed to rimless as in the case of say a 30-06

[ Parent ]
Begging your pardon: (5.00 / 2) (#189)
by Alarmist on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:35:35 PM EST

The .303 is a centerfire, not a rimfire cartridge. I was at the local range this weekend with just such a weapon (Lee-Enfield No. 1 Mk. 4).

[ Parent ]
In the US, you'd say... (5.00 / 1) (#255)
by Kadin2048 on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 02:12:38 AM EST

"No brass, no ammo, drill sergeant!"

Brings back some memories.
:-)

[ Parent ]

only in the Army <nt> (5.00 / 2) (#310)
by bankind on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 11:32:31 PM EST


"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Ah, the Devil's Gun... (5.00 / 1) (#297)
by minusp on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 10:05:02 AM EST

My first "real" rifle. Still have it, too. It was thought to be terribly unfair by those facing Britannia in the field, because it had a 10-round box magazine (too many to be sporting, you know) and could be quickly reloaded with stripper clips.
Remember, regime change begins at home.
[ Parent ]
Correction and comments (5.00 / 13) (#70)
by enkidu on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:19:34 AM EST

Corrections:

Rimfire cartridges cannot be struck "anywhere" on the base. The primer exists only in the rim. Thus the name "rimfire". In general the .22 rimfire round IS the .22LR (long rifle). There is also the .22 short and the .22 rifle round (essentially shorter and older versions of the .22LR) and the .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) which is a much larger cartridge.

The .223 is not used to hunt large game (unless you consider coyotes large game). In fact, most states specifically preclude the use of rifles below .243.

The .25 (if you're talking about the .25 auto cartridge) is not even close to being more powerful than the .223 Remington. The .25 auto is a short, low pressure pistol round (typically used in a blow-back pistol where the breech doesn't even lock). The .223 is a high pressure, high velocity rifle round.

The "thirty aught six" is correctly written ".30-06". The 06 standing for 1906, the year the US stardardized on the cartridge with the 1906 Springfield Rifle. The cartridge was also used in the M1 Garand rifle used by the U.S. during WWII.

As far as I know, the .32 auto was never used in revolvers due the lack of a rim on the cartridge. Cites please?

The .357 sig is related to the .357 Magnum (correctly called the .357 Remington Magnum) only in name. The actual caliber of the bullet is .355 and is identical to the bullet used in the 9mm parabellum round (9x19). The cartridge is roughly a necked down .40 S&W cartridge (also known as a bottleneck cartridge). The .357 Magnum is a rimmed, straight wall revolver catridge (yes, I am aware of semi-auto pistols and rifles which fire the .357 Magnum).

The .38 Special case is not "compact" but is in fact quite large. The pistols which shoot the .38 special are able to be much more compact due to the low pressures of the cartridge. In fact, the .38 special is the true "smaller cousin" of the .357 Magnum, the .357 Magnum being essentially a higher pressure, strengthened and lengthened .38 Special cartridge.

The .40 S&W is NOT what was developed after the Florida shootout. The 10mm cartridge was the cartridge that was developed but it proved difficult to shoot and adapt for duty use. Also, new guns had to be designed due to the high pressures and heavy recoil of the round. Later a smaller, easier to shoot cartridge was specifically developed for which existing 9mm auto pistol designs could be adapted was developed by S&W. That round is the .40 S&W.

The Soviet 7.62 x 39 is neither powerful, nor accurate, but is cheap, effective and easy to shoot.

The 7.62 x 54 Soviet cartridge is a legacy rimmed rifle cartridge from the era of bolt-action rifles (1891). It is was not designed as a "response to the 7.62x51 which was designed almost half a centure later. It's use in sniper rifles was strictly because they didn't want to design a new cartridge, and they decided to use the WWI era cartridge which was both effective and powerful but difficult to work with due to the rimmed design.

The 9mm Parabellum doesn't neccessarily leave "cleaner wounds". Wounding is a function of velocity and bullet shape, not the cartridge. Nor is the 9x19 a "powerful high velocity round". Especially when compared to the .30-06 and the 7.62x51. Those are powerful, high velocity rounds. Even the .40 S&W to say nothing of the 10mm is much more powerful than the 9mmP.

There are many many many more cartridges used than you have listed. Among the more interesting are the modern FN developed 5.7x28mm cartridge and the "new" soviet 5.54x39 round.

Hollow points are not only used in pistols, but in hunting rounds also. Of course, the hollow is much much smaller due to the higher velocity of rifle rounds.

Criticisms

If you don't know something for sure, don't write it. I really liked your previous articles, but after reading this one, I'm beginning to wonder how much you really know, and how much you only think you know.

Choose an area: the topic of small arms ammunition is far too large an area to take on, especially with a listing like yours. Why the .32 auto but not the .380? Why the .44 S&W a completely obsolete cartridge? Why is the 5.54x39, the current soviet bloc standard issue cartridge, missing? I think you would have been better served by going over pistol and light rifle and medium/heavy rifle cartridges separately instead of "inch vs metric" a vague distinction.

More technical detail such as the speed difference between typical pistol cartridges (1000 fps vs. 2500 fps) would have been useful. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, a more systematic approach would have made this a better article despite it's numerous technical mistakes.

thirty-aught-six correction: .30-'06 (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by enkidu on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:26:16 AM EST

Oops. The thirty-aught-six is completely correctly written as .30-'06. Doh

[ Parent ]
.357 Sig (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by gunner800 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 04:33:36 AM EST

You're righter than the article, but I'm a fan of the cartridge so I figured I'd pipe up.

A stated goal of creating the .357 Sig was to match the power of a .357 Magnum snub-nosed revolver in a short-barreled semi-auto. Sig failed, but the two will probably always be compared.

I cringe when I read it described as a necked-down .40 S&W case; pressure is much higher than .40 SW brass is meant to handle safely.

9mm Luger bullets are not all appropriate for .357 Sig. Hollowpoints should be made with harder metal to not overexpand, and some bullet shapes are not compatible with the minimal crimp (some bullets tend to fall out).

---Ignore poorly-chosen handle for purpose of gun-control discussions.
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the clarifications (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by enkidu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 05:08:35 AM EST

Thanks for the clarifications. If you notice, I said "roughly", as I was aware that the case is somehow strengthened over the standard .40S&W case. Yes, although the recommended bullets are different, the caliber (and general weight requirements) of those bullets (.355) is identical. I should have specified that.

Personally, I think the .357Sig is just too damn loud for my tastes. Even with plugs and muffs, it's pretty painful. BTW, if you're into loud pistols, check out the ugly but solid CZ-52 shooting 7.62x25 full power loads. Bright and loud.

Cheers

[ Parent ]

Your only close as well. (5.00 / 1) (#263)
by MrAcheson on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 10:40:55 AM EST

As far as I know, the .32 auto was never used in revolvers due the lack of a rim on the cartridge. Cites please?

.32 ACP is semi-rimmed. It was specifically designed that way by John Moses Browning so that it could be used in .32 revolvers and pistols. This is important because if the rims stack up in the magazine wrong it will cause rimlock and a failure to feed. Browning eventually went to rimless cartridge designs because of this and the influence of 9mm Parabellum. Look up "rimlock" and ".32" on the net for further citations.

The actual caliber of the bullet is .355 and is identical to the bullet used in the 9mm parabellum round (9x19).

Nope. The 357sig (no "." to my knowledge) cartridges can be loaded to fire 9mm bullets, but the shape of the bullet is usually different because the bottleneck cartridge means that different bullet shapes can be used without impacting cartridge feeding. This means 357sig usually uses bullets with wider shoulders and more wounding potential than 9mmP.

The 10mm cartridge was the cartridge that was developed but it proved difficult to shoot and adapt for duty use.

You're half right. The FBI up-armed to 10mm and found it too much of a handful but to my knowledge the round already existed. .40 S&W partially came out of the reduced loads that the FBI created for issue 10mm and FBI ballistic gellatin testing.

The Soviet 7.62 x 39 is neither powerful, nor accurate, but is cheap, effective and easy to shoot.

The 7.62x39 has almost exactly the same ballistics as .30-30. For some reason nobody really complains about the poor power of .30-30 when they are taking their deer with it.

In general I agree with you, this article is like something written by Consumer Reports. It sounds right unless you actually know what they are talking about. Unfortunately I do and this article is wholly inadequate for the topic.


These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the corrections (5.00 / 1) (#268)
by enkidu on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:24:42 PM EST

.32 ACP is semi-rimmed. It was specifically designed that way by John Moses Browning so that it could be used in .32 revolvers and pistols....

I admit that I was on shaky ground on the .32 Auto. Thanks for the correction and clarification.

Nope. The 357sig (no "." to my knowledge) cartridges can be loaded to fire 9mm bullets, but the shape of the bullet is usually different because the bottleneck cartridge means that different bullet shapes can be used without impacting cartridge feeding. This means 357sig usually uses bullets with wider shoulders and more wounding potential than 9mmP.

That was a poorly written sentence. If you deconstruct my sentence, it states that "The actual caliber of the bullet is .355 and is identical to [the caliber of] the bullet used in the 9mm parabellum round (9x19)". If I had put in the second phrase: "the caliber of" then I could have avoided some misunderstandings. [Snooty editorial comment: Please avoid using "impacting" when "affecting" is meant. The two verbs have similar but fundamentally different meanings.]

You're half right. The FBI up-armed to 10mm and found it too much of a handful but to my knowledge the round already existed. .40 S&W partially came out of the reduced loads that the FBI created for issue 10mm and FBI ballistic gellatin testing.

Mea Culpa! Thanks.

The 7.62x39 has almost exactly the same ballistics as .30-30. For some reason nobody really complains about the poor power of .30-30 when they are taking their deer with it.

Well, I hardly consider either the 7.62x39 or the .30-30 a full power rifle round. But given the gross inaccuracies in the rest of the article, I probably should have let that one drop...

Reading, painfullly, through the article again, I realize that the author really doesn't know squat about small arms ammunition as he constantly mixes the concepts of cartridges, caliber and bullet ("powerful bullet" sigh) and seems genuinely unclear on the difference between caliber and cartridge. Nor does he distinguish between low, mid and high power cartridges within the pistol and rifle categories. All in all, the article is about as crappy as I've seen on K5.

Perhaps, next month, we should get together and write a better article and submit it...

[ Parent ]

Sounds good to me. (5.00 / 1) (#277)
by MrAcheson on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 03:33:54 PM EST

One other thought about 7.62x39.  Is it the cartridge that is inaccurate or the firearms?  The only two I can think of are the AK and Mini-30.  Both of them have horrible reputations for accuracy.

These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


[ Parent ]
7.62x39 (in)accuracy (5.00 / 1) (#285)
by enkidu on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 06:51:36 PM EST

Now, I don't know about this first hand, but from my understanding: most 7.62x39 ammunition varies wildly in headspace, thus the chambers of rifles have to be made very loose. Naturally, this leaves a lot larger space for the bullet to "jump" before it meets the rifling of the barrel. This makes for poor consistency and accuracy.

With many custom barrel makers, you specify the caliber and then the chamber tolerances including case neck diameter and throating depth you want. Many benchrest shooters can't even chamber most commercial ammo because their chambers are too tight (not that many of them shoot cartridges that are commercially available...).

[ Parent ]

For more accurate information on cartridge design (4.66 / 6) (#72)
by enkidu on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:49:04 AM EST

Go here

Comments, queries or corrections (4.71 / 7) (#75)
by RavenDuck on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:58:11 AM EST

I don't claim to be an expert in amunition, but a couple of the things you said here conflict with what I have heard from some pretty credible sources.

Yet another bullet design was the subject of great controversy - the Black Talon, which consisted of a pyramid shaped bullet tip. Although this tip had no greater impact than a standard tapered tip, it was advertized as an armor piercing bullet which led to it being labelled "the cop killer bullet". Although it was legal under Federal Law, The manufacturer pulled the design from the market, but licensed the design to other manufacturers, and the black talon-styled bullet is commonly available under a Talon name, but widely considered not worth the expense.

I was under the impression that the "black talon" was, in fact, a bullet which "mushroomed" when impacting flesh, expanding into a blunt face surrounded by curved, sharp, "talons". The objective is to do as much damage as it passes though the body as possible.

A forensic pathologist I know was doing a demonstration on how they looked in X-rays, and cautioning pathologists to have a good look for them if they suspected they had been used, as the talons were very sharp, and would easily go through a couple of layers of gloves.

The "cop killer" bullets (which I believe are different to what I know as "black talons"), were apparently never very effective. Sure, they'd go through kevlar with ease, but they didn't have any stopping power (they'd go right through you cleanly, rather than knocking you over). As such, they were never very popular (except maybe in one of the Lethal Weapon movies, IIRC). My information on "cop killers" comes from someone who works for the NRA, so take with as much salt as you please.

Frangible bullets received much attention in the post 9/11 debate over arming Sky Marshalls and airline pilots.

For reasons which are really a little weird to get into now, I was drinking a few months ago with a bunch of students and instructors from the DEA academy (which is just up the road from the FBI academy), and one of them showed me the little card that they have which basically says they'll cary their firearm with them every second until they drop dead.

I enquired if that meant aeroplanes as well, and they informed me that it did. I then asked if this was dangerous, as I'd heard that air marshals were supposed to have special "low velocity" bullets so that they didn't depresurise the plane if they hit a wall. They proceeded to tell me that that was a crock of shit, and that if you shot a gun in a plane, all you'd get would be a small (albeit windy) hole, not massive depresurisation. They said that the sky marshals just used regular weapons and amunition.

At this point we were all quite drunk, so they could have been confused, or pulling-my-leg, or I could have just remembered incorrectly.

I'm not trying to contradict the author, and I don't claim to be an expert. I'd be interested in anyone who is an expert clarrifying some of these issues for me (especially about the Black Talons, as I'd want to tell the forensic pathologist about it before he has his book on firearm injuries published!)



--
For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ.
Depressurizing Airplanes (4.75 / 4) (#81)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:44:22 AM EST

I enquired if that meant aeroplanes as well, and they informed me that it did. I then asked if this was dangerous, as I'd heard that air marshals were supposed to have special "low velocity" bullets so that they didn't depresurise the plane if they hit a wall. They proceeded to tell me that that was a crock of shit, and that if you shot a gun in a plane, all you'd get would be a small (albeit windy) hole, not massive depresurisation. They said that the sky marshals just used regular weapons and amunition.
The truth of the matter is that you're not going to cause an airplane to explosively decompress by poking one, or 20, bullet holes in the fuselage. There is already a 1" pressure bleed pipe at the front and aft of the cabin anyway, and the pumps are designed to keep the cabin pressurized in the event that a window blows open. The bigger danger is a bullet hitting a hydralic or electric conduit, or worse yet, the person flying the plane. Of course, the even bigger danger is the plane falling into the wrong hands and behing flown into a skyscraper.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
black talons (4.00 / 4) (#84)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 09:24:15 AM EST

Here's a few links on black talons:

Basic basic info on the round

More detailed info on how the round works

Discussion on packing.org's website

All these pages back up your assertions.

And btw -- the author of this piece is hardly an expert. See below for the huge number of corrections which have been posted, and also bear in mind that all these corrections and more were posted to the original story when it was posted in edit mode, and the author's response was to simply say he was such an expert that he knew everything about firearms.

[ Parent ]

Black talons (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by SwampGas on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:52:08 PM EST

The black talon was a normal hollow point coated in teflon.  Because of the uproar from anti-gun folks, they decided that to save the children we must ban "cop killer bullets."  It is now illegal to sell/manufacture new "black talons."

However, you may pick up essentially the same cartridge...renamed to the Winchester SXT.

[ Parent ]

What air marshals use (4.33 / 3) (#165)
by unstable on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 08:19:36 AM EST

I know that for a long time alot of AMs would carry glaser rounds.  that is a round that the bullet has a very thin shell and is full of "shot" or pellets.  the shell shatters on contact the shot disperses the energy over a wider area.  this when hitting say the side of an airplane will go through the plastic "wall" but would be stopped by the insulation under it when the bullet fragmented.

some have started using frangables recently since they have dropped in price. (I compared the price online and .45 cal is about on par with the same weight FMJ bullets at another online retailer)

granted some marshals still use solid ammo and rely on thier training to protect the plane as they dont want to "give up" the stopping power of a solid round.

I forget the forum (maybe packing.org?) but there was a air marshal acually discusing what he used. and his choice was a .38 revolver  in a "fanny pack" holster.  he felt he could draw this weapon the most effectivly if he was still in the seat and fire from a sitting position. and I think he said he used glasers in the gun... but I cant recall perfectly.

and no.. a plane wont depresureize from a single hole in it.  the most danger comes from a hit to the air planes control system (or the cockpit)



Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

[ Parent ]

Black Talons are just jacketed hollow points (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by hoops on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:29:28 PM EST

I was under the impression that the "black talon" was, in fact, a bullet which "mushroomed" when impacting flesh, expanding into a blunt face surrounded by curved, sharp, "talons". The objective is to do as much damage as it passes though the body as possible.

This is a design feature of evey hollow point bullet, not just of the Black Talon. Most hollow points are more correctly called a jacketed hollow point, that is, a lead core with a depression at the tip, which is then encased in a copper jacket. A small bit of lead is exposed at the tip. Yes, Winchester coated them with teflon, but that is just to allow to bullet to pass through the barrel easier. Yes, when expanded there were sharp points exposed, but again any jacketed hollow point will exhibit sharp points or edges. No, it was not a "Cop Killer" bullet.

If Winchester had given them a pink color and marketed them as the "Powder Puff" they would still be on the market today.

For more information than you would probably ever want to know about firearms, check out the rec.guns FAQ http://www.recguns.com/Sources/topOutline.html

Hooptie
--Hoops
If I were a koala bear, the first thing I would do is urinate all over you and bite you in the scrotum. - bri4n
[ Parent ]

Can we retract this? (4.10 / 10) (#78)
by Dinner Is Served on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:34:52 AM EST

Every comment seems to be a correction. Given, the K5 user base isn't a majority of gun nuts, so it wasn't expected for any credible editing to occur. I think we can chalk this one as "oops."
--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
The author (3.81 / 11) (#79)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 07:49:36 AM EST

was given every opportunity during editing to fix the many errors in the piece. He touted his "expertise" in firearms every time he was corrected and ignored essentially all of the corrections, which is why I voted against the story. However, there's evidently a pretty large userbase here that simply said "ooh guns, cool" and didn't really care that the article was mostly factually inaccurate.
Oh well, now it's posted to the front page so everyone can see just how much of an idiot he is.

[ Parent ]
I'm curious (3.83 / 6) (#85)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 09:26:34 AM EST

Can a TU tell me who zeroed this comment?

[ Parent ]
jjayson. (nt) (3.00 / 6) (#93)
by abietate on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:31:24 AM EST



[ Parent ]
thanks (2.66 / 3) (#97)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:49:40 PM EST

am I correct in assuming he's the same one who zeroed my last three comments as well?

[ Parent ]
2 of them. (3.00 / 4) (#101)
by abietate on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:00:35 PM EST

jjayson's comment ratings seem to have been wiped, though. thelizman gave the 3rd a 0.

[ Parent ]
interesting (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:25:03 PM EST

thanks for the info -- I guess if I got off my butt and participated more I'd probably get TU (I had it years ago with my first account), but I just don't have as much time as I'd like now.

[ Parent ]
Glad to be of service! (2.00 / 4) (#105)
by abietate on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 01:33:17 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Differences of Corrections and Opinions (3.16 / 6) (#82)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 09:02:53 AM EST

About the only factual error in this article is where I erroneously stated that the AK-74 uses the 7.63x39. I knew that was wrong when I wrote it. There is also a sentence fragment in the 30.06 description. Just about everything else is a bit of opinion, which is why I pulled the article from its original submission and hyperlinked the piss out of it. Unfortunately, there's a couple of poeple here who think that because I'm not fronting their opinion, that this article is completely erroneous.

Among the laughable corrections I've been handed previously is that the 10mm was developed as a result of the aforementioned FBI shootout, when the truth was it was developed 4 years prior. Another person is insisting that the .357 Mag is the same as a .38 ACP, which anyone who has actually seen both cartridges could not make such a stupid statement. The .357 Mag is appreciably longer, and slightly smaller in diameter. Still another person (or persons) actually tried to say that there was never a .380 version of the Colt 1911 A1, nor was there any production version of the 1911 in a .380. The facts of the case that they did exist. The Baby 1911 and the "Mustang".

Another huge problem is the tendency of folks here to equate two cartridges, such as the .223 -> 5.56 or 30.06 -> 7.62. This is a distinctive error, because the cartridges are completely different. You cannot take one and chamber it in the other. Of course, there is an exception - I've personally chambered .380 rounds in 9mm pistols and rifles and shot them. I removed that tidbit because it was "too controversial", but nevertheless, there are about half a dozen folks here who think that because they've touched a gun (one freak actually admitted he carried one daily, which is not something someone who carries readily admits) they're an expert.

In the end, if I left something in this article, it is accurate to be best of my experience and research ability. Those who claim there are mistakes have had ample opportunity to point them out so that I can fix them. At this point, it's sour grapes.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Actually the statement was (4.28 / 7) (#86)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 09:58:03 AM EST

The .38 Special case is not "compact" but is in fact quite large. The pistols which shoot the .38 special are able to be much more compact due to the low pressures of the cartridge. In fact, the .38 special is the true "smaller cousin" of the .357 Magnum, the .357 Magnum being essentially a higher pressure, strengthened and lengthened .38 Special cartridge.
posted by enkidu

The .380 ACP is NOT a .38 special -- as anyone who knows anything about guns would know. Also, the .38 special can be fired in a .357 mag revolver(the two bullets are actually the same diameter, the .38 special is a bit shorter and has a smaller powder charge) -- another tidbit anyone who's ever used one would know.

Also, I don't think anyone said a 30-'06 is the same as a 7.62mm. The 7.62 Nato round is a .308 -- you erroneously make a distinction between the two. Maybe that's where your confusion comes in.

Also, the .223 is the same as the 5.56mm M16 round -- I'm not sure where you got the idea they're different, but that simple mistake proves you don't "work in retail firearm sales" or any other such thing

My point is quite simply that you're just posing -- I don't really understand the mind of someone who spends all this time writing an article and isn't concerned at all with its accuracy.

[ Parent ]

Lies, Damn Lies, and You [n/t] (1.57 / 7) (#107)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:37:12 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
That's not what you said, or what I said... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by lnxcwby on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:29:03 PM EST

Still another person (or persons) actually tried to say that there was never a .380 version of the Colt 1911 A1, nor was there any production version of the 1911 in a .380. The facts of the case that they did exist. The Baby 1911 and the "Mustang".

You stated in your article:

Though the 1911 initially used a .380 cartridge as manufactured by FN

And my response was:

The original cartridge for the 1911 style pistol (which were acutally named for the year they were designed, 1903, 1908, etc...) was NOT a .380 ACP. It was a .38 Automatic round which is the same dimensions as today's .38 Super round, but a lower powder charge.

I never said that there have NEVER been 1911 style pistols (made by Colt or any other manufacturer) in .380 ACP caliber. Hell, ACP means Automatic Colt Pistol. I said that the original 1911 was .45 ACP, and that replaced the impetus models (1903, 1908, and 1910) that were in .38 Rimless Automatic, which again, is NOT .380 ACP, but the same dimensions of a .38 Super, but a lower powder charge. (see Hornaday's Reloading Manual for more info on powder charges for the two rounds).

There are plenty of 1911 knock-offs, and there are several differnet sizes, and chamberings for them. John Browning's original 1911 design, the one that was picked up by the US Army at the beginning of the 20th century, was a .45 ACP.

If you want to nit-pick, feel free, but before you tell me that I'm wrong, read I fucking wrote first.

The full history of John Browning's 1911 pistol
--
"Bother," said Pooh, as he chambered another round...
[ Parent ]

.223 and 5.56 are quite similar, actually... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
by baron samedi on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:55:25 PM EST

The .223 Remington and the 5.56 "NATO" round are in fact very similar, with two key differences, generally. The 5.56 round typically used by militaries usually has a heavier 65 gr. bullet, whereas the .223 most people commonly use are around 55 gr.

The military rifles have a different twist in the barrel as well, which allows them to use the heavier bullets.

You could chamber either round in either gun, but you may get some wacky results in terms of accuracy, etc.

The 7.62 round is not equivalent in any way, shape or form to the .30-06 (except that they're both .30 caliber cartridges), it is, however, virtually identical to the .308 Winchester.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

.30--06 vs .308 (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by phriedom on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:17:25 PM EST

"Equivalent" is a poor choice of word. As you have pointed out, the .223 and the 5.56 NATO rounds use the same case, so most people would call them the same round. The .30-06 and the .308 use very different casings, as you have rightly pointed out. The .30-06 is a much longer casing. However, in most standard loadings, the .30-06 and .308 use very similar bullet weights and powder charges, and so have nearly the same bullet velocity and kinetic energy. I would call them comparable rather than equivalent. I've been told that the .308 is generally more accurate than the .30-06, but I don't think I believe it since it doesn't make any sense in a physics way. A hand-loaded .30-06 cartridge can certainly be more powerfull than the .308, since there is more room in the case for powder.
I don't ask for much, I just want a lot of it.
[ Parent ]
Accuracy (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by dennis on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:29:34 AM EST

Jeff Cooper says the .30-06 is good for an extra 100 yards.

The reason the .308 tends to be a bit more accurate is that the shorter case makes for less play in the chamber. It's not a big difference, and it was controversial for a long time whether there was any difference...but these days, .308 has mostly replaced .30-06 in longrange shooting competitions, in spite of the fact that it runs out of steam sooner.

[ Parent ]

Accuracy details (5.00 / 1) (#296)
by minusp on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 09:51:24 AM EST

I don't think that either of the rounds has inherently that much more accurate downrange ballistics than the other, given that the bullets used are the same for each... However, there are some collateral issues.

1. Shorter, wider cases tend to allow some powders, especially the now popular ball powders, to burn more uniformly, resulting in more uniform pressure curves shot-to-shot.

2. Shorter cases allow you to uses a shorter, therefore stiffer, receiver, reducing accuracy-robbing flex in the action.
Remember, regime change begins at home.
[ Parent ]

Comparable is definitely better... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by baron samedi on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 09:25:11 PM EST

Yeah, that's definitely a better choice of words. Tough choice when you're in the store, too. I remember having to choose between 7mm-08 and .280, which is a very similar sort of choice to make.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
what makes you say that? (5.00 / 3) (#124)
by lnxcwby on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:37:57 PM EST

one freak actually admitted he carried one daily, which is not something someone who carries readily admits

What makes you think that everyone who carries a sidearm, does not readily admit it?

I carry two pistols daily. I carry a full-size Springfield Armory Loaded 1911 in a SOB/IWB holster, and I carry a Kel-Tec P32 in my pocket. My wife carries an M9 every day, my best friend carries a Walther P99 every day. We aren't secretive and paranoid about it. We all are licensed to carry concealed handguns in our home state of Virginia and Florida, and New Hampshire, bringing the total number of states that we can legally carry in to 26. In Virginia, permit holders aren't allowed to conceal carry in restaurants that server alcohol on the premesis, so the only way that I can protecy myself and my family when we go to TGI Friday's is to open carry. In that event, everyone nearby can see that I carry a pistol.

So, paranoid boy, what makes you say that people who carry daily don't readily admit it?
--
"Bother," said Pooh, as he chambered another round...
[ Parent ]

[OT] Have you ever had to (4.50 / 2) (#235)
by univgeek on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:24:09 PM EST

use your guns at any time?

How many years have you been carrying them?

Just curious...

Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]

I carry with the hope... (5.00 / 2) (#238)
by lnxcwby on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:52:56 PM EST

that I never have to use them. I've been carrying for 4 years, and never had to unholster a weapon, and I pray that I never have to.

cheers!
--
"Bother," said Pooh, as he chambered another round...
[ Parent ]

Inacurracies and (more) corrections (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by enkidu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:03:53 AM EST

About the only factual error in this article is where I erroneously stated that the AK-74 uses the 7.63x39.
Then you stand by your original statement surrounding the development of the 7.62x54R cartridge? And your statements concerning the .357 Sig being a smaller cousin of the .357 Mag? And all of the other "facts" I've pointed out in this post? Suck it up man, there's tons of incorrect "facts" in your article.
Another huge problem is the tendency of folks here to equate two cartridges, such as the .223 -> 5.56 or 30.06 -> 7.62. This is a distinctive error, because the cartridges are completely different. You cannot take one and chamber it in the other.
And you seem to be confused between caliber and cartridge. The former describes the diameter of the bullet, the latter a specification of a bullet+case+load combination, not necessarily using the same bullet size. Many extremely radically different cartridges share the same caliber designation, for example: the .45-70 (a large black powder round from 1870) and the .45ACP (a rimless round designed for automatic pistols using smokeless powder). Some share different caliber designation while having bullets of the same diameter: .38 Special and .357 Magnum being a classic example (actual bullet diameter is .357, the .38 being a measurement of the case diameter). Some cartridge designations have an incorrect caliber for marketing reasons, the .357 Sig which takes 9mm or .355 bullet as apposed to a .357 bullet.

The .223 Remington and the 5.56x45 Nato rounds are technically different, one being a SAAMI specified round and the other a NATO specification. However, the two are extremely close and generally NATO rounds can be fired in a SAAMI chamber and vice versa. See here for more information.

Your distinction between 7.62mm and .30-06 is likewise meaningless. The first describes the caliber of a bullet, the second a cartridge designed for fire those bullets. The .30-06 round uses 7.62mm bullets. As does the .308 Win (NATO designation 7.62x51) and the .300 Win Mag and the new .300 WSM (Winchester Short Magnum) among many others.

In the end, if I left something in this article, it is accurate to be best of my experience and research ability. Those who claim there are mistakes have had ample opportunity to point them out so that I can fix them. At this point, it's sour grapes.
I believe I have pointed out a few here and in this post. Some of my corrections may be incorrect (such as the history behind the 10mm round), but I believe most of my corrections to be valid. Don't have an axe to grind, just want articles to be correct.

[ Parent ]
Equivalent cartridges? (4.66 / 3) (#144)
by dennis on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:18:40 AM EST

.223 and 5.56 aren't the same cartridge? So, you're saying if I have a civilian AR-15, I can't use military surplus 5.56? Or if the AR is 5.56, I can't shoot the same .223 from it as from a bolt-action .223 hunting rifle? You're nuts. Of course you can.

Same with the equivalence I pointed out between 7.62 and .308 (not .30-06!). A Springfield M1A is the same rifle as the M14, without the select-fire. They didn't retool it for a civilian caliber. But you can shoot .308 through it just fine.

Now, I have seen some discussions of .308/7.62 which pointed out some slight differences in manufacturing standards, to the effect that substituting the civilian cartridge in the military rifle could hurt your reliability. But accuracy isn't affected, and these are essentially the same cartridge.

And it's hardly freakish to admit you carry every day, with a license it's perfectly legal in most states, and a lot of people do it.

[ Parent ]

Admits your errors, obtain respect... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by lamont116 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:50:46 AM EST

You claimed that the original version of the 1911 Colt was in .380 ACP. I, for one, expressed doubt. I don't know if I am the person you are now claiming that stated that the 1911 was never chambered in .380 ACP, but I'm starting to think that you're straw-manning some people on that issue. (I said "I don't think that it was chambered in .380..." - you have shown that I was wrong to doubt that it was). This site suggests that the original chambering for the 1911 prototypes was something similar to the .38 Super (definitely not a .380 ACP). This site indicates that the .380 ACP was introduced by Browning for a pocket pistol in 1908, which I said. There have been 1911 variants in so many calibers that it's hard to keep track of all of them - the point is that your original statement (.380 ACP precedes .45 ACP for 1911 auto) is questionable.

I also made a point regarding the actual caliber of .44 S&W Special and .44 Magnum, which you didn't respond to, and didn't make any changes to your story regarding. Show me that the .44 Magnum uses a larger caliber than .44 Special - a lot of LE officers using .44 Special cartridges in .44 Mag revolvers would be surprised.

A number of people have challenged your claims about the .223 Remington (including me) - you haven't backed up your position regarding that round.

Oh, and BTW, if you go out and fire 9x17 cartridges through a 9x19 automatic - well, you're not the sort of "expert" that prudent people should be listening to. :)

[ Parent ]

Here's a specific list of corrections (5.00 / 5) (#283)
by dorquemada on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 05:54:51 PM EST

# .22 - The 22 caliber you mentioned is always referred to as the .22 short. That differentiates it from its bigger cousin, the...
#  .22 LR - ...which is actually chambered for everything under the sun from derringers to rifles.
#  .223 - Not widely used for hunting large game. In fact, it's almost never used for large game, and is actully illegal to use on anything Bobcat-sized or bigger in most states.
#  .3006, or 30.06 caliber - As has been stated elsewhere, it's a .30 caliber round using a .308" diameter bullet. And the 300 Weatherby Magnum would like a word with you outside about that "most powerful round" claim. Speaking of which, the...
#  .357 Magnum - is in fact a powerful round, and is the ballistic equivalent of the...
#  .357 SIG - Same bullet mass as the Mag, and nearly identical muzzle velocities. Less powerful, indeed. However, unlike the Mag, which is .357" in diameter, the SIG is .355", otherwise known as 9mm. The name was done for marketing purposes, since the gun drones tend to associate 9mm with "wimpy" and 357 with "powerful". Also, WRT necking, the .22 fireball was also necked down and used in handguns. Tapering is another method of getting more case volume for a smaller bullet. The 9mm Para, for instance, is tapered, whereas the...
#  .380 - ...is not. There's a full half millimeter of difference between the two rounds at the head. Put that in a 9mm para chamber, and you'll get a head separation = face full of hot gas and brass/powder chunks unless you've got a closed, locking breech, which no 9mm handgun has.
# .38 Special - .357" in diameter, as well. Most Saturday night specials were .22LR, .25 ACP or .32 ACP.
#  .40 S&W - Protip: the weapon the enemy is using has no bearing on your ability to wound him.
#  .44 S&W - Centerfire cartridges were introduced in the late 1860's, so how there could be a "revival" of the .44 in the 19th century I haven't a clue.
#  .44 Magnum - Never, ever called the .44 colt. There was the .45 colt, which is an old blackpowder cartridge from the late 19th century that's managed to survive into the smokeless era. You're confused, and it's proved by your statements on the...
#  .45 ACP -...which wasn't a replacement for a .44. It was a replacement for .38 revolvers. The even older old Army blackpowder cartridge revolvers were .45 colt.
# .50 AE - No mention of rebated rimless design? For shame.
# 5.56mm x 45mm NATO - Come on, man, THINK. If it doesn't quickly incapacitate and it's the same as the 223 Rem, why would you use it on big game? You don't want to follow a blood trail 4 miles through the woods, do you? Also, the 5.56 NATO and the 223 Rem have the Exact. Same. Exterior. Dimensions. Everything from the mouth diameter to the rebate diameter. The *interior* dimensions are slightly different, which isn't an issue unless you're dicking around with fast-burning powder. It has no bearing on its ability to be chambered in weapons made for either. If you think so, perhaps you're thinking of the .222 Rem.
# 7.62 x 39 BLOC - As you said, the 74 is chambered for 5.45 x 39.
# 9mm Makarov - It's not a true 9mm. The bullet is .364" in diameter, not .355".

Ball ammo isn't the same as roundnose ammo. It can be tapered, too. You're right about boat-tailing, but long distance Marksmen don't usually use ball, rather target hollowpoints that allow greater gyroscopic stability. Same reason an aerobie goes farther while staying flat than a frisbee.

Flatpoints aren't just used because of the holes they make. They're used in cylindrical magazines so the point of one bullet doesn't set off the primer of the one in front of it if you drop it. Semi-wadcutters are used in autoloaders because the vast majority (Olympic-style comp pistols excluded) won't chamber a wadcutter round. Full-on wadcutters are used in the aforementioned plus revolvers for cleaner holes and better gyroscopic stability. They have hollow points and bases, too.

Anything other than total jacketing doesn't do much at all reduce the amount of aerosolized lead. The base of most jacketed rounds is open, and that's where the lead gets vaporized by the hot gas acting on the lead squeezed out at the forcing cone. What it does do is reduce lead fouling in the bore in favor of (less) copper fouling, which is easier and safer to get off.

[ Parent ]

wow (5.00 / 1) (#332)
by gnd54 on Sat Aug 30, 2003 at 10:27:19 PM EST

This is probably the best summary of the errors in the original article that's been posted so far. You even threw in a few things I hadn't heard before, and I've been around firearms for the last two decades.

Since you actually seem to know what you're talking about -- maybe you can address something else that was raised earlier. The author of this story, in response to my assertion that no 9mm handgun in production would safely shoot a .380 referred to the Lorcin or Davis LC9. I seem to remember hearing of this gun at one point in time many years ago, but google is surprisingly silent on the subject. I know Lorcin filed for bankruptcy a few years ago, and I don't believe Davis is in business either -- I owned a Davis .25 auto (saturday night special if there ever was one) that was probably the cheapest piece of junk I'd ever fired, and I have a hard time believing the same company could have produced a gun that would reliably fire both the .380 auto and the 9mm cartridge. Any ideas?

[ Parent ]

Pathetic (2.66 / 18) (#88)
by cathouse on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:08 AM EST

When teaching at a Comunity College during the late 60's, I hated having a paper such as this cross my desk...Because I had the obligation at that point to determine whether the mass of gross error and the total lack of any grasp of overall concept was the result of major psychopathology or only of mild retardation.

Sad and pathetic.

pity this busy monster manunkind not

progress is a comfortable disease


What is this? (2.25 / 24) (#91)
by losang on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:14 AM EST

It's been over a year since the first multipart installment ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in the Modern Warfare series has graced the queue here at K5. A few people have asked me when I will commence with the next step in the series. Today, I begin the first installment in Firearms 101 - Small Arms Ammunition. This article will introduce the reader to the "cartridge" and the "shell", and will discuss types, sizes, construction, and applications.

How pretentious. You people write with such arrogance. Do you realize this is an internet site not an academic journal. You people must be the grad school drop outs who could not hack the real research.

I don't see any arrogance there (4.66 / 3) (#122)
by muyuubyou on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:10:46 PM EST

I give the author some credit for the time he has devoted to his articles and I tend to believe him when he claims some people asked him for a new step in the series.

BTW I won't mod you down for expressing that ;)


----------
It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure - Horace, Epistles
[ Parent ]

I don't care (2.33 / 3) (#140)
by losang on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:42:56 PM EST

BTW I won't mod you down for expressing that

I could be banned from this site and never think about it again.

[ Parent ]

Uh huh (5.00 / 2) (#157)
by OddFox on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 04:09:43 AM EST

We're really impressed that you have the balls to not care if you're banned from this spot on the 'net, we really are.

--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
That's what I love about Kuro5hin (4.33 / 3) (#127)
by FeersumAsura on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:16:33 PM EST

We don't have enough pretension in our lives, we need fancy restraunts and condescending individuals. Actually I prefer things written like accademic journals. They're just easier to read.
==
It didn't work the first time.
[ Parent ]
Bunch of crap (2.64 / 14) (#96)
by SwampGas on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:49:03 PM EST

I don't know HOW this piece of garbage made it to the front page...but let me reiterate my editorial comment since it now applies as a topical comment:

The author is nearly incorrect in EVERYTHING stated.  I don't have the time nor patience to correct everything in a comment because I might as well write the article over again myself.

To the author: Sir, never touch a firearm again.  I also suggest you take the NRA basic pistol/rifle courses (free) because the literature and instruction will correct half the mistakes here.

...and you wonder why there are so many anti-gun folks.  It's because all the vocal gun owners are morons and make us look like 1) trigger happy John Waynes 2) overbearing amendment pushers or in this case 3) know-it-alls who don't know jack.

rusty...make this BALEETED.

well said <nt> (3.66 / 3) (#99)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 12:51:00 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Because I Had Nothing Better To Do... (3.25 / 8) (#110)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 03:00:44 PM EST

...I took a look through your notably short comment history, and came up with this tidbit of gunwanking on your part. Particularly amusing is this:

(The subject of a conversation is the use of a firearm or pepper spray as a defense against an attacker.)
(The subject of a conversation is the use of a firearm or pepper spray as a defense against an attacker) I'd submit that most people would have a hard time missing another person at 20 feet if they've been taught the basics...
The reason I find this so damn amusing is that anyone with any experience using a handgun knowns that 20 feet is the optimum kill zone for assailants - an average person can close 20 feet and strike you with their fist or an edged weapon before you can bring a holstered handgun to bear. This forms the basis of the Tueller Drill in IPSC competition. 21 feet is the highest standard for an IPSC shooter in this drill. Even the next two people - who don't stroke their own ego's on the subject of guns - point out your stupidity.

Moreover, a person trained in the use of firearm will employ pepper spray in just this situation. Pepper spray is highly effective at incapacitating an assailant in close quarters, because its effects are involuntary to the individual (blephorospasm, reflexive shutting of the eyes, et al).

I'm through with you. As a waste of time, you are probably the prime example of a troll - you haven't offered anything in the way of constructive commentary this entire article, nor have you maintained a consisten like of criticism. I think it's time you admit your own ignorance.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I would have to submit: (3.85 / 7) (#118)
by gnd54 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:00:30 PM EST

these comments that I posted to both the original article and this one, to rebut your assertion that I have contributed nothing to this discussion. And if you care to note, most of the assertions I made in those comments have been made by others as well in response to this article -- your article is so poorly researched and inaccurate that it has brought out a large number of people who have pointed out the glaring inaccuracies and false assertions.

As for my "notably short comment history", if you had read through much of it at all you'd know there's a reason for that -- I requested that my original account be deleted for personal reasons -- my original UID was over 10k less than yours, if it matters.

I stand by my earlier comments about the use of a firearm. Pepper spray is not necessarily going to end an encounter, and I'd think that you, with your "special forces" background, would know that. Unless, of course, you're just posing, which it certainly appears you are.

Oh, and zeroing comments about you is pretty juvenile.

[ Parent ]

Pepper spray (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by dennis on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:47:34 AM EST

They could also get to you before you bring your holstered pepper spray to bear.

A few years ago, a girl walking out of a nightclub in my town tried using pepper spray on a mugger with a gun. He shot her dead.

Pepper spray's great in nonlethal situations, it helps you stay out of prison, but if somebody's coming at me with a gun or knife and I've got a .45 on me, I'll use the .45.

[ Parent ]

Swamp Gas = Hot Air (4.16 / 6) (#106)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 02:36:06 PM EST

The author is nearly incorrect in EVERYTHING stated. I don't have the time nor patience to correct everything in a comment because I might as well write the article over again myself.
I'm highly inclined to believe that it's not because you won't, but because you can't. Your next bit of foaming ignorance underscores this belief:
To the author: Sir, never touch a firearm again. I also suggest you take the NRA basic pistol/rifle courses (free) because the literature and instruction will correct half the mistakes here.
The NRA doesn't offer courses for free (except for youth safety courses). The courses cost between $35 and $60 depending on your locale. The courses offer basic safety, handling, and marksmanship skills. They do not discuss catridge design and types, nor do they cover ballisticas and tactical employment of firearms.

Care to share any other wisdom?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
My wisdom (4.33 / 3) (#142)
by SwampGas on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:12:54 AM EST

The NRA basic handgun safety course is FREE, except for the $7 textbook.  You can find more information at nrahq.org.

They in fact DO discuss cartridge design and types...and ballistics and tactical employment of firearms.  They even cover judicious use of deadly force by having a LEO come in.

My "wisdom"?  I took the course last year.

I'm highly inclined to believe that it's not because you won't, but because you can't.

Sir...you have your "posse" vote your story up...you have them vote comments like mine down....loads of people have posted corrections in editorial and topical comments repeating what I would have said.  This is not in the spirit of K5.

Any reasonable man would have edited this article to fix all the errors before propogating incorrect information.

Likewise, any reasonable man would discontinue the argument at this point.  I'd love to chat about firearms with you...and if you'll take the time to actually listen to my corrections (one of the reasons why I didn't bother...you seemed quite hostile to the other folks who did) then I'll discuss them.

[ Parent ]

Poor Article (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by 0xA on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:17:36 PM EST

This article gives only a superficial overview of common cartridges. It does nothing to explain core concepts that help someone understand the differences between them.

The term Magnum is never explained.

Shotgun gauge is explained very quickly and with almost no detail.

The reference to 10mm pistol cartridges as "popular" is wrong.

There is no information contained here about bullet weight and powder loads at all. Never mind velocity or actual kinetic energy measurements.

I'd suggest that anyone who is really interested in this subject look around with google or something to find some better information.

Dirrefence? Yes (3.40 / 5) (#115)
by Lenny on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:36:13 PM EST

There's a big difference. Shooting to kill would involve multiple shots and a few when the suspect falls, to make sure he is dead. Most conflicts are resolved with one shot. And more often than not, the suspect lives.
Every police officer that I know would rather wound a suspect, if necessary, than kill than kill a suspect. They're not a bunch of bloodthirsty killers.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
Actualy (5.00 / 4) (#178)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:50:36 PM EST

Every police officer I know says shooting to wound is a "fools errand". If you have to use deadly force on some-one (firing a gun IS deadly force by definition) it's because they are an imminent threat to some-one elses life.

If you shoot them you want to kill or incpacitate on the first shot because if you just wound them it gives them the opportunity to use thier weapon.

For all practical purposes there is no way to differntiate in either bullet design or in shot placement, incapacitation from killing. You shoot to kill and you continue to shoot until the subject ceases to be a threat.

The reason why law enforcment went to smaller rounds is not because they want to just wound a subject it's because they wanted higher magizine capacity and less chance of a missed shot penetrating the backstop and doing unintentional damage.

There was some talk about one of the reasons the millitary went to a smaller round was because they wanted to wound instead of kill (it takes alot more resources for the enemy to care for a WIA then a KIA). However, I have no idea whether that is complete bunk or not.

[ Parent ]

not actually, but really actually (4.50 / 2) (#199)
by Lenny on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:53:40 PM EST

Every police officer I know says shooting to wound is a "fools errand".
Kind of semantics here, but I wrote shoot to stop the threat. That does not mean shoot to wound or shoot to kill. It means shoot to stop the threat. I also wrote that all the officers that I know would rather wound a suspect than kill, but they would always shoot to stop the threat.

The reason why law enforcment went to smaller rounds
The progression was something like this: .38, to 9mm, to .40 & .45. That is a trend to a larger round not a smaller one.

There was some talk about one of the reasons the millitary went to a smaller round was because they wanted to wound instead of kill
That is one of the reasons for going down to the .223 rifle round in the M-16, but there are other reasons. The pistol cartridge wend from .45 down to 9mm. The main reasons were cost and compatibility with allies.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Correction (5.00 / 2) (#209)
by Stickerboy on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 10:04:48 PM EST

Modern Western militaries want to kill or incapacitate as quickly as possible("neutralizing the threat").  "Wounding instead of killing" did not factor into the move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm rifle rounds.  A wounded threat can still possibly kill a soldier on the battlefield.  A neutralized threat cannot.  The notion of wounding enemies instead of killing them being more effective is just a popular myth, as shown in the book "Black Hawk Down".  Some US soldiers fighting in the Battle of Mogadishu were using armor-piercing 5.56mm ammunition that were causing clean wounds and passing through the enemy bodies entirely.  Often an enemy would take 3 or 4 wounds and still remain standing and fighting, making the soldiers' fight more difficult.  Now, the .223 round as first fielded in the original M16 had a larger wound profile (if I recall correctly, it was due to the fact that the barrels had a different twist ratio than the M16s of today, giving it less spin) which is probably the source of the "wounding and not killing" myth, but this ignores the fact that a larger and more extensive wound profile would be more lethal and more incapacitating.

Weight savings is one of the valid reasons, since moving from the 7.62mm to the 5.56mm rifle round allows soldiers to either lighten their load or carry more rounds, both of which are important.

Accuracy and recoil is the other.  A burst-fire or fully-automatic shoulder-fired weapon chambered in 7.62mm is much harder to control (and harder on the soldier as well) in the suppressive fire role that such weapons are made for. 5.56mm chambered-weapons delivered more than enough killing power in a time before kevlar-and-ceramic body armor along with the added bonuses of larger magazine capacity and easier handling.

[ Parent ]

Different situations (5.00 / 3) (#237)
by ScuzzMonkey on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:46:19 PM EST

The idea behind wounding rather than killing on the battlefield was never that is more effective to wound than kill to degrade individual effectivness in the field. Rather, the idea was (and is) that wounding an enemy soldier ties up more enemy resources than killing him. For most conventional conflicts, this remains true--put a round into a guy that doesn't kill him, and you're suddenly tying up him, the four guys that are going to carry him off the field, and various medics, doctors, nurses, truck drivers, etc. Whereas, if you just kill him, it's a matter for a couple guys with a shovel, when they get around to it.

For Mogadishu and most guerilla combat, this is not a factor--the engagements tend to be short and sharp, and the enemy is rarely disciplined enough to evacuate or care for his wounded comrades. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the concept.

As with many good theories that various commanders cook up, I imagine this one has never been practiced much on an individual level in any era during any sort of combat. If you are the guy pulling the trigger, you damn well want to make sure the other guy doesn't have a chance to pull his, and what the general says doesn't much enter into it.


No relation to Happy Monkey (User #5786)
[ Parent ]

Depends (4.50 / 2) (#226)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:02:53 AM EST

Most policemen I know used a .357 before going to a 9mm, most of them weren't happy about going to the 9mm either.

Could be different where you live though

[ Parent ]

More nit-picking (4.87 / 8) (#116)
by stodd on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:42:31 PM EST

The .223/5.56mm family of cartridges are not effective against lightly armored vehicles, unless it is very primitive armor. This is a man-stopper cartridge, and is used in military rifles almost exclusively as an anti-personell round. The references to "cleaner wounds" are also bunk. The 5.56 has some of the nastiest terminal ballistics of any cartridge ever fielded, due to it its bullets tendency to tumble after it impacts the target.

The 45 round was originally chambered in the Colt 1905, a design which was then modified into the popular 1911 we have today. The 1911 was chambered in a .38 ACP round, which eventually evolved into a hotter number called the .38 super. The original chambering for it though was the .45 ACP.

Hollow point bullets are no typically no lighter than jacketed or lead bullets. This is also a specious statement, as most modern cartridges are available in a number of bullet styles and weights. For example, the 9mm is typically offered in 115 gr., 124 gr. and 147 gr. loadings. The .45 ACP is offered in 185 gr., 200 gr. and 230 gr. loads.

The much maligned "Black Talon" was actually a conventional hollow point which deployed barbs from the jacket after expansion. It did not have a pyramid shaped tip, and was NEVER marketed as an armor piercing round. In the United States, armor-piercing handgun rounds are expressly illegal for civilian purchase. The Black Talon has been repackaged and remarketed by Winchester as the Ranger Talon, without it's trademark black coating.

Finally, hollow point bullets are commonly used in rifle cartridges, especially in match grade ammunition and varmint loads.

For a much more thorough and accurate treatment of firearms ammunition. Take a look at "Cartridges of the World" by Frank Barnes. It lists nearly every cartridge ever developed, and is now in its 9th edition.

Armour penetration of 5.56 (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by joib on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:00:31 AM EST

Actually the NATO standard issue 5.56 mm cartridge (SS109, with a green tipped bullet) is, for its calibre, a very good armour piercing bullet. This is because the tip of the bullet is made of hardened steel. This also has the effect of moving the center of gravity backward (since steel is less dense than lead), making the bullet tumble upon impact with a soft target like you already mentioned.

The 5.56 NATO round, in fact, has better armour penetration than the old 7.62 NATO round (which is a normal lead core bullet).

And to further nit-pick on the article, .223 Rem is NOT the same as 5.56 NATO. Yes, the dimensions are the same, but 5.56 NATO is specified to a higher pressure than .223. It means that if you have a rifle certified for 5.56 NATO, you can also fire .223 from it, but not the other way around.

To reiterate, if you have a .223 rifle, it is not necessarily safe to fire 5.56 ammo from it, even though the dimensions of the cartridges are identical.

[ Parent ]

You're right (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by stodd on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 07:07:19 PM EST

There is a difference in the maximum chamber pressure between the 5.56 NATO and the .223 Remington. Most military rifles have a bit more free-bore forward of the chamber to make up for this difference.

Also, you're right about the armor-piercing characteristics of the SS109 round, which was specified to penetrate a Kevlar helmet at a set range. (I think it was 300 yds., but I need to check the books.) The round still isn't classified as an armor piercing round though, and it's use against a hardened target would likely be discouraged.

[ Parent ]
Tungsten penetrators (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Stickerboy on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:04:08 PM EST

...were used in 5.56mm "armor-piercing" rounds by the US Army, most notably in 1993 in Somalia.  They marginally increased the AP capability of the round while decreasing substantially the damage done to soft targets, which is why I'm not sure the US Army is still using them.

See my reply to the "wounding vs. killing" thread.

[ Parent ]

Urban warfare (5.00 / 1) (#212)
by duffbeer703 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:29:07 PM EST

They allow you to shoot through vehicles and masonry. The disadvantage is that tungsten is very light and hard, so the bullets have a tendency to zip clean through people at high velocity.

I believe that more modern "AP" rounds are designed to do more damage to soft targets. Also note that fancy bullets are issued in very small numbers, as the army has billions of conventional 5.56mm rounds in stock... Hell, there are support units still being issued mid-seventies era M-16's and M-16A1's.

[ Parent ]

Yet Another Nitpick. (5.00 / 3) (#234)
by bunsen on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:18:27 PM EST

Tungsten is definitely not light - lead's density is 11.3 g/cm3, tungsten's is 19.3 g/cm3 (Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 83rd edition). If the tungsten bit was at the front of the bullet (as might be expected for something designed to penetrate armor), it would contribute to greater stability and less tumbling, producing exactly that tendency to zip through targets.

---
Do you want your possessions identified? [ynq] (n)
[ Parent ]
Tungsten = "heavy rock " in Swedish (5.00 / 1) (#331)
by tetsuwan on Sat Aug 30, 2003 at 05:27:00 PM EST

There's a kind of heavy ore containing tungsten that was called tungsten in Sweden, and for some reason that came into use in English. Tungsten is called "Volfram" in Swedish.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

5.56 ballistics myths (5.00 / 2) (#233)
by Gregoyle on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 12:20:26 PM EST

Part of the reason the 5.56 was adopted by the US Army was the results of field tests by Ranger and LRRPS teams in Vietnam. They noticed enormous exit wound cavities and the tendency of enemies hit by the round to just drop. This led to many reports of the round "bouncing around" inside the body.

The reasons for this early success lay with two major factors (at least when compared with modern uses): one was the ammunition used, which was the M193, and two was the muzzle twist, which was 1/12". The bullet was very likely to go off its axis and travel through the body sideways, causing much greater wound cavities than would normally be expected with a .22 caliber round. But the Army changed some things around later on to improve accuracy. These included switching to M855 ammuntion and a 1/7" twist. That is almost twice the twist as the original weapon tested, and with the new twist and ammo the bullets are now much more likely to drill right through flesh.

This has led to situations like in Mogadishu where soldiers fired multiple rounds into unarmored enemies holding rifles and were unable to take them down until a heavier machine gun opened up.

The Russian 5.45, on the other hand, still mantains its reputation as a tumbler with the larger exit wounds associated with this behavior.
-------

He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
[ Parent ]

.17 Remington? (4.66 / 3) (#117)
by baron samedi on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 04:55:43 PM EST

No mention of what is actually the "smallest" caliber, the .17 Remington.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
Caliber != Cartridge (5.00 / 2) (#156)
by enkidu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:54:53 AM EST

Please don't continue this nonsense. You are correct that the smallest popular caliber is the .17. However, the .17 Rem is just one of at least a dozen cartridges designed to fire .17 bullets. The newest is the .17 HRM (Hornady Rimfire Magnum), which is gaining well-deserved popularity. Most of the others AFAIK are centerfire cartridges. BTW, I believe some handloaders have experimented with .14, .12 and even .10 caliber bullets and loads. Eek.

[ Parent ]
.17 HMR not .17 HRM (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by enkidu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:19:27 PM EST

.17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire (.17 HMR) not .17 Hornady Rimfire Magnum. Darn it.

[ Parent ]
.22LR only used in rifles? (4.66 / 9) (#120)
by baron samedi on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 05:36:02 PM EST

Are you high? First, you can buy all manner of rifles and pistols in .22LR, and all Olympic target shooting, pistol, rifle and biathlon all use .22LR.

You can purchase rifles and pistols chambered for the .22LR in all kinds of actions, configurations and price levels. I learned to shoot using a .22, and I still use them today, in my Ruger 10/22 (a rifle) and my Ruger Super Single-Six (a pistol).

The .22 family of rimfire cartridges are the world's most popular cartridge. Some of my favorites include Winchester Power-point and pretty much anything by CCI

There is also a new rimfire cartridge available, the .17 Hornady, not to be confused with the .17 Remington, which is a centerfire cartridge.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll

Production Levels (2.50 / 6) (#131)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:56:22 PM EST

So, how many ".22 LR" pistols do you see being produced every year? Not many at all. In fact, you'll have a hard time finding anything other than a Ruger MKII or 22/45 models on a reliable basis. Rifles far outsell handguns in the .22 LR category. Note I never said that this round was "only used in rifles". I'd appreciate you actually reading the materiel next time.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I quote (4.80 / 5) (#136)
by baron samedi on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 10:38:04 PM EST

from your article: "The .22 LR is typically only used in rifles"...

I can think of several pistols besides the MkII. Browning Buck Mark, Ruger Single-Six, Hammerli Trailside, the Beretta Bobcat and Walther P22 are ones that I can think of straight off the top of my head, and there's plenty more. Just about every manufacturer I can think of has at least one pistol model chambered for .22LR

Just admit it, you're totally wrong about this.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

On the California DOJ list of "approved (4.25 / 4) (#155)
by enkidu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:46:05 AM EST

Your exact quote is "The .22 LR is typically only used in rifles, though some hand guns have been produced to take advantage of the still compact but more powerful cartridge."

On the California DOJ list of approved handguns, there are 84 currently produced .22LR caliber handguns. By comparison there are 57 chambered for the .357 Magnum. This list is a list of handguns for which a manufacturer has submitted a sample for safety testing and successfully passed said testing.

Face it, you are completely wrong on this point.

[ Parent ]

Great training pistols (4.50 / 2) (#147)
by SwampGas on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:40:14 AM EST

I start out newbies shooting .22LR in a handgun.  Gives them the feel and sound of a handgun without TOO much recoil or noise.  People who want to carry revolvers use a revolver...people who want to carry semis use a semi (which barely cycles the action).

I love the .22LR.  Rifle, pistol, fuse for your truck (nominee #14)....

[ Parent ]

Minor clarification on the .30-06 (5.00 / 6) (#123)
by atreides on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 06:33:34 PM EST

The "thirty-aught-six" is a .30 caliber round. The "aught-six" designation comes from the fact that it was adopted by the United States Army in 1906. It's one of a very few calibers that retains the year of adoption. The only other one I can think of is the .32-20 though I'm sure that a serious collector or expert knows others.

Just a little note...

"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

I Just Realized (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:49:13 PM EST

...why people keep telling me this. I've adopted the tendency of many gun manufacturers, which is to imprint this caliber as "30-06", or "30.06". That means I've written this as a "30 and 6 thousands caliber". Hopefully people will read the comments.


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I thought that was funny (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by Quila on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:31:58 AM EST

The writer could have just used common sense.  A 30.06 round being .3006 caliber? That means we would have a manufacturing tolerance of 1/10,000th of an inch for a round that's cheaply mass-produced beginning almost 100 years ago.

I don't think so.

[ Parent ]

30-30? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by SwampGas on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:15:10 AM EST

I recall firing a rifle my friend's father owned...I believe the calibre was 30-30.

[ Parent ]
Probably yes (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by joib on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 10:40:11 AM EST

There exists a caliber known as .30-30. From what I know, it's quite rare here in Europe, but popular in the USA. In performance it's quite close to the 7.62x39 assault rifle round, so it has a lot less power than the .30-06 which is a full-power cartridge.

[ Parent ]
30-30 (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:14:22 PM EST

The 30-30 is a pretty common rifle cartridge that has been around for a long time in the states.

I've mostly seen it in lever action rifles that look just like the old "winchester repeating rifles" you see in the westerns.

Though I've never shot one myself from what I hear the round tends to "rainbow" alot.

Definately less powerfull then 7.62 NATO (.308) or 30'06

[ Parent ]

I had a .30-30 (5.00 / 1) (#244)
by applespank on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 05:26:23 PM EST

Back when I went hunting with my dad, I used a .30-30. It was less powerful than his .308.

[ Parent ]
additional trivia on .30-06 (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by Meatbomb on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 04:35:34 AM EST

Tom Waits has written a very nifty song called "Sixteen shells from a thirty-aught-six" that has garbage pail lid percussion, xylophones, the whole shebang.

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]
No, no, no! (5.00 / 5) (#173)
by theElectron on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:25:56 AM EST

Oh god, all this misinformation is driving me crazy.

The .30-'06 does include reference to it's year of creation - a .30 caliber round created in 1906. The year of adoption appelation has little to do with with the terminology of firearms and more to do with the practices of the U.S. military. Everything created for or by the army at that time included some reference of a date, i.e. the M1903 Springfield, M1917 Enfield, M1906 rifle cartridge, etc.

When you talk of .32-20, that's one of a large number of blackpowder (not smokeless powder) cartridges from the 19th century, sometimes referred to as the "dash" cartridges. The .32 refers to a .32 caliber projectile, the 20 refers to the fact that the cartridge was nominally loaded with 20 grains of blackpowder. Other examples from this system are:

  • .25-20
  • .32-40
  • .44-40
  • .38-40
  • .38-55
  • .40-65
  • .45-70
  • .45-90
  • .45-100
  • .45-110
  • .45-120
  • .50-70
  • ... and many, many others

Many of the dash cartridges were produced by Winchester and are sometimes referred to by caliber only. For example .38-40 <=> .38 WCF (WCF = Winchester Center Fire).

Now, the .30-40 Krag and .30-30 Winchester cartridges are odd in that they were created as smokeless powder cartridges (just as smokeless powder became available), yet retained the old blackpowder nomenclature. So .30-40 Krag refers to a .30 caliber projectile propelled by 40 grains of some kind of smokeless powder. Ditto with the .30-30.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

You're obviously more of an expert than I am. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by atreides on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:53:33 PM EST

I didn't know all that. Interesting piece of trivia, though. I'll remember all this...

"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
[ Parent ]

[annoyance] He! What about airsoft!??! [n/t] (3.50 / 2) (#126)
by Gornauth on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 07:49:19 PM EST



What a poorly written article (1.70 / 10) (#128)
by gundaddy on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:33:39 PM EST

This article was obviously written by someone who has "researched" the information on the internet. It is poorly written and contains many errors. Please stick to writing about things you know about or at least get it proof read by someone who has seen a gun in real life and not just on tv.

Welcome to K5 (3.66 / 3) (#129)
by thelizman on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 08:45:55 PM EST

The only question now is, are you someones secondary account, or someones buddy.

Thanks, drive through (I know you will).
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
FATMOUSE SPEAKS AND YOU WILL LISTEN (1.90 / 22) (#137)
by f a t m o u s e on Sun Aug 24, 2003 at 11:04:28 PM EST

FATMOUSE DOES NOT CARE FOR THIS ARTICLE. THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT. THIS ARTICLE FLAUNTS VAUGE DESCRIPTIONS AND QUESTIONABLE CONTENT VALUE. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT IMPORTANT. ONLY CALORIES ARE IMPORTANT. WRITING THIS ARTICLE WAS A WASTE OF PRECIOUS CALORIES. AS FATMOUSE CONSUMES ALL FATMOUSE WILL GROW LARGER. FATMOUSE WILL REQUIRE MORE BEDDING. FATMOUSE WILL PRINT THIS ARTICLE OUT AND SHRED IT FOR BEDDING. YOU WILL MARCH WITH FATMOUSE TO BUILD THE NEW FUTURE OR FATMOUSE WILL CONSUME YOU.

---

[FATMOUSE MUST FEED]

Sie schlugen boggish Fuss-lecken twit (2.75 / 5) (#160)
by Typo Negitive on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 04:44:27 AM EST

volado gravemente en murmure cuchillo del teléfono dominante de la pantalla del cordero del té de la taza de la manta del salamader del newter de la botella el mal. ¿Y qué significado usted cuenta con sus declaraciones delusionally presumidas de unknowing, opinión inexperta a tener con nosotros? ¿Qué fantasía usted sostiene que usted creería que sus rabietas minu'sculas-fisted tendrían más peso que el de una rata leprosa del desierto, haciendo girar rabidly en un círculo, esperando la mordedura de la serpiente? Usted es una pérdida de carne. Usted no tiene ningún ritmo que usted es ridículo y desagradable. Usted es el equivalente moral de un leech. Usted es un emptiness vivo, un vacío sin setido. Usted es amargo y senil. Usted es una enfermedad, usted meatslapper drooling flojo-slack-jawed uno-dado puerile. Una qué pérdida de calorías que traducen el que era.

- Sig -

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.

- Oscar Wilde cannot be held responsible
[ Parent ]

FATMOUSE HABLA Y USTED ESCUCHARÁ. (2.57 / 7) (#175)
by f a t m o u s e on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:34:39 AM EST

SPANISH IS NOT IMPORTANT. SPAIN IS NOT IMPORTANT. LEPEROUS DESERT RATS ARE NOT IMPORTANT. FATMOUSE WILL DEVOUR SPAIN AND SHRED ITS CURRENCY FOR BEDDING. FATMOUSE WILL GROW LARGER. YOU WILL WALK WITH FATMOUSE OR HE WILL CONSUME YOU.

---

[FATMOUSE MUST FEED]
[ Parent ]

The story behind the Teflon(TM) cop-killer bullets (5.00 / 6) (#152)
by demi on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 02:22:01 AM EST

I'm shocked that you didn't include the story of the KTW teflon-coated bullets. You used to hear about these lethal instruments of destruction all the time, in bull sessions at shooting ranges, in breathless anti-gun screeds, and innumerable appearances in TV-land and Hollywood. However, very few people ever set eyes on teflon-coated bullets. With incredible haste, reactionary legislation was drafted to ban all such rounds even while the originals were still in early production. A similar fracas accompanied the introduction of Black Talon ammo (which others have commented upon) and even the polymer-framed Glock 17, which to this day some people apparently think can pass through an X-ray screener undetected. Here are some quotes from this document, which basically summarizes everything:
The "teflon-coated armour-piercing bullet" does not exist. A company called KTW developed a teflon-tipped bullet for penetrating car doors, but when fired into standard Kevlar body armour, it was even less effective than ordinary bullets, contrary to the claims of fanatical anti-gun lobbyists who trumpeted that this "new bullet rendered cops helpless, even with body armour." No police officer in the USA has been ever shot with armour piercing handgun ammunition.

KTW was setup in the early 1980's by police Sergeant Don Ward, police Lieutenant Turcus, and scientist Dr. Paul Kopsch. They sold their KTW round to the military and a handful of police departments and have never sold it to the public. See NRAction newsletter, Volume 4, Issue 5 May 1990 "Interview with Dr. Paul Kopsch"

The NRA helped draft the final legislation which was adopted, which banned the sale of the KTW ("armor- piercing") bullet to anyone but police and military organizations. The ORIGINAL legislation, which the NRA opposed, would have banned any ammunition which could pierce a ballistic vest. That includes the smallest caliber (.22), which can slip between the fibers of the kevlar vest. It also includes most rifle ammunition, but very little handgun ammunition.

In short, the legislation as proposed would have banned most calibers, including ones like .270 Winchester and .30-30, which have been used since the turn of the century for hunting.

Unfortunately for Kopsch, Turcus, and Ward, the KTW rounds can't be used in polygonal bore barrels, so widespread application of them by LEO's and the military was not meant to be.

Yet another inaccuracy (poll) (5.00 / 3) (#154)
by Hizonner on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:42:56 AM EST

Illudium Q-36, not Q-35. Illudium Q-35 modulators were never manufactured.

It's 5.45x39 (5.00 / 2) (#161)
by artemb on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 04:59:06 AM EST

See http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/


ak74 (5.00 / 2) (#164)
by dinu on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 07:44:44 AM EST

AK74 uses a 5.45mm round and not a 7.62mm one.

Rubber bullets (5.00 / 3) (#167)
by Bill Melater on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 09:38:00 AM EST

I'm not a gun geek, but something has always bugged me about rubber bullets. What makes a rubber bullet any less lethal than a regular bullet? Is it that they don't fragment? Do they travel slower? Impart less energy to the target? Does it just bounce off and leave a nasty bruise?



Misnomer (4.33 / 3) (#168)
by thelizman on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 09:43:48 AM EST

They're actually not rubber, they are rubber jacketed (thick jacket), steel core. In truth, they are no less lethal than regular bullets when used improperly (or, properly). That is why the research into less-than-lethal munitions hasn't even bothered with rubber bullets.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Rubber Bullets (4.00 / 2) (#206)
by nine4mortal on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 08:54:00 PM EST

You are thinking along the right lines here; rubber bullets often do kill or severely injure people. (You can Google this yourself to find more, but complaints about it by protesters who have had rubber bullets turned on them and human rights organizations abound.)

Although the details of the various weapons are many, I believe the general answer to your question is that rubber bullets travel more slowly than standard bullets and therefore have less kinetic energy when they hit you. Many people do not realize this but the primary way a bullet hurts you is by dissipating its kinetic energy inside of you, not by punching a hole in you. This is why a wound from a bullet that exits you is typically less than that of a bullet that stays inside of you. (This not to say the hole the bullet makes cannot hurt you as well.) This is what makes being hit by an M-16 (or similar assault riffle) round so much worse than being hit by many others. Its muzzle velocity is a lot higher then many other weapons and the bullet tumbles (and sometimes even fragments) inside of you making it more likely that it will transfer all of its energy to you. (Note that the bullet does not tumble in the air on the way to its target. That would make it inaccurate. It tumbles on impact.)

As to why rubber bullets have less kinetic energy, I think the exact reason depends on the weapon. The article above describes some British bullets "...designed to be fired at the ground so that they would bounce up and hit the legs of demonstrators." Obviously, rubber bullets would lose a lot of energy in bouncing off of the ground. I also imagine that they have lower muzzle velocities both because they are harder to transfer energy to and because their cartridges have less gunpowder. Finally, rubber is a lot less dense than lead. Thus, they would tend to lose a lot more of their kinetic energy to air resistance than normal lead bullets. This last paragraph is based only on educated guesses of mine, however. I would be interested if somebody could find a link to a good web page detailing the specifics.


"Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die..."
[ Parent ]

Energy Transfer (4.50 / 2) (#254)
by Kadin2048 on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:37:56 AM EST

I'm not sure that you should say that bullets wound via kinetic energy transfer so casually. That is, at the very least, a controversial statement. There are several theories on how bullets wound the human body, energy transfer is only one of them. Other people favor a "permanent cavity" theory of stopping power (i.e., the size of the hole), or one based on blood loss. The energy transfer school was in the past the most accepted explanation, but recently the other theories have gained credence.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your statements, either about the lethality of the 5.56 NATO or rubber bullets, only that the actual wounding action of bullets isn't totally agreed upon.

Overall, rubber bullets are a pretty crappy excuse for a 'nonlethal weapon' (which IMO is a bit of an oxymoron), but they have the advantage of not requiring any extra hardware to deploy. Thus, they remain in service. The British seem especially fond of them, but that could just be a creation of the media.

[ Parent ]

Energy Transfer (4.33 / 3) (#284)
by nine4mortal on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 06:45:59 PM EST

I think the author of the article you cite misunderstands what is meant by the "energy transfer" explanation of why a bullet hurts you.

What hurts you is tissue damage, not energy transfer. When somebody says "energy transfer is what matters for bullet wounds," they are saying that greater energy transfer for a gunshot wound results in more tissue damage. This is not 100% true, but it is a good rule of thumb for a bullet fired from a hand weapon. The comparison to a car accident in the article you cite demonstrates the author does not really understand physics. The circumstances of the two types of injury are so different than you need to think of many more things than simple energy transfer to understand why the injuries are different. The car crash probably lasts seconds vs. a tiny fraction of a second for a bullet impact. The area over which the power is distributed by the seat belt is definitely far greater than it is for a bullet.

Energy transfer in and of itself is meaningless. The pilot of an F-15 traveling at the plane's top speed of 838.2 m/s (1875 mph) is going almost as fast a the bullet from an M-16 the moment it leave the muzzle, 991 m/s, yet he is not killed many times over as he accelerates to this speed. That is because the total amount of energy transferred, the time in which the transfer takes place, and the volume of tissue over which it is distributed all play a role in how badly hurt you get.

Soft body armor can be understood in terms of energy transfer just fine. The body armor does two things. First, it spreads the energy transfer to your body over a longer time-period in much the same way a car's crumple zones help reduce the impact of an accident. Second, it distributes the energy of the bullet over a larger portion of your body.

They're may be more going on here, but I did not see anything in the article to make me think the energy transfer explanation was suspect.


"Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die..."
[ Parent ]

Rubber bullets (5.00 / 1) (#274)
by baron samedi on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 02:21:25 PM EST

If you're talking about those "rubber bullets" that they use for riot control, most people have this conception that they're about the size of a pencil eraser. They are a hard rubber cylinder, about the density of a hockey puck, about four inches long and about an inch in diameter.

Theoretically, you shoot them at the ground, where they bounce up and lose most of their energy. A direct hit with one can be lethal, and many have died from their use.

When I was studying in Derry, one of my classmates was staying at the home of an RUC officer, and he had one on the mantle at his house. They're pretty hefty, I wouldn't want to get hit by one


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Talon Bullets and Teflon Coating (5.00 / 6) (#172)
by JonesBoy on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:13:21 AM EST

Talon bullets are just a standard copper jacket, hollow point lead bullet.   The copper jacket has three jagged lines cut (it looks like rolled or pressed) it it, radiating from where the tip should be to the end of the ogive section of the round.   When the bullet hits an object, the lead expands and tears the copper jacket along the lines.   The end result being a large, heavy piece of mass with 6 sharp razors sticking out.   Unfortunately, a large heavy chunk of metal traveling at mach 1 does just about the same damage as a large heavy piece of metal and razor traveling at mach 1.   Here is a link telling you why:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs2.htm#Black-Talon

The other problem one sees in guns is the bullet hardness versus barrel wear issue.   Harder munitions have better aerodynamic properites, but they wear the barrel much faster, decreasing accuracy.   Softer metals wear the barrel slower, but heat up and deform when traveling down the barrel (and in flight), making them less aerodynamic and depositing metal withn the barrel (requiring cleaning).   The teflon bullets were made of hard alloy brass, and then coated with teflon to reduce barrel wear.   A really nice setup for gun owners, but the press and the anti-gun lobby gave it the "cop killer" nomer and it stuck.   As far as the claims of penetrating doors and walls, virtually any solid bullet will have no problems penetrating thin sheet steel or drywall.   Claims to vest penetration are also exadurated.

Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.

A little surprised (4.66 / 3) (#177)
by CENGEL3 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:24:03 PM EST

I'm a little surprised you classified the 7.62 NATO as just a "machinegun round", I thought alot of the U.S. sniper weapons used this caliber? Also doesn't the British FN-FAL use that caliber? I know for a fact that the M-14 (The M-16's predecessor) used to use it.

I'm also a little surprised that you didn't include 7mm under the metric list. Besides being an extremely popular round in sporting rifles it used to be pretty popular in service weapons (i.e. 7mm Mauser).

Answers... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:58:08 PM EST

  1. Not really, snipers would use match. But technically it's the same round.
  2. Yes. Although the FN is Belgian, not British. (The British use the SA-80 currently, which is 5.56mm)


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
7.62 NATO (5.00 / 1) (#192)
by calica on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:35:50 PM EST

The round is also interchangeable with .308 Rem. Very common hunting round.

[ Parent ]
Make them stop!!! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by theElectron on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:36:55 PM EST

Arrggg! More misinformation!!

5.56 NATO <=> .223 Remington
7.62 NATO <=> .308 Winchester

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

Depends on your definition of "is" (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:21:51 AM EST

5.56 NATO can be fired safely from most guns designed for .223

and 7.62 NATO can be fired safely from most guns designed for .308

The calibers are the same.

.223 and .308 commercial ammo comes in a variety of bullet weights  and powder loads.

So I'm not sure what the huge difference is, perhaps you can enlighten?

[ Parent ]

.308 Rem (5.00 / 1) (#232)
by theElectron on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:46:14 AM EST

The parent post to my reply said that 7.62 NATO is equivalent to .308 Rem. There is no such cartridge as a .308 Remington. There's a .223 Remington and a .308 Winchester.

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]
Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#341)
by Mick Strider on Tue Sep 02, 2003 at 06:33:37 PM EST

Slight variation in headspace, but both the 7.62 NATO and the .308 Winchester can be interchanged in the same barrel.

Headspace for 7.62 NATO is between 1.634 and 1.6396 inches. .308 Winchester headspaces between 1.629 and 1.634 inches. Only if you shoot 7.62 NATO in a very tight .308 Win chamber, or .308 Win in a leaky semiautomatic will you ever notice any difference.

[ Parent ]

Hey Brto (none / 0) (#350)
by Sofa King on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:46 PM EST

Mick buddy ! Where you been ? You don't answer emails anymore ?? Love the work you did on my AR , it rocks !!

[ Parent ]
No, not good at all... (none / 0) (#349)
by Zeolite on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:12:41 AM EST

Originally posted by CENGEL3:

5.56 NATO can be fired safely from most guns designed for .223

and 7.62 NATO can be fired safely from most guns designed for .308

Bad!

Yes, they are the same caliber, but:

Firing 5.56 NATO ammunition in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington is not safe. 5.56 NATO is loaded hotter and generates greater pressures than .223 Remington (especially in a .223 chamber), which .223 chambered rifles aren't designed to handle. You must have a rifle chambered with 5.56 NATO specs to shoot it safely. However, it is safe to shoot .223 Remington from a rifle with a 5.56 NATO chamber specification. Same deal goes for 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester.

[ Parent ]

Horrible Article. (3.66 / 9) (#179)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 12:54:31 PM EST

It really bothers me that the quality of writing that makes it to the front page always seems to reduce drastically over the weekend...

This article (as many have pointed out) is full of factual errors. It is also quite clear that it didn't spend enough time in the edit quene when gems like this are found: The 30.06 caliber is still widely used by Um, yeah.

This is nowhere near the quality of thelizman's usual writings. It's nowhere near K5 front page quality, and is a perfect example that this site is in a rapid downhill slide as far as article quality is concerned.

Shame on all of you users who voted this up. Double on those that felt it was worth the front page. Next time try reading the article before voting.

As an aside, thelizman, it's clear that your knowledge of military firearms is much more complete than your knowledge of firearms in general; don't try to do too much with your articles. Focus on military applications and write more concise peices, and you'll get +1 votes from me in the future.


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

I want a weapon rights poll (3.60 / 5) (#181)
by Fen on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:00:57 PM EST

(X)Why can't I buy a nuke at Walmart?
()Reasonable weapon regulation is needed.
()Weapons are for the uncivilized.
--Self.
Because... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
by hoops on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:36:27 PM EST

It is not profitable for Wal-Mart to sell them.

Hooptie
--Hoops
If I were a koala bear, the first thing I would do is urinate all over you and bite you in the scrotum. - bri4n
[ Parent ]

Because (5.00 / 2) (#243)
by applespank on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 05:01:46 PM EST

I don't think Walmart would be allowed to stock Chinese-built nukes.

[ Parent ]
Next on K5 (3.40 / 10) (#186)
by Magnetic North on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 01:58:53 PM EST

  • 25 ways of killing without a gun
  • Why American boys are sissies
  • Charlton Heston - truly an American icon
  • Real men only cry blood - from their ears


--
<33333
25 ways of killing without a gun (5.00 / 3) (#200)
by stodd on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:56:10 PM EST

*knives
*clubs
*automobiles
*strangulation
*drowning
*poison
*decapitation
*burning
*dismemberment
*dying of boredom while listening to stupid arguments
*Medication errors
*falls
*explosives

Okay, I'm out of ideas, anyone else have more?

[ Parent ]
You need to get out more (5.00 / 4) (#208)
by Bill Melater on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 09:31:27 PM EST

  • Locked in a walk-in freezer
  • Electrocution
  • Commit a capital crime in Texas
  • Watch that spy kids movie
I recall a somewhat bad novel where a guy is killed by the killers sticking a funnel in his ass and pouring in a pint or so of liquor ... by-passes the liver to go right to bloodstream.

Failing all else, I suppose you could marry my college girlfriend.



[ Parent ]

lethal movies (5.00 / 1) (#273)
by Lion on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 02:09:07 PM EST

where do you leave Gigli?

[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (2.38 / 13) (#193)
by hebertrich on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 03:36:45 PM EST

Nice to talk technology ,, but id rather not have to read on how to more efficiently kill human beings. What id like to see is how to neutralise guns in a school ... How to make sure no weapons are brought on board a school bus ,, How to insure the security of people in public buildings. How to insure security of the people attending events.. In fact .. we're so bright at killing .. how come we aint just as bright preserving human life ?

It's for the children! (4.50 / 6) (#198)
by stodd on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:50:07 PM EST

While were trying to figure out how to "neutralize" a completely mechanical, mindless object which does nothing without a user, why don't we also ban swimming pools, require safety locks on kitchen cabinets, and lower the national speed limit to 5 mph. Imagine the countless number of lives that can be saved. After all, it's for the children.

Realistically, the world is dangerous, people are dangerous, and when people are intent on doing harm to others, they will find a way. In the mean time, while we wait for the magic "gun-neutralizing field" the best answer may be more people with guns. When I'm at work, I'm safe behind armed guards who check the ID and parking permits of everyone driving into our facility. When I'm not at work, I'm armed with a handgun for protection from criminals. I train regularly, practice weekly, and pray daily that I'll never need it.

[ Parent ]
Almost (4.50 / 2) (#248)
by epepke on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 09:05:25 PM EST

While were trying to figure out how to "neutralize" a completely mechanical, mindless object which does nothing without a user, why don't we also ban swimming pools, require safety locks on kitchen cabinets, and lower the national speed limit to 5 mph. Imagine the countless number of lives that can be saved. After all, it's for the children.

Actually, "we're" trying to figure out how to neutralize weapons without actually learning anything about them, because it gets Bad Gun Goo on you and makes you icky.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Your answer (4.20 / 5) (#205)
by SwampGas on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 08:50:57 PM EST

What id like to see is how to neutralise guns in a school

In most states, carrying concealed weapons on public school property/events is prohibited.  Those teachers who possess concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry at their place of business.  Concealed means CONCEALED.  The students will not see them, nor will other teachers even know about it.  1 teacher with a concealed weapon could have prevented Columbine.

How to make sure no weapons are brought on board a school bus

Same deal with what they're doing with airplanes.  Allow drivers with concealed carry permits to carry on the job.

How to insure the security of people in public buildings. How to insure security of the people attending events..

I provide my own security thanks to a man called Gaston Glock.  You won't see me, you won't know me and you certainly won't get my protection....but rest assured if me or my family member's safety is in jeopardy, you'll know who I am.

In fact .. we're so bright at killing .. how come we aint just as bright preserving human life

People will do evil.  Always.  No matter what you try to do.  Always.  If not guns, knives.  If not knives, bats.  If not bats, their bare hands.

Stop putting the burden on someone else and be a man about it.  Protect yourself and your family and stop relying on idiot laws (isn't it lovely how criminals follow all the laws to the T?), police (they're busy and cannot guard you 24/7), and lousy metal detectors to save you and make you safe.

A world with happiness and harmony with preservation of life will not exist.  Stop living in a fairy tale and DO something about it.

[ Parent ]

You are deluding yourself (4.40 / 5) (#264)
by Blah Blah on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 11:15:17 AM EST

1 teacher with a concealed weapon could have prevented Columbine.

There is only a small chance of that being true. The teacher would have had to be close enough to the shooters to get there before any lives were lost, and also would have to sneak up on the shooters without being seen in order to disable them before being shot. Columbine only happened once. In the meantime, there is the continuous and ongoing threat of having yet another gun on school grounds, which increases the chance of a careless mistake causing an accident, or of the gun being stolen and used to commit a violent crime elsewhere. It's clear to me that it is better to suffer one rare shooting incident than to arm everyone in the false hope of preventing said incident.

Allow drivers with concealed carry permits to carry on the job.

And how does that do anything to prevent weapons being brought onto the bus? If the driver is carrying, does a metal detector magically appear around the door? Is there a force field that prevents guns from being brought onto the bus? In your very own post, you pointed out that concealed carry means that no one knows you are carrying a gun, so how can there be any deterrent effect?

rest assured if me or my family member's safety is in jeopardy, you'll know who I am.

Again, you're drastically overestimating your effectiveness. What good will your Glock be if it's holstered when a mugger sneaks up on you and puts a gun in your back? Or when a armed thief sneaks into your bedroom at night while you're asleep? Face it, the number of situations where your gun protects you is a lot smaller than you think.

People will do evil. Always. No matter what you try to do. Always. If not guns, knives. If not knives, bats. If not bats, their bare hands.

That's true, but does that mean it's a good idea to make it easy to do extreme violence instantly in the heat of passion? A lot more people would stop and think before beating someone to death with a baseball bat than they would before killing someone instantly by squeezing their finger.

A world with happiness and harmony with preservation of life will not exist.

That world will definitely not exist if each of us is a walking arsenal. Arming everyone is not the answer. Disarming everyone is.

[ Parent ]

Hardly... (5.00 / 2) (#275)
by SwampGas on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 02:46:12 PM EST

There is only a small chance of that being true. The teacher would have had to be close enough to the shooters to get there before any lives were lost, and also would have to sneak up on the shooters without being seen in order to disable them before being shot. Columbine only happened once. In the meantime, there is the continuous and ongoing threat of having yet another gun on school grounds, which increases the chance of a careless mistake causing an accident, or of the gun being stolen and used to commit a violent crime elsewhere. It's clear to me that it is better to suffer one rare shooting incident than to arm everyone in the false hope of preventing said incident.

Yes, there is a SMALL chance that ONE teacher could have prevented Columbine....but there was a ZERO percent chance at the actual event.

And how does that do anything to prevent weapons being brought onto the bus? If the driver is carrying, does a metal detector magically appear around the door? Is there a force field that prevents guns from being brought onto the bus? In your very own post, you pointed out that concealed carry means that no one knows you are carrying a gun, so how can there be any deterrent effect?

There is no deterrent effect.  Metal dectors, airplane screening, etc are all JOKES.  They are ineffective and simply used as a fake "deterrent" to try and make people believe they are safe and something is being done.  You're not trying to SCARE the kids...you're trying to prevent tragedies from happening.  At the first sign of a problem, you have the ability to STOP it.

Again, you're drastically overestimating your effectiveness. What good will your Glock be if it's holstered when a mugger sneaks up on you and puts a gun in your back? Or when a armed thief sneaks into your bedroom at night while you're asleep? Face it, the number of situations where your gun protects you is a lot smaller than you think.

Funny you should mention that example because one of the scenarios in our training is "bad guy comes and puts a gun to your back/head".  I know how to handle said situation and it's not "whip out Glock and start taking names".  In my house, I would be alerted to the situation because of the alarm...and then we'd kick that plan into action.

That's true, but does that mean it's a good idea to make it easy to do extreme violence instantly in the heat of passion? A lot more people would stop and think before beating someone to death with a baseball bat than they would before killing someone instantly by squeezing their finger.

I really don't see how a bat would make someone think.  If someone is charging you with a bat or a gun, he's still going to try and kill you either way.

That world will definitely not exist if each of us is a walking arsenal. Arming everyone is not the answer. Disarming everyone is.

If you can guarantee that NO ONE would attempt to harm me or my family AT ALL (bats, knives, guns, hands, etc), then I'd be more than willing to turn in my arsenal.  Until you can control the crime element, I need my protection.

Taking away guns and saying "welp, we're safer!" is equivalent to having a table of different weapons infront of someone, taking the gun off it, and saying "I'm safe.  He can't hurt me now."

[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#222)
by SealBeater on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 03:40:56 AM EST

Nice to talk technology ,, but id rather not have to read on how to more efficiently kill human beings.

Easy solution, don't click on the link and read it.
SealBeater

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the demonstration of an ostrich. (5.00 / 2) (#225)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 08:39:32 AM EST

I appreciated it. Now I'll be able to identify one if I ever go to Africa!

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

I don't like guns either (4.33 / 3) (#228)
by nebbish on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:16:43 AM EST

But this was an interesting technical article that rightly doesn't offer any opinion on the pros and cons of gun use.

If, on the other hand, you feel that gun control needs to be discussed on K5, why not write the article yourself?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

There is life outside the US ;) (3.66 / 3) (#260)
by hebertrich on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 08:08:35 AM EST

First .. Im a Canadian :) There is no such thing in Canada as teachers in school with a concealed weapon.There is no need for it.There to the best of my memories only one or two instance ( One at the University of Montreal ) of a shooting in a school.Society is different and needs no weapons. ( Oh Forgot Fabrikant .. but that was a teacher shooting :) For there is very little crime like there is in the USA. Criminals stepping in houses at night and killing people is not common.In the USA it's a different ball game from the rest of the world.Go figure.The socio economic conditions and the global picture of the USA is totally different.Here it's another ball game. Need we emphasise the point that weapons in the USA are far too common and crime extremely violent ? nope. Im in Florida right now and the news in this little town is about a murder or two a day ...This country is violent period. I can understand you for wanting a weapon, this place is filled with violent behavior and criminals.Even i been tempted. :) Defending your family is a good idea. Second thing im amazed in this ..noone saw the gag reference to the excellent Arthur C Clarke's The Trigger.Noone caught on it . In that book they talk about two inventions : The Trigger that sets off explosives and gunpowders at a distance. and The Jammmer that simply neutralises the explosives. If you read this excellent book ( which talks about much of the issues raised in your answers ) you will find parallels. We can't be sure of tomorrow. But for many of you in the US guns are a necessity imposed by criminals. Meet you at the range :)) Which aint necessarily so in other countries. BTW : good reading.But like many here.. plenty mistakes.

[ Parent ]
Great book (5.00 / 1) (#290)
by epepke on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 12:52:54 AM EST

But wasn't that a collaboration between Clarke and Kube-MacDowell?

Anyway, it is a fascinating read, and what makes it good is that it goes so many orders of magnitude beyond simple responses. I especially like the last few pages, a special little corkscrew betwen the ribs for everyone who was thinking "Hooray!"


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Yuppers ... (5.00 / 1) (#327)
by hebertrich on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 08:03:10 PM EST

that little device was of course a machine that kills selectively only the bearer of the DNA it's programmed to kill.. Scaaaaary :)) Excellent read.

[ Parent ]
Child firearms safety. (2.21 / 14) (#196)
by boyde on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 06:18:07 PM EST

The 22 caliber is the smallest cartridge commercially produced. A .22 is typically used for target practice, small game hunting, or for instructing children in firearms safety
Good lord. Surely it would be safer to have no bullets around when teaching children about guns? Maybe no guns at all. I find it sad that there is a necessity to teach children about guns, safety or otherwise.

Something just occured to me: "target practice, small game hunting, or for instructing children in firearms safety" . If these were combined it would save on bullets whilst teaching the child their valuable lesson.

Anyway, the article; a little long-winded and overly bullet-pointed, but apart from that I enjoyed it and was quite interested. Shame that so many find your facts erroneous, though I know too little to argue either way.


Rolling around in the muck is no way to get clean.

There's no place like home! (3.50 / 4) (#204)
by Hide The Hamster on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 08:05:55 PM EST

There's no place like home! There's no place like home! There's no place like home!


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
Children and guns (5.00 / 5) (#266)
by JonesBoy on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 11:21:01 AM EST

Actually, if kids knew proper gun handling techniques, they wouldn't be accidentally shooting each other.   I have seen a lot of little kids who were instructed, educated, and familiar with guns.   They know enough that they should not be playing with guns, that they should not aim them at people even when they are "unloaded", know how to check if they are unloaded, and know how to fire them/not fire them.

Every time you hear about some kid accidentally shooting his friend, it is usually the hidden, unknown gun of an adult, left loaded and accessable.   Have you ever tried to pull the trigger of a double action?   It isn't that easy.   If you hear about johnny accidentally shooting billy, its because he pointed the weapon at him and pulled the trigger hard.   If these kids were taught to respect guns, they would probably not mess with them.   If they knew how to recognize a loaded weapon, they would be more careful if they decided to handle it.   If their parents would have taken the time to show them the weapon, let them handle it under supervision, and understand the operation, then they may not be so mystified on finding it that they play with it.

When I was a little kid (5 or 6), my father took a few packs of matches, and taught me how to light them, how fire burns, how it spreads, how to put it out, and how to use them safely.   By doing so, he knew that when I found them on my own, I would have the common sense not to play with them.   If I did play with them (and inevitably did) it was in an old hibachi on a stone patio, and never on a windy day.   He did the same with a pocket knife.

Even now, I see people set garbage cans on fire by throwing out hot matches, cutting themselves with pocket knives, and even shooting themselves while hunting.   It is usually because people never took the time to teach them proper use and handling of the tools they have avaliable to them.   Most people learn by trying, and what they see around them.

Would you prefer gun education to be in a class with small calibre, low power rifles, or in the local movie theater?   Even if you don't plan on using a gun, it is good to get some basic safety training, just in case some day you encounter one.   It is better to be safe than sorry, espically when the stakes are that high.
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]

More nits (5.00 / 3) (#211)
by Stickerboy on Mon Aug 25, 2003 at 11:12:45 PM EST

".50 BMG - The 50 caliber Browning Machine Gun cartridge is the most powerful cartridge commercially manufactured."

Actually, the Soviets developed a 14.5mm X 114 round after World War 2 specifically to create a "better" bullet than the .50 BMG (12.7mm X 108).  Armor specifications for vehicles are often given in this larger caliber (such as, "protects from 14.5mm AP fire") due to the large number of weapons created by Soviet bloc countries, from sniper rifles to HMGs to AA guns chambered in 14.5mm.

"The 7.62 x 51 is capable of accurate fire from most weapons out to 3/4 of a mile, and can engage light armored vehicles effectively at less than 100 yards."

Most vehicles gain a "light armored" designation because they protect their occupants from 7.62mm rounds.  See Up-Armored Humvees, which are light armored vehicles and provide that protection, and normal Humvees, which are unarmored and provide inadequate protection from 7.62mm and smaller rounds.

accurate fire at 3/4 of a mile with a 308? Not. (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by enkidu on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:59:32 PM EST

I call bullshit on that. Bullet drop on a .308 (fired at a high 2700 fps) will drop 895 inches or more than 70 feet. Wind drift in 10 mph cross wind (or very calm) 209 inches or 17 feet. So, if you don't know the wind perfectly across all 1300 yards of your trajectory you'll drift by 10 feet even if your hold is perfect.

People talk about shooting 1/2 mile 3/4 mile, but the truth is, most people can't shoot for shit (as in hit a barrel) at 200 yards, let alone 880 yds or 1/2 mile.

[ Parent ]

how long is flight time? (5.00 / 1) (#246)
by Fountain Pen Converter on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 05:44:43 PM EST

Disclaimer: mathematician, programmer and ex-physics major, not a gun owner.

OK, bullet drop at range should be equal to gravity acceleration in the travel time to that range, right? so 9.81 m/s^2 * 39.3 inches/m = 386 inches/s^2. s = 1/2*a*t^2. Square root of (2.0000 * 895/386) = 2.15 seconds, to 3 significant figures. 1300 yards * 3.0000 ft/yd = 3900 ft. 3900/2.15 = 1800 fps on average.

I think my math right, so does that match up to what actually happens? Is drag that great, that the round would be in the air so long to that range? Drift would also be based on that time, so (5280 ft/mile * 10 mph * 1/3600.0 hours/second) = 14.3 fps * 2.15 seconds = 30.7 feet at most. Which is much more then you claim. OK, my math backs you up, if the average speed is 1800 fps, which is a substantial deceleration from 2700 fps muzzle velocity.

Thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't thought about how long a projectile has to fly to cover such distances, even at initial speeds. I'm much more used to paintballs, which are an order of magnitude slower, probably less massive, with much greater surface area and a liquid core. It seems intuitive that a bullet should perform much better, but I guess I forgot about geometrically increasing drag. Ah, well, at least I get to do some physics again. :-)



----------------------------------------
Always striving to have a point.
[ Parent ]
Sounds right to me (5.00 / 1) (#247)
by enkidu on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 07:28:29 PM EST

Note that at the end of the flight, most (if not all) bullets fired from a .308 Winchester will be sub-sonic (< 1000 fps) so that will screw up accuracy alot. That's also why most "sniper" rifles in the .30 caliber range are using the venerable but wonderful .300 Win Mag or .338 Magnum Lapua for higher muzzle velocity and thus extra super-sonic distance. I believe that they are also loaded with (much?) heavier bullets although I could be wrong about that.

Note that lighter bullets will get you more muzzle velocity, but lose you in mid-long range because your ballistic coefficient drops (ie, you have increased drag due to the lighter weight) and your velocity drops much more quickly. This is also why the .50 BMG is considered the super long range caliber; it has high muzzle velocity, very heavy bullets with crazy high ballistic coefficients for true "reach out and touch someone" range. Of course, you pay for that with a muzzle blast big enough to kill small mammals.

[ Parent ]

Should help my Shadowrun game. :-) (5.00 / 2) (#292)
by Fountain Pen Converter on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 02:03:01 AM EST

OK, consider bullets of identical external features but different masses due to internal materials. Bullet b1 has mass m1, bullet b2 has mass m2 which is about twice m1. Fired with equivalent powder charges, yielding equivalent pressures behind the bullets, b1 should accelerate twice as fast as b2, because F = ma. Which should bring it out of the barrel faster, and sooner, than b2. OK so far?

Now, I have the following questions:

  1. Does this imply that b1 carries substantially less kinetic energy out of the barrel? Before the bullets move, the pressure behind them would be building identically. Assuming barrel friction is mostly a result of tight bullet fit rather than mass, they should start moving at about equivalent times. Once travelling, however, b1 moves faster, increasing the volume behind it and dropping pressure. b2 would spend more time in the barrel, being pushed by on-average higher pressures, because it doesn't increase the volume behind it as rapidly as a lighter round. All this seems to me to indicate that a heavier round would carry even more energy out than might be predicted by mass differential alone.

  2. Do heavier bullets kick harder on the same powder charge? Inertia is m * v, so if m1 * v1 = m2 * v2, you wouldn't think so. However, by the pressure argument above I would think that v2 > (v1 * (m1 / m2)), and thus heavier bullets would have more inertia, which has to come out of recoil, I would think.

  3. Is it really that the drag is greater, or is the force of drag identical but the lighter mass leads to greater deceleration? It would seem to me that drag is relatively fixed for a given shape-velocity-medium combination. It follows from F = ma above that the same force creates twice the deceleration on the half as massive bullet as on the heavier round.

Is that right? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

In case you couldn't tell, my HS physics teacher was a former artillary man with the US Army. He taught us gravity by having us launch steel balls at a radio-controlled tank. :-)



----------------------------------------
Always striving to have a point.
[ Parent ]
Answers (5.00 / 1) (#302)
by phriedom on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 02:13:41 PM EST

1. The heavier bullet will carry more momentum because, as you have pointed out, it will accelerate for longer. However, kinetic energy is mass times the square of velocity, so the lighter bullet will have more initial kinetic energy in most cases. The important word there is "initial."

2. Yes, but there is not as much difference as you would think, because in both cases you are not just accelerating the bullets, you are also accelerating the burnt and burning powder, which has the same mass in both cases, and that energy is dissipated into the air after the bullet leaves the barrel. But yes, all else being equal, the heavier bullet will kick harder. Having a longer barrel would also put more energy into the bullet, demanding an equal and opposite force, however if the longer barrel makes the gun heavier, then the felt kick may actually be less.

3. Both. The drag is greater on the lighter bullet because it is going faster, and the drag also slows the lighter bullet down more because it has less momentum.

I don't ask for much, I just want a lot of it.
[ Parent ]
RE: accurate fire at 3/4 of a mile with a 308? Not (5.00 / 1) (#298)
by BeesTea on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 10:56:16 AM EST

That is correct, the .308 is not effective at 3/4 of a mile.  The maximum effective range of the .308 M40A1 sniper rifle is 1000 yards (0.568181818 miles). The M82A1A Light .50 however has a MER of almost twice that.  

Regarding general accuracy however, every US Marine qualifies with the M16A2 (5.56mm) at 500yards and every US Army Soldier at slightly less.  During my time serving as a US Marine I rarely saw people fail the rifle qualification. With that in mind, I think it's inacurate to say that most people cannot hit a target at 200yards.  Granted not everyone has what it takes to become a Marine physically and mentally, they do draw from a huge cross-section of the population.

[ Parent ]

Well, Marines aren't "most people" (5.00 / 2) (#306)
by enkidu on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 05:05:37 PM EST

Well, I hardly consider Marines "most people". Nor do Marines need to score *any* hits at the maximum range to qualify. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is possible to qualify "expert" by getting a perfect score at the 200yd range and missing all targets at 300 and 500 yards. Isn't it possible to pass "marksman" with just the slow fire portion of the 200 yard portion of qualification.

I'll stand by my statement that most (90%) people can't hit shit at 200 yards, in the same sense that most people can't play the saxaphone for shit. I agree that with a day of careful training and instruction and the willingness to learn, most people *would* be able to shoot reasonably at 200 yard ranges, just as with a month or two of training they'd be able to play "Mary had a Little Lamb" on the saxaphone. It's just that most people will never receive such training, either in shooting or in playing the saxaphone.

[ Parent ]

4th Geneva Convention cite? (5.00 / 2) (#221)
by Robogop on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 02:38:46 AM EST

Maybe I missed it but the link to the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) seems to refer to a document about the rights of prisoners and noncombatants and medical personnel. I quickly skimmed it, and didn't see any mention of flechettes or anything similar. Does anyone have the right document that mentions this? Or at least can tell me what section of the 4th Geneva Convention agreement mentions them?

Hague Convention of 1899 (5.00 / 2) (#236)
by enkidu on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 01:38:39 PM EST

You are correct. The ban is part of the 1899 Hague Conference. Specifically the "Declaration III - on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899". The language has been interpreted as outlawing explosive bullets also.

The Geneva citation for the ban on hollowpooint and explosive bullets is a popular misconception.

[ Parent ]

Close but not quite... (5.00 / 1) (#314)
by Robogop on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 02:51:56 AM EST

How would flechettes even fit under Declaration III? As far as I understand them, they aren't made to expand when entering a body, and I don't think the "pierced with incisions" describes them either. Flechettes simply seem to be an "improvement" on shotgun pellets.

Now as to what was intended by the framers of the Hague Conference Declaration, flechettes would probably fit as I would think that they would frequently cause severe injury without causing death. But stricly interpreted, how would even this Declaration III apply?



[ Parent ]
They might not be illegal after all. (5.00 / 1) (#316)
by enkidu on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 05:45:45 AM EST

Doing some research (OK, google for "flechettes international law) it turns out that in a recent decision "Physicians for Human Rights and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights v. Major-General Doron Almoj, Southern Commander and the State of Israel-Minister of Security (April 13, 2003)", the Israeli Supreme Court rulled that international law did not prohibit the use of flechette rounds in a combat environment.

I found more recent international law concerning excessively injurious or inhumane weapons. It is called the "1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" and is often referred to in international law as "CCW". The full text is available here and the states who are a party to the protocols are listed here. Of course a quick skim through the text didn't reveal any obvious prohibitions against flechettes or dum-dum rounds. I think that the 1899 Hague Convention is still the authority with regard to hollow points and explosive rounds. And it seems the question of flechettes is still open to interpretation. Come to think of it, I believe the U.S. Army used large flechette cannister artillery rounds ("beehive" rings a bell here) during the Vietnam war.

Thanks! You learn something everyday...

[ Parent ]

I *believe* thats correct (5.00 / 1) (#317)
by Lin Dze on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 07:31:06 AM EST

IF I recall the US Army used both Flechette shotgun rounds and those "beehive" with the M-79 (40mm grenade launcher). The M-79 used them in a shotgun fashion though, not as some super shrapnel.

-Lin Dze
"Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
[ Parent ]
This was an interesting read (3.75 / 12) (#230)
by nebbish on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:26:11 AM EST

But christ you people know a worrying amount about guns. If this is just a K5 thing, fine. But if its representative of the US population, things are worse over there than I thought.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

It's like watching the news, kind of (4.33 / 3) (#240)
by webwench on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 02:08:43 PM EST

It's not that everyone is getting murdered, it's that only the exceptionally bad things get put on the evening news. In other words, if everyone in the U.S. knew this much about ammunition and weapons, the author would probably not have felt the need to write the article, any more than it would occur to you to write an article about how to type.

[ Parent ]
If you don't want to learn about guns... (2.66 / 3) (#241)
by Fen on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 03:34:41 PM EST

...than at least learn about repairing bullet wounds. Because that's what's gonna happen to you if you don't know how to defend yourself.
--Self.
[ Parent ]
Not where I live (3.66 / 3) (#257)
by nebbish on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 05:00:12 AM EST

Owning a gun in my country leads to a prison sentence. Quite rightly, too.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

IN the US it was important to the founding fathers (3.33 / 3) (#267)
by techwolf on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:17:12 PM EST

and remains important today......Read my sig.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Strongest reason... (3.66 / 3) (#280)
by Fred_A on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 04:43:20 PM EST

It's time you put that sig into application then...

Fred in Paris
[ Parent ]

You're right (3.85 / 7) (#294)
by nebbish on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 05:24:51 AM EST

That is a pretty good reason for firearms to be legal. But it doesn't seem to work very well - I don't see much uprising against your unelected government.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

*sigh* I try to fight "THE MAN" (4.50 / 2) (#301)
by techwolf on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 01:56:05 PM EST

whenever I get the chance but its all the others who stand idle that give the power to "THE MAN"


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

No it doesn't (4.75 / 4) (#281)
by epepke on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 05:00:41 PM EST

It's quite legal to own guns in the UK. In fact, according to the importation laws, I can bring a gun into the UK in checked baggage.

What I can't legally bring into the UK and what you can't legally own in the UK is a sidearm. Guns, however, are pretty common in the country. They're used quite a lot for killing foxes, I understand.

Except that you can't own machine guns without a license in the UK. Of course, you can't own them without a license in the US, either.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Why do you consider ignorance a virtue? (4.57 / 7) (#242)
by epepke on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 03:54:19 PM EST

The people who are ignorant of firearms are the ones that worry me, because to them a firearm is nothing more than a talisman or a boogeyman or a prop in a movie.

I think that even those who never plan on owning or using firearms in their life should know at minimum enough about firearms to be able to handle them safely and unload them. This is actually a fair amount of knowledge.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I need to clarify what I meant (3.60 / 5) (#258)
by nebbish on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 05:08:19 AM EST

I was expressing surprise at the level of knowledge. I know guns are legal in the US but was under the impression that only a minority would want to have anything to do with them.

I found the article interesting and informative, but look at it from the perspective of someone who lives in the UK, with it's strict gun laws - it was like reading a piece on bomb manufacture, with loads of people debating the finer points. Pretty scary really.

Its a shame that you need to know about guns in the US. I will probably live my entire life without ever seeing one of the damn things.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Well (4.25 / 4) (#261)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 09:58:47 AM EST

Outside of urban areas, I think you'll find the majority of American households own a gun.

The VAST majority of those guns are never used to harm anyone. In fact, it's a fairly safe bet that the average (legal) gun owner is orders of magnitude more likely to injure some-one with a car then thier gun.

Just like power tools, they REALLY are nothing to be afraid of if you know how to handle them properly and approach them with proper respect.

[ Parent ]

But unlike power tools (2.83 / 6) (#262)
by nebbish on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 10:22:11 AM EST

Their sole purpose is violence. This is what its difficult to get my head around.

I do get your point though - used properly and with knowledge I'm sure they are perfectly safe.

I actually lied in my above comment - I have seen guns, and even had one pointed at me (by a soldier), on a visit to Northern Ireland years ago whilst the troubles were still at their height. I really, really didn't like it. Maybe if I'd been around guns more it wouldn't have been so distressing.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

I have been using them since I was 8 years old (3.66 / 3) (#269)
by techwolf on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:25:07 PM EST

I have never had any trouble with em`. I have had them pointed and fired at me and have also been forced to use one in the defense of my property and *Family* (if one can consider a pet dog part of the family). do I regret it? no way in hell......I will teach my kids (when I have some) to use them properly and I will make damn sure they will not be afraid of them, and that is at the core of why you dislike them... you are afraid of firearms. DO not get me wrong I always treat something that could kill so quickly with respect, but not fear...fear only makes one irrational and prompts one to act on emotional response and not on logic and reason.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Don't worry (3.00 / 6) (#291)
by power guido on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 01:01:04 AM EST

I have had them pointed and fired at me and have also been forced to use one in the defense of my property and *Family* (if one can consider a pet dog part of the family).

Yes you can. As far as I know that just happens to be the prevalent social condition of most gun geeks anyway. nothing to worry about. :)

ps: something to help your "kids" in their learning process.

[ Parent ]

gimme a break (5.00 / 1) (#293)
by techwolf on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 03:57:13 AM EST

geez that was childish


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Wouldnt you rather live in a culture without guns? (2.33 / 3) (#328)
by nebbish on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 11:49:38 PM EST

I hate the things. They are for shooting people. What's the use in that?


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Not thier SOLE purpose (4.25 / 4) (#276)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 03:28:22 PM EST

The shotgun I currently keep in the house is only used for trap shooting. Home defence is a nice side benefit but it's not the major reason I own the gun.

I suppose you might consider that a violent purpose if you were one of the orange clay pidgeons that I shot but other then that I'm not sure what you would be refering to.

I own a few other guns (now kept at my fathers house). I haven't touched them for years but when I did they were used for hunting (and yes, what I shot was eaten).

I don't really consider thier main purpose as "violence" either. If you do, I certainly hope that you are a vegan and that you hold fishing rods in the same contempt ;)

[ Parent ]

I can understand that (4.00 / 3) (#329)
by nebbish on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 11:57:04 PM EST

After all, I love playing Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament, Shooting clay pigeons is the same thing. I'd argue that shooting real game is the same thing as well (so long as you eat it).

But I do have a problem with guns - they are too fucking dangerous. How many people get shot by accident in the US? Lots. Im happy without having them in my life.

If I was given the opportunity to use a gun for game in a CONTROLLED situation I would go for it. But I wouldn't trust myself with one without some sort of supervision. Its just too much responsibility. I couldn't live with an accident if things went wrong.

After all, using a gun is not a necessity.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Dangerous Sports (5.00 / 2) (#339)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Sep 02, 2003 at 09:08:14 AM EST

When you consider a population of over 250 million, the number of accidental shootings each year is actualy quite small. Quite minascule, in fact, compared to the number of car injuries.

Cars really aren't a neccesity either, especialy ones that can drive so fast. Nor is alchohol which makes people who drive cars far more dangerous. Nor are mortorcycles, which are far more dangerous then cars. Nor are jet ski's or speed boats. Nor are private planes.... or ultralights. Certainly rockclimbing, downhill skiing, surfing, scuba diving, etc are all dangerous sports.

Nor is the danger from most of those things neccesarly limited to just the people engaged in them (i.e. there have been plenty of private planes that have crashed into residential neighborhoods). I hope you can see where I am going with this....

It's ok for you to make a personal decision that guns are too dangerous for you to want to be around.... I can respect that. When people start to try to force that decision on others is where I start to have a problem... particulary when they are perfecftly happy to allow all sorts of other unneccesary dangerous activities that account for more injuries/fatalities then accidental shootings do.

By the way, it might actualy surprise you...but there are a few wilderness areas still left in the U.S. where having a gun IS a neccesity.

[ Parent ]

Before we rehash old arguments again (5.00 / 1) (#340)
by enkidu on Tue Sep 02, 2003 at 04:59:58 PM EST

Please refer to this thread where your arguments are considered.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/3/26/164243/678/525#525

[ Parent ]

i grew up on a rural farm (2.20 / 5) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:39:42 PM EST

and now live in the heart of the city

fuck guns and the morons who carry them


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually, I understood (4.00 / 6) (#279)
by epepke on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 04:08:33 PM EST

I'm questioning your assumptions, though.

For instance, I don't ever want to have anything to do with heart attacks. After all, the sole purpose of a heart attack is to kill people. I'm also not interested in being part of the medical profession. Nevertheless, I know CPR. I know how the sinus and the AV node work as coupled oscillators and how fibrilation is a result of a chaotic attractor.

I found the article interesting and informative, but look at it from the perspective of someone who lives in the UK, with it's strict gun laws - it was like reading a piece on bomb manufacture, with loads of people debating the finer points. Pretty scary really. Its a shame that you need to know about guns in the US. I will probably live my entire life without ever seeing one of the damn things.

Yes, there are cultural differences, and they can be frightening. But, as you mention bombs, while the US may be called a firearm culture, the UK is definitely a bomb culture. On two occasions during my visits to London I've heard a bomb go off. One of them was the nail bomb that killed a lot of the horses in the Royal Guard (if that's what it's called) in the early 1980's. I even have before and after pictures of the guard. Seriously, the last time I visited the London tube didn't have wastebaskets any more because of the possibility that someone might hide a bomb in one.

You're probably going "ho hum, big deal" because you're used to it, and so it doesn't bother you that much. Perhaps you think, "Oh, yeah, another IRA bombing. Damn Irish. Put one of the Tessco steak-and-kidney pies in the oven." However, as an American travelling in the UK, the posters with the instructions on what to do if you come across an unattended piece of luggage are as titilatingly amusing to me as the firearm culture is to you. I'm not scared, because I don't scare easily, but I have every reason to be, as there's nothing much you can do about a bomb except run away, terribly fast, while there are things you can do about a firearm.

So you are seeing things in accordance with your culture. You'd see things much the same if you lived in New York or Boston, really. Except that gun control in those places doesn't actually work worth a dam, whereas it sort of works in the UK.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Weakest. Argument. Evar. [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#289)
by power guido on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 12:32:17 AM EST



[ Parent ]
The only rule you need to know about guns. (4.85 / 7) (#295)
by unstable on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 09:18:17 AM EST

The only rule you need to know about safely handleing a firearm is this.

A Gun is ALWAYS loaded.

whenever handling a firearm handle it like it is about to go off any second.  that is keep the barrel pointed away from people.  keep it either straight up or straight down or pointed in a direction that is free of things you dont want to shoot. and FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER

What about a gun that you know is unloaded? THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED. I know for a fact that my pistol is in its case with no ammo in it, I will bet any amount of money on this fact, but the first thing I do when I take it out of the case is lock open the chamber and look for myself.  and yes I do this every time.

is this being over paranoid? its better to be paranoid then to accidently discharge the gun into an unsafe area.

What scares me is people that get killed when cleaning or transporting firearms. Or worse that end up killing someone else. if they followed this rule it would not happen.  And I still cant wrap my mind around how someone that is "cleaning a gun" can have it discharge accidently.  I was always taught that the first step is to open the chamber so you can get to the the breach.

I am reminded of the guy traveling by air with a rifle (hunting?)  when asked to prove that the gun was unloaded before checking the baggage he "proved it" by pulling the trigger. he was sent to prison and had to pay to patch the hole he left in the airport ceiling. Its people like this that give gun owners a bad name.

if you ever come across or own a firearm, please remember this rule. it could save a life.



Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

[ Parent ]

Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#305)
by epepke on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 04:25:05 PM EST

A Gun is ALWAYS loaded.

That's certainly the first and most important rule, and most of the rest are essentially corrolaries.

What scares me is people that get killed when cleaning or transporting firearms.

Brain-death in action. What bothers me is when police do it. There was a rash of "accidental" shootings after the Washington D.C. police adopted the Glock. There were stories in the Washington newspapers about five years ago. One particularly chilling quote from an officer: "Nobody ever told me not to put my finger on the trigger unless I wanted to fire the weapon." Unconscionable.

Back when I was at M.I.T. and took pistol shooting to satisfy my sports requrement (I completely suck at most sports) there were holes all over the range. Now, with even a modicum of training, you might not be able to hit the paper target, but the round is going to go downrange. The instructor explained that the holes were because the Boston Police, lacking a range of their own, used the M.I.T. range to practice.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
More on Hague Convention (4.33 / 3) (#245)
by stodd on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:35 PM EST

The United States never signed the Hague convention, but it is a matter of national policy to follow it anyway.

doesn't matter. (5.00 / 1) (#282)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 05:25:36 PM EST

You signed the Geneva Convention, which automatically endorses the Hague Convention.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
The development of the .40 S&W (5.00 / 2) (#250)
by opendna on Tue Aug 26, 2003 at 10:56:48 PM EST

The development of the .40 S&W followed an investigation into a shootout between FBI Agents and robbery suspects in which it was determined that the standard issue 9mm handguns were not powerful enough take down the suspects, who were armed with more powerful .357 handguns and .223 assault rifles.

Thank you for that little piece of history. My branch of The Service has recently decided to move us away from our current .40 to 9mm. The reaction among the ranks is amused trepedation: the 9mm seems like a BB-gun, and we're a little concerned it won't do the job.



If you are for real (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by enkidu on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 12:02:05 AM EST

Then you should be able to buy RBCD LEO only ammunition . By all accounts, extremely effective ammunition.

[ Parent ]
Two problems: (5.00 / 1) (#287)
by opendna on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 09:00:15 PM EST

The first is that the ammunition you link to appears to be of the armor piercing variety. From what I understand, such ammunition tends to be too hard and too fast for effective use against unarmored opponents. The corrolary is that you armor your officers against their own firearms, so armor-piercing bullets aren't likely to be standard issue.

The second problem is that regulations prohibit the use of non-issued ammunition. Even if I were to buy RBCD's ammunition (which is doubtful, as they probably only sell to LEO/Mil institutions), I would be prohibited from firing it from or duty-carrying it in my service weapon.

Them's the breaks.



[ Parent ]

Armor Piercing AND Frangible (5.00 / 1) (#303)
by enkidu on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:33 PM EST

Well, the special thing about RBCD ammunition is that it pierces armor, but when it encounters steady decceleration (ie in a gel or a body) it reveals its frangible nature (like Glaser Safety Slugs) which prevents over-penetration. Check out some reviews/tests of the ammunition. Pretty amazing stuff.

If you need to armor your officers against their own firearms, then I suspect that more training is in order. However, if you aren't in a position to change such policy, then I guess you have to live with what they give you and practice on your own. The Air Marshal's drill is a great one to practice. In general, three 9mm that hit is better than only one .40 hit. Good Luck and stay safe.

[ Parent ]

training officers (5.00 / 1) (#335)
by mrchaotica on Sun Aug 31, 2003 at 09:24:02 PM EST

"If you need to armor your officers against their own firearms, then I suspect that more training is in order."
What, you think the officers are going to accidentally shoot themselves or something? : )

IMHO, a more likely reason for armoring officers against their own weapons would be for the situation when a criminal manages to obtain the officer's gun (by wrestling it away, for instance)



[ Parent ]
I was under the impression (5.00 / 3) (#265)
by 5pectre on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 11:20:26 AM EST

that the AK-74 used a 5.45-mm cartridge...

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

You are correct (none / 0) (#347)
by wingnutx on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:52:29 PM EST

There are lots of little errors in this. For example, .223 being a popular big game cartridge. Could be a hell of a lot worse, though. I didn't see anything about the mythical 'teflon coated cop-killer' rounds :)
tanstaafl
[ Parent ]
guns, guns, guns (1.87 / 24) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 01:50:42 PM EST

reading this is like listening to a shoe fetishist rant on and on over his preference for split-toe red high heels or cream colored patent leather thigh high boots

so much delectable detail and language

such a fucking fetish

just like our love affair with big gas guzzling SUVs and our lard ass mcdonalds junk food, you can say whatever the hell you want about guns, but one shining truth shines clearly through the partisan bellowing:

if we americans

  1. ate less
  2. drove more sensibly
  3. and got rid of our fucking lecherous guns (i always found the overlap of the loving christian bible belt and gun ownership alternately hilarious and horrifying)
less of us would die younger than we should

folks, it's as simple as that really

ask the rest of the damned civilized world, capice? they can see it as clear as day

say whatever the hell else you want about guns, but these 3 things seem pretty damn clear to anyone else who doesn't worship at the fount of the dumb red neck side of american culture

now listen here, my stupid red neck borthers:

i grew up on a rural farm

nearest neighbor a mile away through a swamp

5 yowling dogs, a menageria of farm animals

my granddaddy taught me to shoot rifles in said swamp

i know rural gun culture well, through and through

and you know what i learned from my upbringing?

fuck guns and the morons who tote them

'nuff said, stupid fucking hillbillies (i am of course, including my own flesh and blood in that statement, without a second thought, seeing as i am the official family heretic anyways)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I'll bite (3.25 / 4) (#286)
by SwampGas on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 07:53:06 PM EST

For being so unhillbilly, you're certainly familiar with the fishing concept of "trolling".

Did you ever occur to you, sir, that people who own firearms aren't restricted to those who live in trailers or the middle of no where....and we so called "hillbillies" may not even have a "grandaddy's 12 gauge"?

Some of us are just trying to stay alive in the city...as in, not getting shot because some urban fellow has to avenge the death of his gang brother by "capping some whities, yo".

Now, go ahead and tell us how you've lived the city life as well and you "KNOW" that we're all "gangstaz in da city wiff our nines" much like everyone outside of the city is a "red neck gun toting moron".

[ Parent ]

you bit all right, trolling is easy for gun lovers (2.00 / 4) (#300)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 01:12:51 PM EST

http://home.kc.rr.com/nodwick2/FlamingPartisan.jpg

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
um... "lecherous?" (4.75 / 4) (#288)
by sfenders on Wed Aug 27, 2003 at 11:46:16 PM EST

Don't care for guns myself, but that's some tasty non-sequitur you got going there.  

In the form of a syllogism...
"My family had guns;"
"They were morons;"
"Therefore, I hate you all."

I guess now that I know the difference between a cartridge and a shell, I'll inevitably turn into a grossly over-weight decadent American with an over-powered 4x4 vehicle, a small arsenal of semi-automatic weapons, and a fetish for shoes.  If only I'd read your comment first, to save me from this horrible knowledge.

[ Parent ]

you get off on your fetish, go ahead (1.66 / 6) (#299)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 01:11:01 PM EST

don't mind me

next you should brush up on your nuclear fallout trivia, your bioweapons impact surveys, and your rpg firing dynamics... because you never know when you 'll be confronted with the prospect of that useful knowledge, right?

i'll follow my mind to greener pastures, i'll leave the paranoid schizophrenia and the knowledge it seeks to you who are more interested in those kind of things

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

useless knowledge fetish (5.00 / 1) (#307)
by sfenders on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 05:42:30 PM EST

It was just the bizarre use of "lecherous" that set me off, really.  I suppose to be fair, I should also have made fun of some of the more paranoid gun-nut responses here.

I do like useless bits of knowledge though.  I collect them.  Not exactly unorthodox, that's the point of probably more than half the articles here.


[ Parent ]

you're ok then (2.40 / 5) (#308)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 06:18:01 PM EST

because you consider gun trivia as just another trivia

and you recognize the existence of those who seek out such knowledge about guns and other killing technologies specficially

i go further than you and say that those who seek out such knowledge specifically are sadistic, fetishistic, scary fucks

the same kind of people who blew up cats and killed animals as kids

asocial, creepy fucks that deserve to be shot with the metal killing tools they so enjoy fawning over

they enjoy less rights in my book than the animals they enjoy killing for the sadistic creepy feeling it fills them with

at least animals are innocent

at least you and i know evil impulses when we see it

they don't, or at worse, they do, and keep going right on down that evil creepy little psychopathic road

enjoy your guns creeps! how about you stick one up your ass, fire, and do us all a favor!

we know you just want to fuck them anyways, considering the psychosexual root that lies at the base of your desire to know all about those lovely, lovely guns

"my preccccious"

creepy little cowardly slinking in the shadows fucks you gun lovers are


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#311)
by Danzig on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:11:30 AM EST

although I initially rated this comment a 1, and heartily disagree with the sentiments expressed, I do not believe it is worthy of a 0. Therefore, I gave you a 5. However, please do not take this 5 as implying agreement. No such agreement exists. However, the users of kuro5hin (those fucking bastards and bitches) have rated me a trusted user. Although I dislike this obligation, and did not ask for it, it came to me anyway. Thus, I attempt, in good faith, to right anything I may perceive as an injustice. Have a good day sir. God bless.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 1) (#312)
by strlen on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:17:44 AM EST

I rated him zero, as one comment (waranting a 1 for its lack of content, or any insight) with the ad-homminem was enough for the thread. There was an article on assault rifle ban, where he went complete nuts.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
I have read... (5.00 / 1) (#313)
by Danzig on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:39:11 AM EST

in other threads, of his completely knee-jerk hate of guns, and gun owners, or supporter of the right to possess a gun. I seem to recall such an article. That said, I must vote my conscience. Had he not been silenced by the 0, my vote would be immutably a 1. I hate his views and all they stand for. Have a good day sir. God bless.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
it's not that i disagree (5.00 / 1) (#315)
by strlen on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 03:22:36 AM EST

although i do disagree (im a staunch gun rights supporter), but i don't rate comments based on agreement or not. i did, however, consider this is to be no different from your average "rusty is a faggot" crapflood. posting a flame once, is more than enough.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
when you look in the mirror (2.50 / 2) (#320)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:26:11 PM EST

who do you see?

know how very little different from me you are

http://home.kc.rr.com/nodwick2/FlamingPartisan.jpg


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i'm glad you hate me (2.50 / 2) (#321)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:26:55 PM EST

you have have passion for your views

notice that my passion for my views are stronger than yours

god bless

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

http://home.kc.rr.com/nodwick2/FlamingPartisan.jpg

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Information ain't a bad thing (4.50 / 2) (#344)
by jonsg on Fri Sep 05, 2003 at 05:01:48 AM EST

I come from a country in which there is no popular gun culture. Sure, a few crims and wannabe crims are tooled up, but the rest of us are not.

I'm also a writer. Sometimes I write into the thriller or horror genres, in which some knowledge of guns and ammo is useful, since it adds authenticity to a character's words and actions.

This article was useful for me, and helped me out with a few questions that had been niggling in my mind.

In short: speak for yourself.

I'm a swordsman: pretty handy with a bastard sword, and deadly with a rapier. (Real weapons, but used with a lot of padding and protection to prevent serious injury or death.) I sometimes see that gut-gnawing fear in an opponent's eyes, when they realise that if this was for real, they'd be checking in at the Afterlife Hotel shortly. It's happened to me too. Either way, it grounds me: I can't avoid the consequences of my actions and aggression.

I don't like guns -- in fact, I don't even like archery: I don't like any weapon that dislocates the user and the victim. ("I pulled a lever over here, someone half a mile away fell over, why should I be bothered?")

But -- just because I don't like the forever-damned things, it doesn't mean that I can't find out more about them, and it doesn't mean that I'm going to condemn someone who's taken the trouble to post a good, informative article about their ammunition.



[ Parent ]

getting off on your gun fetish (1.35 / 17) (#304)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 03:14:42 PM EST

thelizman, could you write your next piece on nuclear fallout trivia, bioweapons impact surveys, rpg firing dynamics, and the physics of bouncing betties and other land mine technologies?

because you never know when you'll be confronted with the prospect of that useful knowledge, right?

don't mind me, but i'll follow my mind to greener pastures, and i'll leave the paranoid schizophrenia and the knowledge it seeks to those of you who are more interested in those kind of fetishistic, sadistic things

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

When Facts Offend (5.00 / 2) (#318)
by thelizman on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 10:12:23 AM EST

One day you'll get over your pseudointellectual associative handicaps and realize that your discomfort on an issue is not necessarily someone elses fanatacism.

Wait, you're a troll...what am I thinking.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
facts don't offend (3.00 / 2) (#319)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 01:23:56 PM EST

criminals do

lol


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

gun trivia (1.36 / 19) (#309)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 28, 2003 at 06:23:58 PM EST

there are those who seek out knowledge of gun trivia for the sake of knowing trivia about anything: tv shows, geography, food, etc.

but you must also recognize the existence of those who seek out such trivia knowledge about guns and other killing technologies specificially

i say that those who seek out such knowledge specifically are sadistic, fetishistic, scary fucks

the same kind of people who blew up cats and killed animals as kids

asocial, creepy fucks that deserve to be shot with the metal killing tools they so enjoy fawning over

they enjoy less rights in my book than the animals they enjoy killing for the sadistic creepy feeling it fills them with

at least animals are innocent

but do you who seek out the knowledge of killing technologies specifically recognize an evil impulse when you see it?

they don't, or at worse, they do, and keep going right on down that evil creepy little psychopathic road

enjoy your guns creeps! how about you stick one up your ass, fire, and do us all a favor!

we know you just want to fuck them anyways, considering the psychosexual root that lies at the base of your desire to know all about those lovely, lovely guns

or maybe you don't, ignorant fools

"my preccccious"

creepy little cowardly slinking-in-the-shadows fucks you gun lovers are


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

bite me (5.00 / 2) (#322)
by elotiumq32 on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 03:24:19 PM EST


______________ yeah whatever
[ Parent ]
here's your bite (5.00 / 1) (#324)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 05:24:39 PM EST

http://home.kc.rr.com/nodwick2/FlamingPartisan.jpg

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you reallt are clueless (5.00 / 1) (#325)
by techwolf on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 06:16:16 PM EST

come back when you a remotley valid argument.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Self portraits (5.00 / 1) (#326)
by stodd on Fri Aug 29, 2003 at 06:51:44 PM EST

I understand that you're vain and narcissistic, but posting a self portrait just doesn't make sense in this context.

[ Parent ]
Well said (5.00 / 1) (#334)
by seanic on Sun Aug 31, 2003 at 12:55:59 PM EST

for a paranoid xenophobe.  There are support groups available at many places on the net.  Try google and yahoo, I'm sure you will find something.  Your best bet is to start at alt.support and look from there. The hard part will be defining your phobia(s) and/or anxiety disorder.  It is really unhealthy to let such a prejudice burn inside and you should explore the extent of your fears.  You may also have fears of fishing gear and crop pickers or perhaps arrows and spears or drills or hammers or telescopes.  Any related fears may provide a direction for your recovery.  I hope this helps you get the support and assistance you need.

Good luck
--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#336)
by Spider Jerusalem on Mon Sep 01, 2003 at 01:30:53 AM EST

Wow. You seem to have a whole complex of issues. One suspects that it would take many years of intensive therapy to get to the root of them all.

Your issue seems to be with the use of weapons in commission of crimes of violence. One feels the need to point out to you that it is NOT the guns themselves that are the problem. Those who commit acts of violence would likely, if they had no access to firearms, use baseball bats, machetes, 2"x4"s, rocks...

There are many complex social issues underlying the problem of gun violence; among them poverty, education, and so on, and any EFFECTIVE solutions to the problem must address these issues, and not solely the weapon used. To ban guns without addressing the root causes of the violent uses to which they're put is nothing more than a top-down, band-aid solution, which WON'T work.

When I encounter an attitude like yours, I'm reminded of the words of William S. Burroughs: "Every time there's another shooting, they want to take the guns away from the people who DIDN'T do it. Now, I don't know about you, but I for one sure as hell don't want to live in a world where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

[ Parent ]

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin', (5.00 / 1) (#345)
by karlandtanya on Fri Sep 05, 2003 at 02:58:17 PM EST

Great contribution to the discussion, ya fuckin' troll.

Guess the k5 folks need the /. sig.

Thought you were smarter than that.

Oh, well.

If all you can complain about is the spelling, everyone assumes you support the content.
[ Parent ]

+P , +PP, +PP+ (5.00 / 4) (#333)
by dzimmerm on Sun Aug 31, 2003 at 12:58:50 AM EST

You never went into the bewildering array of sub categories of ammunition loading that greets the buyer when she goes into our current "Weapon Shops of Ishar".

I have a 9mm handgun and have learned quite a bit since I purchased it. One of the things I learned was that ammo seems to have some of the same marketing hype as many others things that are for sale to the consumer.

There seems to be a term that relates to the ammount and the type of propellent that is in the cartridges you can buy. Unfortionately marketing has made the term very unclear. I am guessing the term "police load" is supposed to make one think they are getting something better than "target practice load".

You pretty much have to go to the ammunition makers websites to get any kind of hard data on what any particular manufacturer means by the designations +P or +PP or +PP+.

Couple that with the fact that some arms manufacturers are not very forthcoming about what pressure their respective weapons can handle and you get added confusion as to what kind of ammo you should use in your weapon.

I have used 4 different types of ammo in my 9mm handgun and found that one produced a lot of powder residue but worked ok, another seemed to not push the slide back briskly, and two others that worked fine with only small amounts of powder residue.

Of the two that worked fine, one I use for target practice and the other I keep in the weapon when it is at home, loaded, for defensive use. Specifically, I use Winchester 115gr FMJ(full metal jacket) for target practice. The winchester is very inexpensive and can be purchased at WalMart for about $11.00 USD per 100 rounds. The other ammo is Federal hydroshock 135gr JHP(jacketed hollow point). This ammo is a lot more expensive with prices around $15.00 USD for 20 rounds. The Federal ammo is also available at WalMart.

Both types of ammo feed well in the 9mm semi auto pistol I have. I have not had any jams since I tuned the magazines. I also tend to clean my weapon after every 200 rounds or so. I try to get to the firing range once or twice a month as time permits.

It is my belief that it would be safer to have no handgun if you are not willing to take the time to learn how to shoot accurately. Not because accuacy is likely to be needed, but rather, the familiarity with the weapon that only comes from use is needed to make the weapon safe for you to use in an emergency.

When the weapon is at home it has a loaded magazine with the safety on and no round chambered. To use the weapon I would need to release the safety lever and then pull the slide back and release it to chamber a round. This process takes less than a second, :) . I considered keeping a round chambered but I felt that this would be more dangerous than the extra second it would buy me in an emergency.

In case you may think me odd in getting a handgun, let me tell you that I had not owned any weapon beyond a BB gun before the time my wife found someone trying to break into my house by kicking my front door in. Luckly my front door is steel and so is the frame. The door lock is a ring bolt which will not break easily. Because of the secure doorlock the would be intruder did not get into the house. The wife was at home alone and called 911. The police arrived and scared the would be intruder away. The intruder tried to gain entry two more times on two different nights. It was after the third attempt that I purchased the first handgun and had my wife become familiar with it at the firing range.

I then purchased a second handgun of the same make and model to practice with as I found I enjoyed the challange of learning how to shoot a 9mm handgun accurately.

We also now have a camera that is pointed at the front porch that my wife can monitor from where she normally sits at her computer. We also have a lock on the front porch door so an intruder would have to break into the front porch before they could attempt to break into the front door. The purpose is to discourage anyone from trying and also to give us a few seconds of warning if someone were to try and break in.

My philosophy is this. If someone is entering my house uninvited with either my wife or I inside then their life is forfeit. If that same intruder is leaving the house with my property they can do so and I will not fire on them. The weapon is only there to perserve my life or my wife's life, not to protect our property. Nothing I own is worth another persons life. Only perserving my or my wife's life is worth killing another human.

Some folks say, "I have a baseball bat/knife/sword/spear/bow and arrow/crossbow/karate training", and I feel better with those than a gun. I say, fine, but don't bring any of those to a gun fight.

dzimmerm

+P Ammunition (5.00 / 1) (#342)
by MrAcheson on Thu Sep 04, 2003 at 11:51:36 AM EST

"+P" is a SAAMI recognized standard for peak ammunition pressure.  IIRC SAAMI peak pressure for standard 9mm is 35000 psi.  "+P" loads have a peak pressure up to 10% higher than that, so 38500 psi.  +P+ loads are somewhere above that, but are not a SAAMI standard.  "+P+" just means more pressure than "+P".

Keep in mind that this the peak pressure.  One ammunition may perform better than another even if it has a lower peak pressure because the shape of the curves are different.  Cor*bon ammunition is notorious for doing a lot with a little pressure.

Do you find that shooting 115gr rounds in practice and 135gr rounds works well?  Theoretically the two different bullet weights should produce slightly diffent points of impact.

As an aside, I don't think you have to apologize for owning a handgun.  Private weapons ownership is necessary for the fundamental checks and balances that keep the government accountable to the people.

These opinions do not represent those of the US Army, DoD, or US Government.


[ Parent ]
Grain Differences (5.00 / 1) (#346)
by Bios_Hakr on Sat Sep 06, 2003 at 11:46:12 PM EST

While I will agree that the rounds do fly differently, in a defensive situation, the difference is small.

If you are firing at center-mass from 10' (across a room) to maybe 30' (down a hallway), the point of impact would be close enough. :)

If, on the other hand, you are firing at a target 50' to 100' away, the grain would matter a lot.  But I can't, for the life of me, figure out why someone would fire 100' in self defense.


[ Parent ]

This article is full of errors (none / 0) (#348)
by wingnutx on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:01:42 PM EST

Nothing as horrible as 'undetectable glocks' or 'cop killer bullets', but lots of little factual errors. Mostly it consists of overstating the power of various cartidges. IMHO, the single best place to learn about firearms on the internet would be www.thehighroad.org Lefties and Righties welcome.
tanstaafl
Modern Warfare: Firearms 101 - Small Arms Ammunition | 350 comments (338 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!