AR 15's : Assault Weapons or Personal Defense?

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

The point is that they are more lethal than AR-15s but are not being made the subject of bans; and that that's because this is not evidence-based social policymaking, but the legislative equivalent to homeopathy.

They are not more lethal because they have a limited range and magazine.

Gatling

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not making it up when I say that shotguns are more powerful and more lethal than AR-15s; they just are. Doesn't mean AR-15s are nonlethal; just that there are far more powerful firearms owned by far more people and nobody seems to mind.

It's that whole lack of evidence-based social policy again...

I fully understand that as Ive said I got some experience with shooting and understanding of calibers,shot vs slug and so on if you watched that video as an unbiased noob on anything concerning firearms you could reach the conclusion ohh smaller holes less damage ,there s another video on YouTube for what ever reason I can't seem to upload from an android tablet showing a shooter using an Ar15 against a ballistic gel dummy and at close range using a burst of fire and missed the major organs

Witcher

FrostyJack wrote: »

They are not more lethal because they have a limited range and magazine.

Guys kill deer with shotguns at 100 yards in the US, the limited magazine isn't really that big of an issue..go check out a video of a 3gun shooter/cowboy action shooter etc and see how fast they can load 5/6/7 rounds..they do it in the blink of an eye.

FrostyJack

Gatling wrote: »

I fully understand that as Ive said I got some experience with shooting and understanding of calibers,shot vs slug and so on if you watched that video as an unbiased noob on anything concerning firearms you could reach the conclusion ohh smaller holes less damage ,there s another video on YouTube for what ever reason I can't seem to upload from an android tablet showing a shooter using an Ar15 against a ballistic gel dummy and at close range using a burst of fire and missed the major organs

5.56 was created by the military to injure an enemy so you would have to carry them, which take resources etc, burst/auto is irrelevant.

FrostyJack

Blay wrote: »

Guys kill deer with shotguns at 100 yards in the US, the limited magazine isn't really that big of an issue..go check out a video of a 3gun shooter/cowboy action shooter etc and see how fast they can load 5/6/7 rounds..they do it in the blink of an eye.

I don't know what point you are arguing? I am sure people have killed mice at 1km with a 22. or people have fired 30 round out of a revolver in 2 minutes. What are you trying to say?

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

They are not more lethal because they have a limited range and magazine.

That's incorrect because their range is more than the range of most shootings (ie. if most shootings happen within 50 yards and the lethal range on a shotgun is 100 yards, then range is not a factor in lethality for practical purposes); and their magazine can be reloaded at will, meaning that they have an effective magazine size limited only by how many shells you can physically carry.

Witcher

FrostyJack wrote: »

I don't know what point you are arguing? I am sure people have killed mice at 1km with a 22. or people have fired 30 round out of a revolver in 2 minutes. What are you trying to say?

I'm arguing the supposed 'limited' range of a shotgun, every firearm has 'limited' range..however as Sparks said shotguns seem to be dodging the flak coming down on AR15's etc when they would be just as lethal at the range an active shooter would be targeting people in a school.

The way shot spreads out and the potential it has to hit multiple people in one shot makes up for the time it would take to reload it and if you had a bit of practice you could reload it in no time anyway. You can buy shotguns that feed from a magazine like an AR15 too so you could cut your reload time even more that way and still have the power and spread of the shot.

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

That's incorrect because their range is more than the range of most shootings (ie. if most shootings happen within 50 yards and the lethal range on a shotgun is 100 yards, then range is not a factor in lethality for practical purposes); and their magazine can be reloaded at will, meaning that they have an effective magazine size limited only by how many shells you can physically carry.

Blay wrote:

I'm arguing the supposed 'limited' range of a shotgun, every firearm has 'limited' range..however as Sparks said shotguns seem to be dodging the flak coming down on AR15's etc when they would be just as lethal at the range an active shooter would be targeting people in a school.

The way shot spreads out and the potential it has to hit multiple people in one shot makes up for the time it would take to reload it and if you had a bit of practice you could reload it in no time anyway.

Less than 100 yards? I don't understand what you are arguing, they should be banned too? Pistols kill more people and they are effective under the 50 yard range too. Let's ban everything. Assault rifles, sorry I mean AR-15 have the PDF range as well as up to and over 200 metres and are lethal to that range. To load a standard shotgun you have to physically load each cartridge. In the mean time the cops have shot your skull in. If you are talking about swaping mags (especally hi-caps) I call illegal. I know they currently aren't but if there was a just lawm, it would be one of them.

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

I don't understand what you are arguing

I'm arguing that the proposed ban is not based on evidence, and that non-evidence-based social policy is as bad as non-evidence-based medicine and just about as undesirable.

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

I'm arguing that the proposed ban is not based on evidence, and that non-evidence-based social policy is as bad as non-evidence-based medicine and just about as undesirable.

What ban? AR-15? You are speaking like Ann Coulter. What is this evidence you speak of? God Bless America................

Witcher

FrostyJack wrote: »

Less than 100 yards? I don't understand what you are arguing, they should be banned too? Pistols kill more people and they are effective under the 50 yard range too. Let's ban everything. Assault rifles, sorry I mean AR-15 have the PDF range as well as up to and over 200 metres and are lethal to that range. To load a standard shotgun you have to physically load each cartridge. In the mean time the cops have shot your skull in. If you are talking about swaping mags (especally hi-caps) I call illegal. I know they currently aren't but if there was a just lawm, it would be one of them.

I think both Sparks and I are in agreement that a shotgun would be just as lethal as an AR15 at the sort of ranges a school shooter would be using them at so why aren't shotguns coming in for criticism? It's mainly because of the false notion that shotguns are somehow 'safer'.

Who is going to stand out in the open and load the shotgun? Shotguns are used by the military and police..how many of them get their 'skull shot in' because they used one? For years a shotgun was all cops in the US had in addition to a .38 Smith and they were glad to have the firepower they provided.

People really seem to fall for the fallacy that shotguns are less lethal than a rifle..a shotgun is fcking vicious and you don't even need to be as precise with it as compared to the rifle, even if you're not dead on you'll probably hit what you were aiming at anyway.

FrostyJack

Blay wrote: »

I think both Sparks and I are in agreement that a shotgun would be just as lethal as an AR15 at the sort of ranges a school shooter would be using them at so why aren't shotguns coming in for criticism? It's mainly because of the false notion that shotguns are somehow 'safer'.

Who is going to stand out in the open and load the shotgun? Shotguns are used by the military and police..how many of them get their 'skull shot in' because they used one? For years a shotgun was all cops in the US had in addition to a .38 Smith and they were glad to have the firepower they provided.

People really seem to fall for the fallacy that shotguns are less lethal than a rifle..a shotgun is fcking vicious and you don't even need to be as precise with it as compared to the rifle, even if you're not dead on you'll probably hit what you were aiming at anyway.

I would argue none of your points at that range, so I fail to see the disagrement? At higher than 100 yards the AR is more lethal, has a higher cap? Without trying to put words in your mouth, I am sure you agree. I presume your arguement is against the media/goverenment who speak out against the "easy target" of AR's?

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

What ban?

The assault weapons ban currently being proposed in the US.

You are speaking like Ann Coulter.

That's a bit rude and ad hominem.

What is this evidence you speak of?

My point is that there isn't any. The only reliable research out there is by the NAS and CDC and they both agree that there isn't any reliable research indicating a way to reduce gun violence and that more study is needed. Happily, the CDC has been directed to carry that out; but bringing in legislation before that's done is putting the cart before the horse.

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

The assault weapons ban currently being proposed in the US.That's a bit rude and ad hominem.My point is that there isn't any. The only reliable research out there is by the NAS and CDC and they both agree that there isn't any reliable research indicating a way to reduce gun violence and that more study is needed. Happily, the CDC has been directed to carry that out; but bringing in legislation before that's done is putting the cart before the horse.

Apologises for the Ann Coulter remark, as she says stupid things for money, I am sure you are making no money (not saying you are being stupid either, sorry if that came across) It doesn't take a genius to see AR's are not the weapon of choice of the 10's of thousands of killings in America, pistols make up the majority. Speaking to law enforcement in the US, assault rifles (stop crying that is what they effectively are) they would rather not have them out there.
There is a youtube channel of a dude in Portland doing an Overt carry of an AR-15 I would like to see harrased (not phyically harmed) for being an absolute tosser, wasting police time etc. I am sure some hardcore advocates (maybe you Sparks) think it is ok to walk the streets with a rifle on the shoulder for no reason.

CollardGreens

Shame on you blokes for not saying anything to Exile for his/her below the waist remark about Mrs Lanza on my comment about women protecting themselves!

Don't the rest of you have wives/girlfriends that you want to be protected, for her to know how to protect herself?


@ Exile, I don't know if you are a he or a she but the biggest shame on YOU for using the deaths of children from some idiot shooting and then TRYING to use it to YOUR advantage. If you want to be really fair, put the pic's of the kids in Detroit (yea, the black & poor kids that get killed every day) that get shot by random shooting. You obviously know nothing about America other than what you get from hearsay.


@ the Dude with the really cool guns, I'm with MM on his comment ~ how awesome are those guns, you ROCK!

CollardGreens

People really seem to fall for the fallacy that shotguns are less lethal than a rifle..a shotgun is fcking vicious and you don't even need to be as precise with it as compared to the rifle, even if you're not dead on you'll probably hit what you were aiming at anyway.

A shotgun will hit pretty much what you shoot at and it's very lethal, esp if you put a slug in it. On the flip side, my win. 70, .308 will kick you into yesterday, much so more than my win. 12g and do way more damage. Of course a lot has to do with the ammo used in the Rifle and shotgun. The fellows at the range started getting nervous when the 308's were going through the dirt pile

I was trying to kill a soda can, it flew up about 20 feet before it took it's last bubbly breath.

Reindeer

Manic Moran wrote: »

I hate you. I don't have the cash to buy full auto.

I got that back in 2002. It was $9K start to finish. The same thing is $25K or so today. I also own a mac11 Us 'mercans are crazy, I tell ya.

Reindeer

CollardGreens wrote: »

Shame on you blokes for not saying anything to Exile for his/her below the waist remark about Mrs Lanza on my comment about women protecting themselves!

Don't the rest of you have wives/girlfriends that you want to be protected, for her to know how to protect herself?

My Ex Wife chased off a couple of guys trying to remove the sliding glass door from the back of our flat while I was away at work with her Colt revolver.

@ the Dude with the really cool guns, I'm with MM on his comment ~ how awesome are those guns, you ROCK!

AR's used to be cheap. Right now, my friends in the States are telling me the prices have tripled. I am considering selling one of mine.

But, the point I was trying to make earlier with the 'when the police go about unarmed, so will I' remark has to do with my comment on America when it comes to firearms. While I stay in Ireland and Europe, I rarely feel my life is in danger, or that I need a gun for defense. American criminals, however, are often armed. The gun murder rate the anti-gun crowd both abroad and in the US quote works both ways as far as agendas. Look at all the gun deaths, someone is obviously shooting someone. Granted, according to FBI data, most of them are criminals shooting each other. But the fact that America HAS gun crime basically means that if you want a chance to defend yourself the only equalizer is a gun. It isn't a magic wand, but having a gun goes a much further way to fending off armed or unarmed criminals than having bad breath or a bread knife.

I'd like to address the remarks in another thread when someone stated American citizens have no chance against the US mlitary(IE - guns are to help fend from the gov impinging on the rights of citizens, etc). One only needs to look at Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam, etc. When a few thousand rebels can hold off the most powerful military in the world, I would suggest that a few MILLION Americans armed with AR15's, AK's, and all other manner of firearms both semi and full auto could give the US Military a difficult time - especially since many are more skilled than your average 18 year old conscript or weekend warrior. After all, you don't have to annihilate the military, you just have to make it hurt. 300 million firearms in Civilian hands would make it hurt fairly rapidly. We'll ignore the fact that there are thousands of construction workers that would also have access to serious explosives as well. The US military would have to be absolutely out of their gourd to attack the US population.
Or, TL:DR - WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't they remake that movie? Anywho.

So, in the States - I am armed. In Ireland, I have a baseball bat and a hound. I'm good with that.

Varmint shooting with an AR:

Reindeer

CollardGreens wrote: »

A shotgun will hit pretty much what you shoot at and it's very lethal, esp if you put a slug in it....

I was trying to kill a soda can, it flew up about 20 feet before it took it's last bubbly breath.

I would have taken the opportunity of shooting that can out of the air with that shotgun as well. And I wouldn't say I'm a particularly good shot with a shotgun. I am much better with a handgun, having used them since I was 8, and been involved in many competitions.

My IDPA 'open class' gun back in the day:



Almost forgot to add - this is the shotgun I used to own back when I had money - A Browning 425 Grade 3:

Witcher

CollardGreens wrote: »

A shotgun will hit pretty much what you shoot at and it's very lethal

I know what they can do..I own one:pac:

Gatling

"The Ban" the only place I've heard this coming from is various news outlets and silly debates and retailers who are screaming buy buy buy there going to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines buy all our guns before the big bad man bans everything,
Its plain to see its just a money making excerise based off peoples fears and paranoia then you have the crowd buying pmags and other type mags enmass simply to speculate that if there worth $15-$30 now after a ban they could be sold for $100's on the 2nd hand market all people has asked is for a sensible debate instead you have mass panic buying and conspiracy

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

"The Ban" the only place I've heard this coming from is various news outlets and silly debates and retailers

The federal bill was introduced this Thursday morning. One has already passed in New York.

Gatling

Sparks wrote: »

The federal bill was introduced this Thursday morning. One has already passed in New York.

But with that you have states like south Carolina who if I'm correct have a laws which superceeds federal law saying if the guns are made in south Carolina they cant be banned if I'm also correct the same state as colt is based so you will end up with some states accept new laws while others will ignore any change

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

But with that you have states like south Carolina who if I'm correct have a laws which superceeds federal law saying if the guns are made in south Carolina they cant be banned if I'm also correct the same state as colt is based so you will end up with some states accept new laws while others will ignore any change

No, you can have states having stricter laws than the federal law (for example, Conneticut had an assault weapons ban in place at the time of the shootings at Sandy Hook despite the federal ban sunsetting several years earlier); but you can't have states having laws that are contrary to federal law (or dogs would lie down with cats and so forth).

So a federal ban isn't something you can ignore (it's the same principle that guides how EU firearms law interacts with Member State firearms law, although in that case it's spelt out explicitly in the EU firearms law rather than as a general principle within the EU)

Gatling

Excuse the long copy and paste this is what I was referenced to.
Bill Would Exempt SC-Made Guns From Federal Laws
Proposed legislation from Upstate lawmaker Lee Bright mirrors bills that have been passed in a handful of other states.
By Hal Millard | December 28, 2012

A bill filed by state Sen. Lee Bright a day before the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., would allow S.C. residents to buy firearms, ammunition and gun accessories made in the state, even if they violate federal gun-control laws.

Bright, R-Roebuck, introduced The Firearms Freedom Act last year, but the bill died in committee. Bright re-introduced his bill on Dec. 13 — the day before 20 children and seven adults were killed in Newtown — and hopes for a better outcome this time. Despite the renewed and heated national debate over gun control in the wake of the Newtown shootings, Bright told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal he believes there is actually more enthusiasm now for his bill.

“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told the newspaper. In addition to South Carolina being a gun-friendly state, Bright's positive outlook is also bolstered by a recent Gallup poll that showed the strident pro-gun National Rifle Association held a 54 percent favorability rating among Americans.

The concept behind the bill? The federal government may regulate interstate commerce, but South Carolina gun manufacturers should be able to skirt federal laws and make and sell whatever they like within the state since their guns, gun parts, and accessories would not cross state lines.

The concept isn't exactly new or novel. Montana was the first state to pass such legislation, though it is currently tied up in litigation in federal court. Regardless, eight other states have passed identical legislation, and similar bills have been introduced in a score of other states, including South Carolina.

Bright said more gun control isn't the answer to gun violence. Connecticut, he told the paper, has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

"So there’s not a real strong correlation between gun

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote: »

No, you can have states having stricter laws than the federal law (for example, Conneticut had an assault weapons ban in place at the time of the shootings at Sandy Hook despite the federal ban sunsetting several years earlier); but you can't have states having laws that are contrary to federal law (or dogs would lie down with cats and so forth).

So a federal ban isn't something you can ignore (it's the same principle that guides how EU firearms law interacts with Member State firearms law, although in that case it's spelt out explicitly in the EU firearms law rather than as a general principle within the EU)

Actually, there is a theorised exemption. Federal regulations rely in the Interstate Commerce clause, and they can address things like firearms because they're let's say, manufactured in Utah and sold in Nevada. However, eight States have passed laws confirming that if certain firearms are manufactured in the State, marked for the State of manufacture, and sold within the State, federal laws do not apply as there is no bearing on InterState commerce.

The BATFE, however, disagrees. Oral arguments are currently scheduled for next month in the 9th Circuit.

Gatling

So in theory if this successfully passed through the Court's a federal ban wouldn't change a thing or would it

Merch

Personal defence, ok so Im not going to jump on the lets make some other country change their laws as we dont have a clue, but honestly
Im not that keen on people defending their homes with AR's.

Its not that I dont want them to own them, just not to shoot them at burglars, high velocity rounds would make light work of buildings that seem to be mostly constructed of wood siding, Id much prefer they defend their property with a pump action, or even a lower velocity handgun. (if I was there, which Im not)

I did see video footage of a home invasion by about 4 men, turned up in a car, they were carrying weapons, one was an AR, so in a nation with such availability of weapons and one guy person defending himself (correction they homeonwer was unseen in the footage as i recal), the owner just ripped into the car, as you could see bullet holes appearing in the windscreen, the crooks just got the hell out of there alright.

I did wonder where the remaining bullets were going, his neighbours across the road didnt seem to mind when interviewed afterwards, in fact I recal they were supportive, but Id be concerned for myself and children with bullets whizzing around, maybe he picked his backstop and his targets?
It goes to show when people here complain about people there owning guns and living in gated communities, we dont really know what its like, criminals will always find a way to get guns.

Witcher

Merch wrote: »

the owner just ripped into the car, as you could see bullet holes appearing in the windscreen, the crooks just got the hell out of there alright.

I did wonder where the remaining bullets were going, his neighbours across the road didnt seem to mind when interviewed afterwards, in fact I recal they were supportive, but Id be concerned for myself and children with bullets whizzing around, maybe he picked his backstop and his targets?

What was he using? An AR15? chances are if you can see some rounds impacting the car then they all hit it, a .223 doesn't recoil that much so it wouldn't have pushed him off the target. Without seeing a photo of the area he was firing it's impossible to know if it was safe but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Merch

Blay wrote: »

What was he using? An AR15? chances are if you can see some rounds impacting the car then they all hit it, a .223 doesn't recoil that much so it wouldn't have pushed him off the target. Without seeing a photo of the area he was firing it's impossible to know if it was safe but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Oh well I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, I just think a low velocity weapon might be more useful for home defense, such as certain pistols and maybe a shotgun (over there). Even a 9mm could go through someone and keep going and allegedly wont stop someone (not something Id like to test) but there are other pistol ammunition types that apparently will. A .223 is gonna keep going for a while.

The thing is, i dont know if the homeowner was a guy or woman, never showed them, but their assailants windscreen was just peppered with shots singly one after the other, it may have been a pistol actually but I thought it was mentioned as not, I dotn have the footage or a link. I presume the lead was going out the back window and I was suprised the car pulled away at all. suprisingly also, I recal in the interview with the neighbour, there was a low wall across the street, which i think had at least one hit! It looked like a nice neighbourhood.

Witcher

Merch wrote: »

Oh well I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, I just think a low velocity weapon might be more useful for home defense, such as certain pistols and maybe a shotgun (over there). Even a 9mm could go through someone and keep going and allegedly wont stop someone (not something Id like to test) but there are other pistol ammunition types that apparently will. A .223 is gonna keep going for a while.

The thing is, i dont know if the homeowner was a guy or woman, never showed them, but their assailants windscreen was just peppered with shots singly one after the other, it may have been a pistol actually but I thought it was mentioned as not, I dotn have the footage or a link. I presume the lead was going out the back window and I was suprised the car pulled away at all. suprisingly also, I recal in the interview with the neighbour, there was a low wall across the street, which i think had at least one hit! It looked like a nice neighbourhood.

Problem with using a pistol is that the short sight radius means that it's very easy to miss with one. Well both rounds will keep going for a while, even a .22 is still potentially lethal at 400 yards and can travel upto a mile. Backstop is key to using any firearm regardless of calibre.

Depends on the angle they're firing into the car really, the round could be htting the windscreen, going through the front seat, back seat, boot or through the quarter panels and losing most of it's power...a .223 isn't a stomper to begin with so anything with a bit of substance will stop or at least slow it.

Merch

I cant believe I found it, it turns out it was the crook that had the AR only (I was sure that was the case), I wasnt sure if the homeowner had one and it appears he did not, looks like he is carrying a pistol, not sure if thats his garage door or across the street though? (across the street)
The windscreen isn't as peppered with shots as i thought, but i dont know how he didnt hit that driver.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/02/11/marino.home.invasion.KVOA

CollardGreens

@ Gatling,
Thank you so much for the S.C. article, since it was rather lengthy I didn't want to repost it but I will copy and send it to my friends ~ I am a Carolina native and currently live in the S.C. and being from N.C. I can agree with you that S.C. is one of the easiest places to get a gun. I'll never forget my first one I bought (I use to get them pass down from my older brother) at the gun show, it was a pistol, cash and carry - no questions asked. Something else here.....look how easy it is to get the guns here and look at the statistics on shootings in this state. Criminals will get shot, yes they may get them easy but so can the regular citizens and the criminals know it. At work today I met a 70+ yo women and her husband, she was very excited she has just joined the NRA last week (it was cute, she was all dressed up and beaming about her new NRA carry bag). Then I met a young woman from Columbia (the country) and she had become a citizen and recently got her carry permit. She was very sad at the way this country has turned. She said she was a Christian and moved to the United States because she wanted to live in a free country with the values America was founded on. She didn't have a gun yet and I let her know of the upcoming gun show.

Two points, one was to thank you for the article, and two is to just bring up how the general public here in this state feels about their gun rights ~ The politicians here are pretty ok too, esp compared to many other states.
Lindsay Graham and Tim Scott are wonderful!

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

Its not that I dont want them to own them, just not to shoot them at burglars, high velocity rounds would make light work of buildings that seem to be mostly constructed of wood siding, Id much prefer they defend their property with a pump action, or even a lower velocity handgun. (if I was there, which Im not)

Don't feel bad, because that is a very common observation. Not accurate, but common.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

Overpenetration has always been a concern when discussing the use of firearms in a dwelling, so the knee-jerk reaction has been to immediately eliminate a rifle as a suitable option. However, in the last several decades there have been exhaustive studies about what pistol and shotgun projectiles do when fired indoors, and those results are very interesting (and not in a good way).

Proponents of the pistol for home defense like to think that because it’s “just” a pistol round, overpenetration really won’t be an issue. Such is not the case. Drywall sheets and hollow-core doors (which are what you’ll find in the majority of homes and apartments in this country) offer almost no resistance to bullets. Unless brick or cinderblock was used somewhere in your construction, any pistol cartridge powerful enough to be thought of as suitable for self-defense is likely to fly completely through every wall in your abode. In fact, hollowpoint pistol bullets tend to plug up as they go through drywall, turning them—in effect—into round-nose bullets. Round buckshot pellets are just as bad, and shotgun slugs are worse.

These same concerns about overpenetration are what kept people away from considering the rifle for home defense. For years many people just assumed they knew what would happen to a rifle bullet fired indoors—it would go through every wall available and then exit the building. While armor-piercing and FMJ ammunition is specifically designed to do this, extensive testing has shown that light, extremely fast-moving .223 projectiles (including FMJs) often fragment when they hit a barrier as soft as thin plywood.

When talking about the effectiveness of rifle bullets on people, ballisticians and armchair commandos throw around a number of technical terms, such as “hydrostatic shock” and “temporary wound cavity.” The simple fact is that the more of its energy a bullet can dump into a target, the more effective it will be. Full metal jacketed ammunition has a tendency to zip right through, and while the resulting wound might cause the person to bleed to death, until they do there’s a good chance they’ll go on posing a threat. Projectiles designed either to stop in the body or cause a great deal of tissue upset work much better at immediately stopping the threat. That’s why police talk about the “stopping power” of a cartridge rather than its “killing power.”

When using rifle ammunition with projectiles designed specifically for personal defense, such as Winchester’s new .223 PDX1 loadings, fragmentation is assured. Bullets striking an intruder will separate into smaller, lighter pieces and—most likely—not overpenetrate and exit the body as errant shrapnel. All of the energy generated will then be transferred into the target. If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet. Many SWAT teams are using M4-type rifles, and overpenetration, when your teammate may be on the other side of the wall, is a major concern.

Or just google ".223 for home defense" and check out all the responses on the boards.

Merch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Don't feel bad, because that is a very common observation. Not accurate, but common.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/



Or just google ".223 for home defense" and check out all the responses on the boards.

I dont feel bad, but while I havent known of this .223 PDX, I wonder have many others either and the manufacture description in the article makes it sound like they would be expensive (ie the front of the bullet is welded to the back and some other info regarding the design).
Im not anti gun, Im not even opposed to people not having AR's, some of my relatives over there have.
But see the home invasion link I posted, that looked like the guy had a pistol, so even lower velocity ammunition penetrated a garage door (possibly equivalent to what I consider plastic siding).
Now if that was .223 the damage would have at least been the same, anyone in between hit, would have been in trouble or even behind that garage.
I may depend on the individual circumstances, but do most people load pistols with hollow point?, rifles probably not, unless its for some types of hunting?
The article also seems to corroborate what I said previously about penetrating rounds. Maybe, over there an AR type has a place for home defense but Id prefer my neighbours werent shooting at people across the road from one.

I thought also they were going to say pistols and shotguns were more dangerous,
if a round or shot from them reached across the street and hit something then it would be stopped assuming it wasnt slowed or stopped by the buildings fabric it had exited.

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is worth noting a few recent examples of illiterate or under-educated persons armed mainly with small arms causing the US military some hassle over the past ten years in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is also worth noting that the citizenry in Libya and Syria seem to have done reasonably well against a government with tanks and attack helicopters.

I'm just going to address this play on words.
"some hassle".....try resounding defeat.

The other examples you mention are not of a disgruntled populace rising up against their tyrannical overlords they are external agents fomenting civil war in order to destabilise an existing regime and pave the way for foreign invasion.

Merch

asherbassad wrote: »

I'm just going to address this play on words.
"some hassle".....try resounding defeat.

The other examples you mention are not of a disgruntled populace rising up against their tyrannical overlords they are external agents fomenting civil war in order to destabilise an existing regime and pave the way for foreign invasion.

Id have said, it was possible at one point for the US army to win in these situations, and I dont mean bomb the hell outta them, just that they could have used stick and carrot measures but Rumsfeld didnt accept the numbers required to do the job they were asked (whether it was right or wrong). They applied a corporate american attitude to doing the job and didnt listen to the people trained to carry out these tasks.
it does seem that it was engineered to prolong the need for the military to stay and to forment a disaster, ie dismantling the Iraqi Army, hell attacking in the first place, when it had nothing to do with anything.

Manic Moran

Merch wrote: »

I dont feel bad, but while I havent known of this .223 PDX, I wonder have many others either and the manufacture description in the article makes it sound like they would be expensive (ie the front of the bullet is welded to the back and some other info regarding the design).

It's sold out everywhere, but Basspro shows the most recent price at $30 for 20 rounds. Decidedly more expensive than the standard FMJ you'd use to plink at the range, but then you wouldn't exactly be plinking with it. $90 would get you two fully loaded 30-round magazines. Defense ammo always is a bit more expensive than FMJ, it's not an unreasonable cost (and that it's sold out probably says something about affordability as well).

CollardGreens

Recommendation of guns to purchase before any ban might take place:

Gatling

CollardGreens wrote: »

Recommendation of guns to purchase before any ban might take place:

watched that just after sandy hook - I don't like the idea of quick buy them all before the ban, honestly believe some shops are all about the money rather than education showing how to do it right and safe, first

CollardGreens

I don't like the idea of quick buy them all before the ban, honestly believe some shops are all about the money rather than education showing how to do it right and safe, first

I agree with the above, and my collection is not the same but I did find it interesting that the magazine seemed to be the #1 issue. Personally, the gun fit in your hands and ammo are more important to me. I did learn some things from the video, like that you can glue some together and some magazines can be taken apart. My collection is more of a mixed variety ~ some for protection and some just for play at the range, to me it's like pin ball on a large scale

(don't think I saw one revolver in the group they had ~ my protection carry is a revolver .38, don't want to have a chance of a miss fire.)

InTheTrees

CollardGreens wrote: »

(don't think I saw one revolver in the group they had ~ my protection carry is a revolver .38, don't want to have a chance of a miss fire.)

Because revolvers dont have magazines that you need to limit and they dont hold over ten rounds.

Sparks

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because revolvers dont have magazines that you need to limit and they dont hold over ten rounds.

and more recently...

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Please be advised that this is the US Politics forum. If your post does not engage the reader and poster in a discussion of US Politics, then please take such non-political discussions to a forum more appropriate to such topics.