I remember seeing reports from doctors talking about how much damage in AR does to like a liver or a spleen. And it's so funny to watch these people talk about something I don't know anything about. Just about every other rifle chambered in the same caliber would do the same thing.
we had one gun banner howl that FMJ bullets should be banned for civilians because the military uses them. Its so hilariously stupid I am still laughing
I have 22 RF .223 (only not 556) 556 762 NATO 9mm 545x39 I have shot 300 BO and 50 Beowulf (big in Ohio since its a straightwall cartridge legal for deer)
That's cool. I remember seeing these mil spec 410s and I remember reading about them I don't know how true this is that they were used to shoot down carrier pigeons and world war II is that something you've heard of?
my late grandfather was an artillery captain in WWI and I recall him saying something about one of the guys who guarded the guns with a winchester shotgun shot at a pigeon--That was over 55 years ago and that is all I can recall, the shotgun was more for shooting at sappers or others who would try to destroy the artillery pieces.
The military switched to M855 prior to Desert Storm. M193 is still produced for the civilian market because it's cheap.
oh I have that too but its FMJ within the meaning of the Hague convention. its a 62 grain bullet vs 55 and works better in the 1x7 barrels compared to M193
For some reason I want to say I remember seeing these 410 kalashnikovs. It might have just been made up though.
I recall seeing an AK in 410 but I never gave them much thought even though as a former NSSA four gun (all for skeet gauges -410, 28, 20 and 12) I have a top of the line MEC 410 reloader
When I see something unusual I want to learn as much as I can. The one that I thought was the coolest was the avenging angel. It's a very short barrel culture revolver from back when they were black powder. I saw one I wanted to know everything I could about it.
I am guessing, anything that is not specifically designed as an armor piercing bullet designed to kill cops would be a regular bullet
Dude, that's not the point he made and you damn well ought to realize it isn't. His argument is not about FMJ, but rather simply that Stoner's design is in fact designed specifically for military service. Regarding what the second amendment was designed to protect, is it your position that it was designed to protect the citizens against a possibility that the newly constituted federal republic would turn tyrannical, to the extent that individual small arms would restore control of the federal republic to the people? Apparently it is your position if I take this post at face value: To be fair, citizens and their guns have likely moderated state and federal response to activities they deem criminal. The Malheur standoff probably a good example of this. But, it seems something of a stretch to me to assert that Hamilton, Madison and the rest intended the 2A for the purpose of bearing arms against the government. More likely it seems to me to be a bit of a more recent interpretation. Possibly begun in the 60s and 70s among a fringe right wing group of Deadheads. Hahaha! The F'g Hague Convention! Dude, it's my understanding that the only rounds of any significance limited by this tradition are service pistol hollow points. And it hasn't any bearing on the inability of civilians to obtain the vest piercing 5.7x28 FN Herstal SS190 which is more deadly than its civilian counterparts, so there is at least this one example where you are unfortunately flatly incorrect regarding militarily available ammo to be less effective than civilian counterparts. This occasional and sensationalized interest in banning "assault" weapons is irrational, no doubt about it, when it's the 9mm semi-auto pistols that result easily in the most homicides. There may be a few other calibers than 9s, but I'd be very surprised if data are available at this level of detail, however, here's one study that more-or-less supports my speculation. Currently the number of homicides due to guns is low enough at about 4/100,000 deaths annually, that I have numerous other interests than supporting gun bans in general and singling out of AR15s or "assault weapons" as anything other than a superficial compromise significantly lacking merit. I am curious though, would there be some limit greater than this where you would consider it to be an issue worth discussing? My go to statistic is for diabetes which is roughly 30/100,000. After we make the sugar and corn syrup industries pay for free insulin, then I'll gaf about discussing guns, as horrid as events like Sandy Hook are, the daily gun murders are, well, I do have to admit to being somewhat fond of the observation that some folks just need killing. Unfortunately, guys like Hitler seem to magically have an ability to avoid it. Not of course implying that this historic figure has any current modern counterparts. I'm thinking more along the lines of the gal that damn near beat an old man walking his dogs to death here in Houston with a hammer. I'd have applauded this fellow if he'd killed her in his own defense, just as I applaud the guy that recently made the news here in Houston for capping to death a would be robber with a fake gun in a Houston Taqueria. If anything, the government needs to get the handguns out of the hands of criminals - what's the answer to this I wonder.
I fail to see how that is an omission. The general point of the comparison is rifle vs handgun. AR-15s are referred to specifically because they are commonly used and reported about, and are the type of weapon used in the specific examples they were using to demonstrate the point. Similarly, 9mm was used as the handgun comparison as a commonly used type of handgun ammunition. The linked article wasn't presented as a holistic explanation of the whole issue, it was a detailed explanation of one specific aspect, and a very interesting and informative one at that IMO. The only reason I can see for objecting to or nit-picking as a source of information is that a perception that it doesn't help a particular socio-political position you want to promote. Incidentally, since you're interesting in omissions and the OP appears to want to push past it, do you have any comment on the fact that the article doesn't use the phrase "regular bullet" as was claimed?
I'm still using my stockpile of Swedish made Winchester 62 from OTM. It's as accurate as my handloads in my SBRs and cost one cent more per round than me making them not including the cost of the brass. I wish I'd bought two more cases.
you rarely get sensible answers to such questions because the people who make such comments have almost never actually thought through the implications of their facades that cover their real motivations. They think if they call something "military" that means it is so deadly and evil that no one should have them--unaware that the ammunition we use for shooting woodchucks or moose are BANNED for military use under international conventions. It's why the low wattage gun banning movements like the Sandy Hook Hysterics or the Gifford Grifters gun Grabbers call things "military style" to inflame the left side of the bell curve intellects.
