Good News! New bullet expands itself into four connected parts to kill better

[onehandle]

It may seem impossible at this point, but humans keep enhancing their ability to kill others using guns. Example: the new Advanced Ballistics Concepts' new Mi-Bullet, a projectile that expands into four connected parts as soon as it's fired. The mechanism—shown in the video—is very clever, making almost impossible to miss a target.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/new-bullet-expands-itself-into-four-connected-parts-to-1496153895

Basement dwellers are masturbating furiously to this.

[CherokeeDem]

1. Uh....

From the link:

The manufacturer claims they will ship three types: non-lethal, semi-lethal (???) and lethal.



??????????

Lethal... no explanation needed.

Non-lethal... blanks???

But wtf is semi-lethal??

My head is spinning... this entire culture is self-destructive.

[jberryhill]

9. "But wtf is semi-lethal??"

You end up in a hospital in Oakland.

?w=538

[CherokeeDem]

16. Good enough explanation for me....

[Skinner]

2. See it in action...

[clffrdjk]

3. Are the bullets made of anti-matter?

Or Some other form of explosive? How else would a bullet that splits into multiple pieces retain enough energy to be consistently lethal? It seems to me that these are basically bean bag rounds for pistols.

[MineralMan]

8. No. The spin produced by the rifling

would separate the connected pieces through centripetal force. The forward momentum of the linked projectiles would only be reduced somewhat. This is a nasty sort of projectile, designed by someone with a nasty sort of mind. It's reminiscent of grapeshot.

I doubt it will ever be produced in quantity, and if it is, it should be banned.

[enlightenment]

14. Grapeshot. That was the term I was searching for.

I'm more familiar with historical killing devices than modern ones, but couldn't think of the name.

[MineralMan]

15. Chainshot, too.

Ugly stuff.

[enlightenment]

17. Definitely.

Imagine what the minds of these people could create if they were turned to positive purposes instead of this destructive, useless stuff.

[MineralMan]

37. I have no idea. Not much, I imagine. Design of projectiles isn't

that difficult, really.

[clffrdjk]

18. Limited energy is lost

But you have increased the area tremendously thus reducing penetration and lethality.
Why ban them? Or do you just want to ban everything?

[MineralMan]

21. 'Or do you want to ban everything?'

That's your idea of a counter to my post? Really?

You have no idea who I am or how I feel about firearms. I'm not playing this game with you.

[clffrdjk]

22. No the counter to your post was the

Reminder that area is just as important as energy.

The "or do you just want to ban everything" is in reference to the fact that without even bothering to give a reason you wanted to ban them.

As to who you are or what your feelings are towards firearms I don't care.

[MineralMan]

23. Please proceed...

[Adrahil]

24. Not really, a bullet MUST penetrate sufficiently to kill. This is a gimmick. nt

[clffrdjk]

27. Agreed and that is my point. These seem like bean bag rounds for pistols.

These are not rounds I am interested in buying but the idea that they need to be banned is laughable.

[Adrahil]

28. I concur. nt

[MineralMan]

38. Frankly, at handgun ranges, my choice would be

a 12 ga. shotgun with 00 buckshot loads. My 1911 Colt is stored safely and properly, and I haven't fired it for several years. I currently have no particular use for it. The only loaded firearm in my home is a Remington 870. I believe that is more than adequate as a home protection firearm.

[clffrdjk]

41. I think you responded to the wrong post.

[MineralMan]

43. No, actually I didn't. Your topic was

loss of energy through reduction in mass due to separation of the total mass. A 00 buckshot load also loses energy for each piece of shot, compared to a slug, but is amazingly lethal. Like this new design, it reduces the accuracy requirement, which is the goal of the projectile in the original article.

It's all a ballistic compromise, really. I wouldn't choose a .45 pistol as a defensive weapon in the first place, and I'm a fair competitive shooter with the 1911 Colt. Even with the round described in the OP, it would not be my weapon of choice. But, then, the likelihood that I will need a defensive firearm at all is minuscule, so it's all academic.

[clffrdjk]

47. Right

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

You really think the energy of a 12 gauge is comparable to a .45 don't be intentionally dense. Let's just see what the penetration tests have to say about these rounds.

This is a strange turn of play I don't want to use them but don't care if others do you want to ban them and are trying to gain my support of this round In order to try and somehow prove that you are right to want to ban them. All while saying that your favorite 12 gauge round is comparable. I hope you stretch before your mental gymnastics.

Don't tell me that your .45 hasn't left the safe in years and then in the next post claim to be a fair competitive shooter.

[MineralMan]

53. Please proceed.

I was a fair competitive shooter. I no longer compete, which is why that .45 is in its case, locked up.

[X_Digger]

67. Wait, you deride hollow point, but go with #00 buck? nine 33 caliber bullets at 1,200fps?!?

Somehow, I don't think you've thought through your opinion very well.

Or you've got a great big set of blinders on.

[spin]

33. Out of curiosity, do you believe that hollow point bullets should be banned? (n/t)

[MineralMan]

36. Which hollow point bullets?

For use in handguns, yes, I do think they should be banned. How's that? They're already banned from military use, where killing people is supposedly acceptable.

I'm a firearms owner, and have been all my adult life. I'm also in favor of serious firearms regulations, mandatory training, and licensing of all firearms. I hold a permit for CCW, but almost never carry. I've not found any reason to do so, nor do I expect to.

I think firearms have their uses, but have no problem with their regulation, licensing, and training requirements. In fact, I support all of those things. I have very little patience for the typical RKBA enthusiast, frankly.

[spin]

54. Perhaps you were not aware of this but the reason the military does not use hollow point bullets ...

is not only the Hague Convention of 1899 but also the theory that it's better to wound an enemy than kill him as it will take one or more of your opponents to remove him from the field to a field hospital and that would also remove them from the fight. It can also be argued that a non expanding round could pass right through one enemy and still wound another.

OUr military snipers use "expanding point" ammo in certain cases.

Military Open-tip Ammunition

***snip***

This practice began to change subsequent to a 23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General2, authored3 by W. Hays Parks4, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major General Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:

"…expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."

On 12 October 1990, another Memorandum of Law from Parks at the request of the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, as well as the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, concluded that:

"The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. … Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."
http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

I don't find the fact that you have a carry permit and rarely carry all that unusual. When I first got a concealed weapons permit twenty years ago, I tried to carry a full sized 1911 Colt .45 atuo pistol. That proved to be a real pain in the ass and it normally stayed home when I was out and about.

At the time, I lived in a somewhat dangerous neighborhood in the Tampa Bay Area. There was a drive by shooting two houses down from mine and it wasn't unusual to see police with drawn weapons chase people down my street or within walking distance of my home. I was working the graveyard shift and there was a rash of bump and rob incidents on the streets near my home where a car bumps you at a stop light and when you get out you find yourself facing armed attackers. Several employees at stores and restaurants near my home were shot during robberies and killed even after they handed over the cash in their registers. (Obviously I could have moved but I owned my home and didn't want to take on another mortgage.)

"Shall issue" concealed carry was sweeping the nation at that time. Gun manufacturers responded to the market and started to manufacture lighter and more compact handguns that were primarily designed for concealed carry. Smith and Wesson decided to upgrade their .38 caliber snub nosed revolvers to be able to handle the more powerful .38+P round. I checked the new models out and chose a Model 642 Airweight revolver which was primarily designed for pocket carry. I finally had found an extremely light and compact handgun that I could quickly grab and slide it and its holster into my pants pocket on my way out the door. I started to carry on a regular basis.

Still a .38+P round fired from a snub nosed revolver is near the lower levels of what's acceptable for self defense. I don't necessarily want to kill an attacker who intends to put me in a hospital for an extended stay or six feet under but simply to have a fair chance of stopping his attack. In order to be able to do so, I wish to have the best ammo available in my weapon. Round nosed bullets which do not expand are not well suited for this task and also have the potential to over penetrate and pass through an attackers body and injure someone behind. Therefore I prefer to load my weapon with a quality hollow point round that is designed to be effective in a snub nosed revolver.

Since I practice "situational awareness" and have moved to a more peaceful town in Florida after retiring, I seriously doubt and pray that I will never have to use my legally concealed weapon in self defense. I enjoy target shooting handguns but the last thing in the world I ever hope to have to do is to shoot another person.

Another question:

While you state that you rarely carry a concealed weapon, what type of ammo do you load in it when you do?

[MineralMan]

55. Federal SWC target rounds. That's what I have on hand.

As I said, I almost never carry, anyhow, so that practice ammo is just fine for when I do. But, I'm not that interested in discussing any of that further with you. Sorry.

[spin]

58. That's fine. No problem. Have a good day and stay warm. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

4. Neat!

But no thanks

[Paladin]

5. Careful, now. Our Gun Enthusiasts will accuse you of class-based elitism. (nt)

[arbusto_baboso]

6. Sounds like chain-shot to me.

An idea that was better left in the 18th Century.

[ProgressSaves]

7. What is the purpose of this?

If anything, bullets should be downgraded to injure more than they kill.

Self-defense doesn't require "killing better."

[hack89]

11. Considering how survivable gun shots are

especially hand guns, I don't think you have much to worry about.

[Adrahil]

25. Ummm... no.

Just no. If I ever feel the need to shoot someone, I want the maximum capability I can have to eliminate them as a threat. If I don't need that, I don't need to shoot them.

[Xyzse]

10. There is this program that they can attach to guns that makes them never miss.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale

Guns are not my thing. I am more of a sword guy than anything else.

[malthaussen]

12. Hand grenades. A better way to make a point. n/t

[spin]

59. In military combat, yes. For civilian self defense against a criminal not so much. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

13. That's one way to do it.

Or you could just have guided bullets.

[spin]

35. At close range and in skilled hands a sword is far more lethal then a handgun. (n/t)

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Oh, the gun nutters will be

in the bathroom for hours with this one.

[Paladin]

26. Better there than on this thread...... (nt)

[sarisataka]

20. No thanks...

the dispersed mass of the projectile makes it, IMO, less likely to deliver an incapacitating hit on any given shot so that makes it less useful for personal defense.

And call me old fashioned but I like precision. I want to hit what I aim at, not something within 14" of what I aim at.

[spin]

60. +1000 (n/t)

[RadleyJ]

29. In my younger years

an acquaintance of mine was shall we say... one crazy fucker. The Anarchists Cookbook was like a bible to him.

One of his hobbies was taking 12 gauge shotgun shells apart, and reassembling them with whatever tickled his fancy; coins, shards of glass, carpet tacks, lengths of chain, etc.

One of his more bizarre creations was stringing a few lead fishing weights together with braided wire and then load it in a shotgun shell. It left a sizable tear in paper targets. If it would have been effective or lethal if used on a person, I have no idea.

[jmowreader]

42. They do the same thing with rubber balls

It won't kill ya, but it'll make you think twice about continuing to do whatever's pissing off the cops at the time.

[Kaleva]

30. An improved bolo bullet?

[hack89]

31. I think it funny that guns make you automatically think of sex

the connection between gun control and sex/sexual organs has always amused me.

[blueridge3210]

32. If all you have is a hammer......(nt)

[Hoyt]

34. Zimmerman types are ecstatic.

[Demo_Chris]

39. I doubt any of the pieces would have the mass needed to penetrate...

It looks LESS dangerous.

[jmowreader]

40. Why this won't work

Bullets work by dumping energy into the target and causing it to break up. They kill by dumping enough of it in the right place to break up things you can't survive without. Which is why guys who put their pistols in their waistbands and wind up shooting their dicks off get to go home and explain themselves.

Energy is mass x velocity, whether you're talking about guns or freight trains.

This round takes a 200 grain round traveling 1100 feet per second and converts it into one 100 grain round and three 33 grain pieces traveling the same speed.

The core will dump half the energy into the target. The pieces might not break the skin--wind resistance will slow them down and the drag will probably slow down the core, unless that same wind resistance causes them to break the hair-thin wires holding them together.

In the 1980s the Army wasted a lot of money attempting to make the 5.56mm round more lethal by using flechette rounds, three mini bullets stacked, and all sorts of other shit. The Belgians also wanted to make 5.56 more lethal so they worked on putting a heavier projectile in it. The current NATO 5.56 round has the heavier Belgian projectile. Because one fact has been constant since the beginning of guns: the more a projectile weighs, the more effective it is because you put enough powder behind it to give it energy.

[MineralMan]

44. It's not a serious round, anyhow. It's a design exercise.

Something for shooters to think about is all. It was designed because it could be designed. It's not really useful.

[H. Cromwell]

46. A useless bullet

When you apply the laws of Physics and energy as jmowreader did, it proves that this new bullet innovation is about as useful as tits on a boar hog. I don't think it needs to be banned...it will die a quick death on its own merits.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. Seems to me the spin would almost stop as soon as the pieces spread.

I have CRS when it comes to high school math but it seems I remember something about the moment of inertia moving away from the axis, kind of the opposite of a spinning skater pulling their arms in speeds them up.

I don't see the point.

[spin]

45. Other multiple projectile rounds are available and have been for years. ...

None have really impressed me and I doubt that this one will either.

For self defense I'll just stick with my 12 gauge coach gun loaded with buckshot or one of my revolvers loaded with 125 grain jacketed hollow point ammo in .38+P or .357 Magnum caliber.

[onethatcares]

48. just maybe

we could petition the DoD to include this round as part of the F-35. That will make that plane more of a waste of money than it already is, and is projected to be.

Quite frankly, I'm about tired of us killing things all the time.

[Vashta Nerada]

49. Pffft. Rocket launchers are the way to go.

[RKP5637]

52. Sad ...

_1024

[doc03]

56. If the guvment can't infringe on my right to keep and bare arms

why the hell can't I have a nuke damn it.

[spin]

63. I never known a gun owner who had any desire to own a nuke. ...

That's strange since I know a LOT of gun owners.

[doc03]

64. Well why can't I at least have a functioning

surface to air missile. With all these UFO reports I need to protect my property and family.
I also need a dozen hand grenades, in case I get attacked by zombies. There is no reason I can't have a 150 round magazine for my AR-15.

[spin]

66. The weapons you describe are used by military forces in combat. ...

A surface to air missile would only be useful if you planned to launch a terrorist attack. The idea of needing to own such a weapon for defense against a UFO is ridiculous even if UFOs do exist. If they do and are piloted by space aliens, the technology they possess is so far advanced that your surface to air missile would have as much effect on their craft as an arrow fired at a tank.

A hand grenade would be a poor choice of a weapon to use for home defense or even to stop an attack by a street criminal. If you throw a hand grenade at someone, it is wise not to be too close.

While 100 round magazines are available for your AR-15, I don't believe anyone has manufactured a 150 round magazine for sale. High cap magazines are more of a toy than a useful accessory as they commonly cause firearms to jam. The average shooter with some practice can change a 20 or 30 round magazine on an AR-i5 faster than he can clear a jam.

As I have said I have know a lot of gun owners. I have only known one that owned a 100 round magazine and that was for a .22 caliber rifle. If I remember correctly it jammed several times when he shot it on the range.

Most firearm owners support reasonable gun laws and do not wish to own weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons. They see no need to own surface to air missiles or hand grenades. The exceptions might be members of a terrorist groups or some off the wall militia organizations who plan to launch a revolution to overthrow our government.

For some odd reason it seems popular for those who favor draconian gun control to try to insult gun owners. It's humorous and somewhat infantile and I see no real problem with those who do. Of course gun owners also stereotype and insult gun control advocates, so it goes both ways.

I tend to be a polite individual who finds all these insults harmless but I also feel that if our nation is ever to make any progress on improving our gun laws, both sides need to learn to treat each other with some respect. It doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon.

[egold2604]

57. Smaller bullets will disable, not kill an enemy resulting in two solders helping him

Most of the new NATO rounds are not known for their stopping power. Instead, they wound the enemy which will result in at least two other enemy combatants helping the wounded solder. If that solder is killed outright, the others can continue fighting.

[aikoaiko]

61. It appears the anti-gunners are getting hot and bothered the most.

[Hoyt]

68. No, the gunners are off fondling their weapons in anticipation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Well, at least more efficient means of murder aren't "woo".

[WillyT]

70. Yeah... It's All Science, For The Advancement Of The Species...

Ironic no ???

[lonestarnot]

69. Oh yeah.