HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » A discussion of rifle amm...

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 12:31 AM

A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers.

A poster in one of the M855-ban threads made the following comment, and I think it is worth discussing at length.

" i would like to have a discussion that looks at pros and cons in these situations.
banning rifle ammunition is not at the top of my list for sure. I never actually thought about it until this thread.
But there is no discussion around what lives could be saved or not saved."


We can approach this topic from the perspective of police officer murders (the BATFE's stated rationale for the proposed ban on some popular .223 ammunition), or from the perspective of rifle murders in general.

Police officer murders. One way to approach this question is to look at the police officer murders, and the ability of pretty much any centerfire rifle to shoot through soft body armor like Saran Wrap.

The best resource for understanding the threat to police officers is the annual FBI report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. From this report, we see that in 2013, 27 police officers were murdered in the United States. Of those, the table of types of weapon used shows that all rifles combined accounted for 5 murders. Eighteen officers were murdered with handguns, and three with shotguns.

Of those five officers murdered with rifles, two were murdered with .223 rifles of any type.

Table 41 reveals exactly zero deaths occurred in 2013 because the victim's body armor was penetrated. To reiterate, not one single officer died in 2013 from having her/his vest penetrated by *any* caliber firearm.

In fact, the same table shows that only 3 officers have been killed since 2004 by any .223 or 5.56x45mm round penetrating any type of vest. One death occurred in 2004, one in 2008, and one in 2011, and there is no indication that any of those involved M855 or rifle-resistant armor. During the same time period, 7 officers were murdered through their vests using deer hunting calibers (.30-30 Winchester, 7mm, .308, or .30-06), 5 were murdered through their vests using 7.62x39mm, and 385 were murdered with ordinary pistols and revolvers (almost all of which involved hits to unprotected areas).

Finally, to understand this discussion, it helps to understand body armor ratings. The current National Institutes of Justice armor ratings are as follows, increasing in both protection and discomfort/bulk as you go higher:

Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor - NIJ Standard-0101.06

NIJ Level IIA (soft armor) - rated to stop slow 9mm, .40 Smith & Wesson (handgun rounds)
NIJ Level II (soft armor) - rated to stop fast 9mm, slow .357 (handgun rounds)
NIJ Level IIIA (soft armor) - rated to stop .357 Sig, .44 mag (handgun rounds)
NIJ Level III (usually hard armor) - rated to stop steel jacketed 147gr 7.62x51mm at 2780 ft/sec (substantial rifle round)
NIJ Level IV (hard armor) - rated to stop full power rifle shooting armor piercing ammunition (166gr .30-06/7.62x63mm tungsten-core AP at 2880 ft/sec)

For context, M855 is a 62-grain, copper jacketed, steel-capped lead core .22-caliber bullet at about 2980 ft/sec out of a typical civilian-length barrel.

Note that any armor rated IIIA or below is not rated to stop any rifle. Most police officers wear Level IIIA, which is rated to stop the threat they are likely to face (concealable handguns in pistol/revolver calibers). Some officers add Level III hard inserts in the armor that protect the chest from torso hits with lower powered rifles like .223 and 7.62x39mm (as well as .308), but these plates are heavy and hot. SWAT officers typically wear Level III hard armor (external) or Level IV, which will stop full-on military armor piercing rounds from a .30-06, but they don't have to patrol all day wearing it.

Looking at the above figures, it is obvious that the number of annual police officer deaths that would be averted by banning M855 is zero. .223 is rarely used to murder police officers, and in the rare event it is, it rarely involves vest penetration. If vest is involved, NIJ Level IIIA or below won't stop *any* .223 (or pretty much any other rifle round), and NIJ Level III or IV hard body armor will stop M855 just like it stops 7.62x51mm steel jacketed FMJ. True armor piercing .223/5.56mm rounds (tungsten core M995) would probably penetrate Level III hard armor, but has long been banned, is not affected by this proposal, and has probably never been used to murder a single police officer in the United States.

Murder in general. The other way to address this question is to look at murder in general. The best source for this information is the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, particularly Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon.

According to the UCR, there were 12,253 murders reported to the FBI in 2013 in the United States. According to Table 20, all rifles combined accounted for 285 of them. Back in the late 1980s, I recall the BATF Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Survey might have broken things down more by caliber, but those numbers are now dated and don't shed much light on the current discussion. I have them archived in my journal from the old DU and can dig them up if anybody wants them.

Still, we can certainly narrow it down based on what we know of U.S. rifle ownership. Of that 285, some large portion is committed with .22 rimfires due to their ubiquity, low noise signature, handiness/concealability, or whatever. The remainder are committed with centerfires, which are more powerful than rimfires but also heavier, louder, bulkier, and more costly. By far the most popular centerfire rifle caliber in the United States is .223 Remington, the caliber under discussion here. As I recall, the next most popular centerfire caliber in terms of annual rounds fired are 7.62x39mm, .308 Winchester, .30-06, and .30-30, followed by a bevy of more narrowly focused hunting calibers like .243, .270, the 7mm's, and so on, but no one disputes that .223 is by far the most popular centerfire rifle caliber in U.S. homes. For the sake of argument, let's say 100 murders/yr are committed with .223, 100 with 7.62x39mm, and 85 with everything else; this undoubtedly overestimates both .223 and 7.62x39mm (the old YCGIS data put rimfires at almost half of rifle homicides, I think), but it's probably within a factor of two or so of the true number, and overestimation presents the strongest possible case for the gun-control side, so let's run with that figure for now and see where it goes.

.223 Remington ammunition (aka 5.56x45mm) is a .22 centerfire that shoots small bullets weighing between 40 to 77 grains (2.6 to 5.0 grams) at deer-rifle velocities. By far the most common in general use is 55 grain (3.6 grams), which splits the difference between the light 40-grain small game rounds and the heavier 77-grain long range rounds, and is mostly what you'll find at Walmart or sold as inexpensive target/practice ammo. Based on its overwhelming prevalence, it's reasonable to expect that 80%-90% of murders using .223 are with 55-grain FMJ/JHP/SP. Let's say 80%; that leaves 20 murders with all other weights of .223 rounds.

M855 is a 62-grain load, the extra mass over 55-grain helping it retain velocity better at range (which is why it out-penetrates 55-grain at 600 meters; it is more streamlined and has higher sectional density, so it doesn't slow down as quickly from air resistance). It's by far the most popular of the longer range .223 rounds, so let's assume that 75% of non-55gr murders are with M855. That's 15 murders, out of 12,253 murders annually (and remember, we are overestimating the case here).

Of that 15, how many would have survived if they had been shot with a 55 to 77 grain .223 that wasn't M855? Ironically, although all rifle rounds are quite lethal, M855 has been the subject of harsh criticism (also here) over its perceived lack of lethality in combat, which is why it's popular as a civilian target and practice round but much less so as a defensive or law enforcement round. In short, even if a ban on M855 magically made it vanish completely, to be replaced by ordinary $5/box 55-grain lead core FMJ, it would make no difference whatsoever. M855 is no more lethal than any other .22 centerfire rifle round, and (as discussed above) is stopped by the same body armor that stops other .223.

Addendum: For those who don't have firsthand experience with .223, here's a comparison that may help put this discussion in perspective:



The cartridge on the left is .308 Winchester (7.62mm), a popular hunting and target shooting round that was originally developed for the U.S. military; NIJ Level III body armor is rated to stop a steel jacketed bullet from this cartridge. In the center is a .223 Remington (5.56mm), the most popular civilian centerfire rifle cartridge in the United States; M855 is one particular flavor of this cartridge. On the right is an AA battery to show scale.

Disclaimer: I am a casual-competitive shooter who enjoys shooting a .223 rifle and keeps one at home in lieu of the traditional 12-gauge, so that's my angle.

120 replies, 34021 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers. (Original post)
benEzra Feb 2015 OP
braddy Feb 2015 #1
Adrahil Feb 2015 #2
benEzra Feb 2015 #4
Adrahil Feb 2015 #5
Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #3
benEzra Mar 2015 #6
virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #7
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #8
benEzra Mar 2015 #10
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #37
benEzra Mar 2015 #39
sarisataka Mar 2015 #41
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #47
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #48
beevul Mar 2015 #49
benEzra Mar 2015 #54
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #60
benEzra Mar 2015 #65
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #67
beevul Mar 2015 #68
benEzra Mar 2015 #72
samsingh Mar 2015 #76
DonP Mar 2015 #80
benEzra Mar 2015 #85
Straw Man Mar 2015 #16
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #22
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #46
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #58
Straw Man Mar 2015 #59
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #61
Straw Man Mar 2015 #62
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #64
Straw Man Mar 2015 #66
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #69
Straw Man Mar 2015 #70
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #73
Straw Man Mar 2015 #74
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #75
Straw Man Mar 2015 #78
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #81
Straw Man Mar 2015 #83
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #86
Straw Man Mar 2015 #87
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #91
Straw Man Mar 2015 #92
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #95
Straw Man Mar 2015 #96
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #99
Straw Man Mar 2015 #104
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #110
Straw Man Mar 2015 #112
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #115
Straw Man Mar 2015 #116
benEzra Mar 2015 #93
discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #94
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #98
benEzra Mar 2015 #107
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #108
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #114
benEzra Mar 2015 #119
benEzra Mar 2015 #118
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #111
benEzra Mar 2015 #117
msanthrope Mar 2015 #103
jimmy the one Apr 2015 #120
blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #79
benEzra Mar 2015 #71
Straw Man Mar 2015 #63
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #90
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #109
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #113
benEzra Mar 2015 #40
samsingh Mar 2015 #77
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #82
Straw Man Mar 2015 #84
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #89
jimmy the one Mar 2015 #97
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #100
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #101
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #102
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #105
ileus Mar 2015 #9
pablo_marmol Mar 2015 #11
NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #12
blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #13
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2015 #14
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #42
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2015 #45
benEzra Mar 2015 #17
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #18
blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #19
sarisataka Mar 2015 #20
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #21
blueridge3210 Mar 2015 #23
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #24
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #25
Electric Monk Mar 2015 #26
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #27
beevul Mar 2015 #28
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #30
AtheistCrusader Mar 2015 #106
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #29
benEzra Mar 2015 #31
Electric Monk Mar 2015 #32
Duckhunter935 Mar 2015 #33
ileus Mar 2015 #34
benEzra Mar 2015 #35
discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #36
beevul Mar 2015 #38
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #55
beevul Mar 2015 #56
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #57
NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #43
benEzra Mar 2015 #44
DonP Mar 2015 #53
Taitertots Mar 2015 #50
tularetom Mar 2015 #51
benEzra Mar 2015 #52
benEzra Mar 2015 #88

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 01:22 AM

1. Thanks for the facts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:42 PM

2. Banning M855 is kind of silly, but....

 

It's a mediocre cartridge anyway. There are MUCH better cartridges for 5.56 mm ammo. whether you are looking to shoot bullseye, hunt, or just plink.

But then again, the BATFE has never been one to make good, reasoned decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:39 AM

4. A lot of people who shoot M855

are competitive shooters who use it as a practice round, since it is cheaper than other high-ballistic-coefficient .223. As a defensive load, it is certainly inferior to any 55-77gr civilian softpoint or JHP, and inferior to plain old 55gr FMJ for that matter. As a cheap target load for shooting 300+ yards, though, it appears to be ideal. I once tried M855 in my old Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, but that rifle didn't group well enough to justify the extra cost over 55gr FMJ.

If this ban passes, I know Wolf Gold has a brass case 62gr FMJ that probably is ballistically similar, but it's likely more expensive, and I have no idea what kind of accuracy the latter would give.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:52 AM

5. I dunno....

 

I'v never gotten even average velocity out of M855. I get better groups with plain ole M193.... which is cheaper, BTW. Though I admit, I'm not a competitive shooter.

I haven;t bought Wolf ammo in a long time. Is it still available, given the sanctions on Russia? Never really cared frot he cheap Russian stuff.

My go-to practice/recreational round is plain ole M193 (Israeli I think) in my 1/7 barrels.

I don't think M855 is much of a loss.

But there is no good reason to ban it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:30 PM

3. Thanks for the post, interesting

 

Always nice to gain knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:12 PM

6. The Fraternal Order of Police has chimed in.

Police union: 5.56mm ammo ban unnecessary

The article garbles a few details, but gets the gist of the issue: M855 is no greater threat to LE than any other centerfire rifle round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:15 PM

7. Great Post Ben..

Too bad it will be ignored by those who need to read it and comprehend it the most. Facts always get in the way of faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:51 PM

8. rock paper scissors

Reuben, Ezra on bpv's & 223's.
Somehow I missed this, just now reading it, the title likely gave me less interest, thinking it gunny. Since I'm at the tail end of today's session I can't give much reply, not that I much will in the future.
Just a side issue on semantics I suppose, didn't notice 'kevlar' mentioned once, surprising a bit but semantics. I have a level IIA (police surplus 1995, oldish but???, $180), use it more as a riding vest for motorcycle, could help if an oncoming car veers - Tractor trailer crushes car, car crushes motorcycle, motorcycle crushes baby carriage - M/C's kinda low on the pecking order. And I call the insert a 'rifle plate'.

Pasco's statements give fuel to critics who allege the bullet ban is merely a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to render AR-15 assault rifles useless.
Supporters of the proposed ban, however, feel that newer handguns available to shoot 5.56mm ammo increase the threat to police.


Good to the first sentence ban, agree on the latter. For why, The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location. Seems to me this would be supercharged. Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.

Oh btw, came across an issue of AR15 I think it was, which backed me up on that discussion we had about using bird shot rather than buck for home defense with a bushmaster, couple months back.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 08:04 PM

10. Level III hard armor should stop multiple .223/5.56mm

unless they impacted exactly the same spot on the armor, since NIJ Level III is rated to stop steel-jacketed .308/7.62x51mm. That could only be done with careful shooting from a braced rifle and a perfectly stationary, compliant target at close range. It could work in the movies, but would be pretty darn unlikely in real life, particularly with a "pistol" without an actual shoulder stock. Compare the cross-sectional area of a .223 bullet dimple in hard armor to the cross-sectional area of the un-armored vital areas. No centerfire rifle whatsoever is stopped by IIIA or below.

There's also the issue that .22 caliber bullets penetrate pretty well at rifle velocities, but you are talking about pistol-length barrels, which greatly reduce muzzle energy and penetration ability compared to rifles. Keep in mind that energy (which correlates to penetration ability) is a function of the square of the velocity. M855 was designed for a 20" barrel, and the general consensus is that it pretty much sucks for anything but target shooting out of even a 14.5", never mind the sub-10-inch "pistols".



http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093

There's also the issue that any centerfire rifle from the .22's up through .308 penetrate at close range like M855 does (e.g. penetrate IIIA and below like Saran Wrap, won't penetrate III). What exactly do you intend to ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:24 PM

37. green bullets

ezra: Level III hard armor should stop multiple .223/5.56mm unless they impacted exactly the same spot on the armor ... That could only be done with careful shooting from a braced rifle and a perfectly stationary, compliant target at close range.

... you're right handgun muzzle velocity is less & kinetic energy about 65% of one coming off an AR15, but with precision impacts several handgun .223s could still pierce the bpv; additional fear is that with a handgun an undetected shooter can get much closer to police (& all soft targets), thus compensating somewhat for the less energy on impact from the AR15.
It seems that up close, repeated braced pistol .223s would be more accurate than repeated braced .223s from an AR15 fired from a distance, due external ballistics from distance (or could be).
The interval between braced rapid fire handgun bullet hits could be what, a fifth of a second to a half second? momentum transfer from one or two 55 grainers usually isn't enough to push a man off, mainly his own reflex reaction, so dunno about much change in a stationary, perhaps sitting, target, after a second or two.
And up close, shooter's aim is better &, as with all pistols, makes for a better shot for unprotected parts; solid hitting an unprotected part up close with a .223 is generally either a delayed death sentence or an amputation.

ezra: No centerfire rifle whatsoever is stopped by IIIA or below.

(aside) Some could be stopped with a tangential incident angle, obliquely.

ezra: ..any centerfire rifle from the .22's up through .308 penetrate at close range like M855 does... What exactly do you intend to ban?

What the BATFE advises banning; I wasn't totally up to speed on this, in fact I schooled on it just this morning serendipitously via politifact: This was rated MOSTLY FALSE: Says "President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country ... with a ban on one of the most-used" assault rifle bullets. — Paul Bedard - wapo reporter http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/04/paul-bedard/columnist-obama-presses-gun-control-t/

(politifact): ...he’s talking about the ATF’s plan for one particular type of bullet -- a 5.56 mm "green tip." It is found in SS109 and M855 cartridges, and it’s one of the more popular types of ammunition in America, experts told us. But this February, the ATF announced a proposal to remove an exemption that allowed gun owners to use this particular kind of ammunition. The agency’s reasoning? It can pierce the sort of body armor often worn by police, and it can be fired from a handgun.
The ammunition isn’t new, nor is its ability to pierce body armor. What is new is that gun manufacturers are making handguns that use a 5.56 mm "green tip."
That, ATF says, violates the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 that aimed to ban armor piercing bullets.
"The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers," the ATF wrote.. "These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges."


Final concern is, what is the green tip bullet needed for? the armed tyranny invasion?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:59 PM

39. Oh my....let's discuss.

I hardly know where to start, so let's take this sequentially.

"with a handgun an undetected shooter can get much closer to police (& all soft targets), thus compensating somewhat for the less energy on impact from the AR15."

An AR may be a small caliber rifle, but it is a bulky rifle, quite deep and wide through the receiver. I measured my AR last night; with a magazine inserted, it is almost a foot high to the top of the optic and would be two feet long even with the barrel and handguard chopped to a feeble 7.5". No matter what kind of coat you wear, that's going to be pretty darn obvious.

"It seems that up close, repeated braced pistol .223s would be more accurate than repeated braced .223s from an AR15 fired from a distance, due external ballistics from distance (or could be)."

I seriously doubt it. Cut-down rifle "pistols" may be fun range toys, but lack of accuracy and shootability, along with their greatly reduced power, are why they are range toys. They are immensely loud, they shoot big flames, and they are not nearly as stable a platform as a rifle is---a lot like their smoothbore counterpart, the pistol-grip-only shotgun.

"The interval between braced rapid fire handgun bullet hits could be what, a fifth of a second to a half second? momentum transfer from one or two 55 grainers usually isn't enough to push a man off, mainly his own reflex reaction, so dunno about much change in a stationary, perhaps sitting, target, after a second or two. And up close, shooter's aim is better &, as with all pistols, makes for a better shot for unprotected parts; solid hitting an unprotected part up close with a .223 is generally either a delayed death sentence or an amputation."

I can tell you have never shot a rifle-caliber stockless "pistol". You are talking about trying to put two or three bullets through the same hole a couple dozen feet away, after handicapping yourself with a stockless, wobbly goofball of a firearm that kicks like a .30 caliber and has the muzzle flash of a .50 even though it's a .22. The recoil of the first shot will walk the muzzle off that dime-sized spot you are trying to shoot.

Consider this: in the last eleven years, exactly 3 police officers were murdered through the vest using any .223 from any firearm. During the same period, 7 were shot through the vest using deer hunting calibers, and 385 were shot in the head or between armor panels using concealable non-rifle-based pistols. Your fantasy of bulky, obvious rifle-based pistols being more of a threat than actual pistols and revolvers is just that, a fantasy.

"What is new is that gun manufacturers are making handguns that use a 5.56 mm 'green tip.' "

Baloney. Handguns shooting .223 Remington have been around since the 1970s, and AR-15-based pistols in .223 have been on the civilian market since 1992. The first one, the Olympic Arms OA-93, was smaller than the ones on the market today due to the lack of a buffer tube, which it did away with by using a proprietary upper. Just like the ones still sold today, it was an impractical, goofball range toy and hard to hit anything with.

Olympic Arms OA-93, 1992


Olympic Arms OA-98 (1998)


That, ATF says, violates the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 that aimed to ban armor piercing bullets. "The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers," the ATF wrote.. "These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges."

Since the law in question states that lead-core and partial-lead-core ammunition is not armor-piercing, and since the M855/SS109 is 80% lead by weight with only a tiny bit of steel in the core (about the mass of two BB's) and is classified as non-armor-piercing by the military, the BATFE jumped the shark hard by going after this now. Along with the M855 announcement, they published a "framework" document claiming much broader powers to ban ammunition than the law granted. Specifically, they have discarded the lead-core exemption, they have limited the .22-caliber-jacket-mass exemption to rimfires under 40 grains even though the law exempts all .22's from that rule, and they appear to be going by a new standard that boils down to "Can it penetrate a non-rifle-resistant vest, and is there any multi-shot handgun that can fire it." The Democratic authors of the ban back in 1986 were emphatic that the law could and should never be interpreted in this way, and this interpretation violates the clear text of the statute, so I see this as a huge miscalculation by the BATFE and gun control advocates. The exact same rationale being used to ban M855 can ban M193, or bimetal-jacketed .223 plinking ammo, or .243 Winchester FMJ, for that matter.

"Final concern is, what is the green tip bullet needed for? the armed tyranny invasion?"

I have rarely laughed out loud at a post on DU, but I laughed at this one. M855 is the same bullet that the media has been decrying for years as "not lethal enough for military use" due to its lousy performance from shorter barrels and its limited wounding ability, but it's now some kind of mythic super-ammo with the Green Tip of Power?

M855 is not armor-piercing, but rather plain ball (green tip); armor piercing is black tip (M995). If you shoot a plate of AR500 steel armor (commonly used for shooting range targets in addition to its military uses), M193 and M855 will disintegrate whereas M995 will punch a hole through it. M995 will also punch through NIJ Level III hard armor, whereas M193 and M855 will not.

62-grain M855 FMJ is popular among civilian shooters because it (1) it has a higher ballistic coefficient than 55-grain M193 FMJ, making it superior for target shooting out to 600 yards or so, and (2) it is cheap, because the military is ditching it since it doesn't work all that well. Although listening to the silliness in the last week or so, I wouldn't be surprised if some percentage of buyers are gullible enough to actually think it is some sort of AP...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 07:20 PM

41. Take a rather pedestrian bullet

Put a dab of green paint on the tip and it becomes a super killer bullet capable of piercing any armor known to man.

I hear it also has seeking and tracking abilities that allow repeated shots to unerringly strike the same point regardless of the gun or shooter's skill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 11:53 AM

47. Support your BATFE

ezra: An AR may be a small caliber rifle, but it is a bulky rifle, quite deep and wide through the receiver... No matter what kind of coat you wear, that's going to be pretty darn obvious.

Don't understand; that was my point.

ezra: Cut-down rifle "pistols" may be fun range toys, but lack of accuracy and shootability, along with their greatly reduced power.. They are immensely loud, they shoot big flames, and they are not nearly as stable a platform as a rifle is---

This is subjective. Depends on whether carefully aimed rifle fire, then from what distance, conditions. Up close handgun, as was the premise, I think the handgun will be potentially more damaging to cops wearing bpvs, but again it's quite subjective, on retrospect.

link: "What is new is that gun manufacturers are making handguns that use a 5.56 mm 'green tip.' "
ezra: Baloney. Handguns shooting .223 Remington have been around since the 1970s


I have to stand by how the BATFE sees it, since you may be more ammo savvy, but you are also more gun-biased.

I asked: "Final concern is, what is the green tip bullet needed for? the armed tyranny invasion?"

ezra: I have rarely laughed out loud at a post on DU, but I laughed at this one. M855 is the same bullet that the media has been decrying for years as "not lethal enough for military use" due to its lousy performance from shorter barrels and its limited wounding ability, but it's now some kind of mythic super-ammo with the Green Tip of Power?

I read this as 'non responsive'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 11:59 AM

48. suspended, fear of rabies

Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework
Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are "primarily intended for sporting purposes" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C).
The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study.
Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.


Rabid gun zealotry to the rescue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:19 PM

49. "Rabid gun zealotry to the rescue"

 

If that's what you call it when people angrily point out in comments to atf, that it is exceeding its authority.


Of course, you'd be just fine with atf exceeding its authority, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 07:22 PM

54. Pointing out facts is always "rabid gun zealotry" if those facts

happen to run counter to any proposal that attacks peaceable gun owners. Even if the benefit (as in this case) is demonstrably zero lives saved. Even if the bans in question are based on fundamental misunderstandings of armor specifications, bullet construction, and Federal firearms law. Even if entirely imaginary and demonstrably ludicrous scenarios are invoked as their rationale.

If a ban cannot be supported based on facts (number of officers killed annually with M855, penetration ability of M855 vs. other common rifle bullets, whether or not M855's core is "constructed entirely" of steel vs. being made mostly of lead), then make stuff up. If these made-up scenarios (magic pseudo-SBR's that don't recoil, magic shooters who can hit a dime several times in a second with a stockless pseudo-rifle but who can't shoot for shit otherwise, imaginary bullpup .223's not much bigger than a longslide 9mm) still don't support the ban, then accuse nonsupporters of being insane, sexually deviant, or evil.

And at the end of the day, if the Federal agency that proposed the ban says "hmmmm, maybe we need to reconsider this" and pulls back, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend this had nothing to do with any flaws in the ban. Because any proposal that restricts the rights of gun owners must be righteous and justifiable and must be defended at any cost.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 10:07 AM

60. at what point does nra idiocy offend reason

ezra: Pointing out facts is always "rabid gun zealotry" if those facts happen to run counter to any proposal that attacks peaceable gun owners

Spin, pseudo realism, sentence & paragraph from 2nd amendment mythology bible.
You use for support the word 'facts' while ignoring them. The 'rabid gun zealotry' I refer to is the FACT that, if this green tip ban were put to national referendum, it would probably garner more than 70% support, support to ban the bullet. 'Rabid Gun Zealotry' comes into play when ATF held it's 'comment period', which attracted oodles of gun zealots: The informal comment period will close March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments... the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework...

What could possibly be the reason for the predominance of 'comment period' opinions to go AGAINST the ban, when the predominance of public opinion in referendum would be FOR the ban? Rabid gun zealotry, or intensity; fed by nra & gun lobby propaganda & paranoia that some ancient right is being infringed upon.

So what we have is the tail wagging the dog - a small fraction of rabid fanatic gun owners opposing the ban egging on republican rightwing legislators, while support for the ban comes from some police organizations, the Obama govt, bureau of alcohol tobacco & firearms explosives, & most of our fellow democrats & democrat congress people (you do allege to be a democrat, I am not totally convinced).

fox: The proposed regulation would not prohibit owning the bullets, but it would stop anyone from manufacturing or importing them

Ha, I didn't know that. So tell me jokers how does your reasoning (cough) work? You could stock up prior to the ban date with boxes of armor piercing green tips, but you'd use them all up before the tyrranical Armageddon? ON WHAT? Why wouldn't 20 be a lifetime supply for a normal gun owner (not tyrannically minded).

Do you subscribe to the idiotic gunnut lunacy contained in the crux of the following? Although only a single bullet would be banned—M855 green tip or SS109 rounds with certain types of metal cores—and 168 others would still be allowed, gun groups say the proposal could be the beginning of bans on other bullets: It’s a blatant “power grab” that runs counter to the spirit of the Second Amendment, said mmmm Gun Owners of America. “They’re going to take out the gun by taking out the ammunition,” “If you have a gun that has no bullets in it, you can use it as a door stop or hit people over the head with it, but it’s basically no longer a gun.

At what point does this nra garbage cross the threshold of reason to even rabid gun owners? How long do you use an obsolete 2nd amendment to defend possession of such overkill, such lethal firepower, such utterly idiotic specious reasoning as the above? You all appear to adhere in lockstep with this far rightwing republican point of view.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:20 PM

65. Because M855 is lead-core *NON* AP, and if it can be designated AP under the new framework

then pretty much any full metal jacketed .223, or .243, or .308 rifle ammunition can be designated AP using the same framework.

I've been OK with the AP ban since it was passed in the 1980s, as I've pointed out here on DU since 2004 (and 5.56mm AP is indeed banned by that law, as I'm sure you know). But extending the AP ban to cover lead-core non-AP, even though the statute explicitly *excludes* lead-core ammo, turns the ban on its head.

To quote the law verbatim (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B)):

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


The "framework" document that ATF has since withdrawn would have gutted § 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) by pretending it applied only to rimfires under 40 grains, in contravention of the statute, and ignoring the "designed and intended for use in a handgun" language. More of a problem though is pretending that the "core...constructed entirely" language doesn't exist, because that opens the door to ban inexpensive bimetal-jacketed 55gr .223 range ammo, or plain 55gr M193 FMJ since it penetrates body armor as well as M855, or any FMJ up through .308 for that matter, including steel-jacketed 7.62x51mm.

The Dems who wrote this law wrote it to ban handgun ammo that would allow a .38 or 9mm to penetrate like a rifle round, not to ban rifle rounds, and they were insistent that it would and could never be stretched to ban rifle ammo (including M855 ball, which was on the market and which the law was worded to exempt). Gun owners didn't complain too much when it was stretched to include 5.56mm AP (M995) and 7.62x51mm AP, and we didn't even complain a lot when 5.45mm 7N6 was banned, but going after popular lead-core ball in .223 was a first-order shark jump.

As to the green tip, M855 ball is painted green to allow it to be distinguished from older 55gr M193 ball, because the old pre-A2 M16's had a slow 1:12" twist barrel and didn't stabilize the longer 62-grain loads very well resulting in poor accuracy. But it is ball (green tip), not AP (black tip).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:42 PM

67. angry gun owners win

wash post: How angry gun owners shouted down a ban on armor-piercing bullets

but first, the good news: Last year, the ATF successfully banned Russian-made 7N6 bullets on the grounds they were armor-piercing. Some gun-rights groups objected, but that ruling stood.

LOOP HOLE ALERT! LOOP HOLE ALERT! Seward said the proposed "green tip" ammo ban came from the ATF's decision to review all ammo exemptions to the 1986 law. The agency had seen a recent increase in the number of "sporting purposes" exemptions requested by ammunition manufacturers. From 1986 to 2011, the agency received "very few" exemption requests, Seward said. But it has received 30 requests since then.

the bad news: The reaction?" ATF spokeswoman Danette Seward said. "All you have to do is go to our Facebook page to see the reaction."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/10/how-angry-gun-owners-shouted-down-a-ban-on-armor-piercing-bullets/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:54 PM

68. What a misleading title.

 

"How angry gun owners shouted down a ban on armor-piercing bullets"

What a misleading title.


That title SHOULD read like this:

"How angry gun owners shouted down a proposed ban on armor piercing ammo that doesn't meet the legal threshold of the term "armor piercing"."


Because that is the truth of the matter.


One can only conclude that you would have supported the ban, which makes you by definition, an extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 06:18 PM

72. The only person angry in this thread is you.

The ATF made the right decision in pulling the proposal, for the reasons I outlined in the OP. M855 is no more dangerous than any other .223, or .243, or .308 (and semiauto range-toy "pistols" exist in those calibers too, JSYK).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #72)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:46 AM

76. Jimmy makes some excellent points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #76)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 12:40 PM

80. Hard to see with his hat on though.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #76)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:23 PM

85. Such as?

Again, M855 doesn't penetrate body armor any more than other small- and intermediate-caliber rifle ammunition does, AFAIK it's never been used to murder a police officer through the vest and is no more likely to be than any other small rifle round, and it is stopped by even the lowest level of rifle-resistant armor out there. What I see is a bunch of hand-waving that M855 is AP even though it's not, and some pretty silly assertions about how concealable and shootable stockless AR pistols are in dynamic situations.

M855 is no more a threat to police or the public than any other rifle ammunition is, and is less lethal than most. I don't see either of those statements as refutable.

And to address one new point he brings up in the above post:

"From 1986 to 2011, the agency received "very few" exemption requests, Seward said. But it has received 30 requests since then. "

I suspect that requests for exemption have been increasing because companies have been looking to create boutique lead-free alternatives to traditional ammo (the Army just went down this road with M855A1) just as the BATFE has been stretching the statute to cover more and more rifle ammunition. Unfortunately, most of the realistic alternatives to lead-core rifle ammunition fall under the AP bullet ban, even if they don't make a difference in penetration. Right now the gun control lobby in the odd position of saying that ammo containing lead should be banned because lead, and ammo containing anything other than lead should be banned because it's AP. The skeptical side of me thinks that may be deliberate.

This still doesn't excuse the BATFE jumping the shark and trying to ban lead-core M855, though, since it is clearly exempted by its majority lead content, isn't AP, and isn't a safety/crime issue, and this whole brouhaha certainly has me rethinking my prior support of the current AP bullet ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:43 AM

16. Eh?

For why, The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location. Seems to me this would be supercharged. Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.

Am I reading you correctly? Are you claiming that .223 fired in a handgun will create less recoil than when fired in a rifle? That would appear to defy the laws of physics. Please explain, as well as your assumption that a semi-auto pistol is capable of faster and more accurate fire than a semi-auto rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 05:46 PM

22. I doubt you will get a response

 

That sounds like such a bull**** statement that it would be impossible to back that claim up. I am sure he thought he was in the other group where his bull**** facts are not, and cannot be challenged with actual facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 11:20 AM

46. you lose

duckhunter: I doubt you will get a response

You lose; but you prompted my reply so you have some wiggle room. I try not to reply to idiotic concerns expressed by unprincipled adversaries who can't read straight & use fractured reasoning to pose manipulated concerns.

duckhunter: That sounds like such a bull**** statement that it would be impossible to back that claim up.

Observe duckhunter, jimmy perform the impossible.

I first wrote: The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location... Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.

straw man replied: Am I reading you correctly? Are you claiming that .223 fired in a handgun will create less recoil than when fired in a rifle?

Evidently yes & no as to reading correctly, it's comprehension that's your problem; for the .223 fired from a handgun will tend to have less recoil than (much) larger grain bullets fired in rifles (like an ak47), thus giving higher recoil due the larger bullets. Duh. Accuracy suffers the higher the recoil.

straw man: That would appear to defy the laws of physics. Please explain, as well as your assumption that a semi-auto pistol is capable of faster and more accurate fire than a semi-auto rifle

Up close, I would think so; and up close was part of the premise - being more able to conceal & get better shots, rather than a rifle from a distance, where external ballistics would affect the shot much more than a close range pistol shot. And as you now understand, I did not violate any law of physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 07:00 AM

58. Fail, as this is not what you

 

stated in your first post on the subject. Those goalpost must get heavy after awhile.

New version

Evidently yes & no as to reading correctly, it's comprehension that's your problem; for the .223 fired from a handgun will tend to have less recoil than (much) larger grain bullets fired in rifles (like an ak47), thus giving higher recoil due the larger bullets. Duh. Accuracy suffers the higher the recoil.


original version

Good to the first sentence ban, agree on the latter. For why, The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location. Seems to me this would be supercharged. Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.


What larger bullets were mentioned? the round being discussed was the .223 and what you stated was just plain wrong and you had to change your wording to try and put things right. Just admit you screwed up and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 09:16 AM

59. Comprehension?

I've never seen such a bunch of back-pedaling bullshit in my life. AK-47? The entire previous discussion was .223. Up close? Distance was not part of the original discussion either. You were comparing the same round in long guns and handguns. Now you're trying to pretend it was something else.

If that's what you originally meant (and I very much doubt it was), then the failure in communication was entirely yours. Comprehension my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #59)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 10:58 AM

61. girlie men could use them

straw man: I've never seen such a bunch of back-pedaling bullshit in my life. AK-47? The entire previous discussion was .223.

Soak your head you make me ill; your error is 'thinking' I referred to only an m16 or ar15 et al when I wrote: Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles. I was (generally) NOT including the m16 or ar15 here - I have often written how light the recoil of the m16 & ar15.

strawman: You were comparing the same round in long guns and handguns. Now you're trying to pretend it was something else.

No, wrong. I was noting the difference between guns with light recoil due the .223, vs guns with heavier bullets with larger recoil which thus would not be able to fire several shots in succession into the same spot on a bullet vest due rifle rise after one shot, that's a fact knucklehead. That you read too much into it, using your strained reasoning, & discount the clarification, is expected from unscrupulous you.

review what I wrote & see how it makes sense: The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location. Seems to me this would be supercharged. Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.

One probably COULD do this with an ar15 at close range, even at range I suppose, but I was not including the ar15 as a rifle with 'higher recoil'. Proof follows, I wrote: It seems that up close, repeated braced pistol .223s would be more accurate than repeated braced .223s from an AR15 fired from a distance... thus I am allowing for ability for ar15 to do it, whereas 'higher recoil' rifles could not, due rifle rise.

straw man: If that's what you originally meant (and I very much doubt it was), then the failure in communication was entirely yours. Comprehension my ass.

As I said, I've previously argued the light recoil of the m16 & ar15, & contrasted to heavier bullets & recoil. So if what you were to say to be true, I'd be arguing against what I've written previously.

mar 2013: The m1 garand has a greater recoil which of course generally hinders accurate fire. The m1 does have a greater range due the heavier bullet. The m16 has little recoil, a girlie man could use it easily.
The m16(ar15) 0.223 (5.56) tends to fragment into two after it enters a body, creating two separate bullet paths, which can.. cause grotesque wounds.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=114551

sep 2014: If the rifle or shotgun gives one 'bone jarring recoil' then it's the wrong gun for the person, he/she should get another gun with less recoil (& recoil concern is not applicable to m16 or ar15/bushmaster - aks ok, but a bone jarring recoil is 'desirable' in a criminals hands). http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153543

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 12:16 PM

62. Nonsense.

As I said, I've previously argued the light recoil of the m16 & ar15, & contrasted to heavier bullets & recoil. So if what you were to say to be true, I'd be arguing against what I've written previously.
Let me point out that your wording was "higher recoil rifles," not "higher recoil rounds." Nowhere did you mention any round other than .223. The failure is yours, my friend.

Now you're claiming that you were comparing larger-caliber rifles with .223 in a handgun? Apples and oranges, my friend. In any case, .223 in a handgun is going to be much harder to manage than 7.62x39 in a long gun -- the AK rounds you referenced.

Interesting that you're bringing up the fragmentation of .223 rounds. If anything, that renders them less effective against body armor.

I think benEzra has adequately dealt with all this nonsense: I refer readers to his posts above for the actual facts of the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:05 PM

64. forget about level III bpv?

straw man: Let me point out that your wording was "higher recoil rifles," not "higher recoil rounds." Nowhere did you mention any round other than .223. The failure is yours...

I think I see what might be the problem; you are dismissing what we are shooting into, the level III bullet vest which ezra noted in OP, & to which I was using as how the .223 might 'infiltrate' it. This has a bearing on how I worded the paragraph. Ezra more or less contended level III bpv impenetrable by the green tip:

ezra wrote in OP: If vest is involved, NIJ Level IIIA or below won't stop *any* .223 (or pretty much any other rifle round), and NIJ Level III or IV hard body armor will stop M855 just like it stops 7.62x51mm steel jacketed FMJ.

I then countered that with rapid fire ability, due relatively low recoil of a handgun firing greentips at a fixed spot, a couple could penetrate level III in same spot. And, how other rifles with higher recoil - gained by heavier bullets - could not penetrate level III bpvs by concentrating fire on one spot, due to rifle rise.

ezra's OP graph also noted: NIJ Level III (usually hard armor) - rated to stop steel jacketed 147gr 7.62x51mm at 2780 ft/sec (substantial rifle round)

Note where the ak47 (I believe) bullet noted as a substantial rifle round, as being stoppable by a level III bpv, thus providing a basis for my paragraph that a .223 fired rapidly at one spot could penetrate level III while a rifle with higher recoil, as the ak47 147 grainer, one could not rapid fire 3 shots on one spot, due rifle rise.
I was addressing the level III bullet vest as much as the .223 green tip bullet in what I wrote, they are intertwined.

again: The level III bpv could stop one 223 perhaps, but due the quick fire capability of a handgun with .223 bullets, with little recoil, holding the handgun steady & braced could allow shooter to quickfire perhaps 3 bullets into a body wearing a level III bpv, thus concentrating rapidly 3 bullets into the one location. Seems to me this would be supercharged. Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles.

So, my hypothesis is that a handgun shooting a greentip bullet rapid fire might penetrate a level III, while 'even' higher recoil rifles firing rapid fire could not, due rifle rise; thus I was suggesting another reason to ban the greentip.

On retrospect I do concede to ezra et al that, in this case about concentrated fire, my own reasoning a bit strained as well, 3 shots rapid fire etc... to tack on an added incentive to ban.
Well, it doesn't invalidate my support for the ATF ban, nor does it in any way make your arguments right.

straw man: I think benEzra has adequately dealt with all this nonsense: I refer readers to his posts above for the actual facts of the matter.

I would suggest you concentrate your 'fire' upon the 'actual facts' ezra posted in the OP, about level III bullet vests, capabilities therein.

sm: Interesting that you're bringing up the fragmentation of .223 rounds. If anything, that renders them less effective against body armor.

I believe it's a peculiarity after hitting a soft target & short travelling, due the canellure (is it?). Hitting something hard might compress the bullet rendering it less inclined to fragment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:35 PM

66. More stuff.

due relatively low recoil of a handgun firing greentips at a fixed spot

A "fixed spot"? How is this achieved? Do you glue the handgun's muzzle to a spot on the vest? That's the only way you'll get that kind of repeatable impact.

So, my hypothesis is that a handgun shooting a greentip bullet rapid fire might penetrate a level III, while 'even' higher recoil rifles firing rapid fire could not, due rifle rise; thus I was suggesting another reason to ban the greentip.

Now your contention is clear -- it was not clear before, due to your vagueness and inaccurate word choices. However, your contention is still nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get that level of accuracy at speed from a .223 handgun, even at point blank distances. You're talking about "one ragged hole" accuracy, a Holy Grail even for scoped rifle shooters. The notion that someone could do that in a combat situation beggars belief. One pictures the assailant telling the police officer to hold still and stop shooting back so that he (the assailant) can line up his next shot. And even with these mythical three shots in rapid sequence, the notion that the armor would be compromised is baseless speculation. No, if this is what you're basing your ban-support on, your case is very, very weak.

I believe it's a peculiarity after hitting a soft target & short travelling, due the canellure (is it?). Hitting something hard might compress the bullet rendering it less inclined to fragment.

So your contention is that the bullet will fragment less on impact with a hard target than it does on impact with a soft target? Peculiar indeed. Remember that we're not talking about hollowpoints here. Do you have a reference for this? Perhaps you're thinking of the legendary "tumbling" of the .223 round on contact with a soft target, something that wouldn't be an issue with a hard target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 03:01 PM

69. odd bullet, but effective

straw man: So your contention is that the bullet will fragment less on impact with a hard target than it does on impact with a soft target? Peculiar indeed... Do you have a reference for this? Perhaps you're thinking of the legendary "tumbling" of the .223 round on contact with a soft target, something that wouldn't be an issue with a hard target.

I won't say that unequivocally, but that's my perception; I'll qualify with a 'head on' shot to a hard target, can't comment on obliques.
Seems like most all of the bullet is sucked into a black hole, satisfying E = mc2:

while penetration on auto glass and sheet steel is marginal, .223 projectiles will readily perforate and breach mild steel such as standard pepper poppers {~1/4' - 3/8" steel}, that pistol rounds will only slightly dimple. However, very little of the .223’s mass is retained, so after defeating mild steel, significant wound potential is severely diminished upon exit

Dr. Martin L. Fackler, ("Wounding Patterns of Military Rifles," Jan1989), that in tissue simulants such as ballistic gelatin, , the 55-grain, M-193 military bullet lost stability, yawed 90 degrees, flattened and broke at the cannelure after penetrating about four to five inches.
The forward portion of the bullet generally remained in one piece, accounting for 60% of its originally weight. The rear, or base portion of the bullet, broke into numerous fragments that may also penetrate tissue up to a depth of three inches.
However, as the range increases, the degree of bullet fragmentation and temporary cavitation decreases because terminal velocity diminishes. At 100 meters, Fackler observed that the bullet, upon penetrating tissue, breaks at the cannelure, forming two large fragments.
However, beyond 200 meters, it no longer looses its integrity, although flattening continues to somewhat occur out to 400 meters.

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:223-penetration-information&catid=13:technical-info

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #69)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 03:43 PM

70. A black hole?

Seems like most all of the bullet is sucked into a black hole, satisfying E = mc2:

while penetration on auto glass and sheet steel is marginal, .223 projectiles will readily perforate and breach mild steel such as standard pepper poppers {~1/4' - 3/8" steel}, that pistol rounds will only slightly dimple. However, very little of the .223’s mass is retained, so after defeating mild steel, significant wound potential is severely diminished upon exit

Surely you're joking. This isn't Dr. Who. "Very little of the mass is retained" because it has been pulverized into dust, the ultimate in fragmentation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:28 AM

73. relative special theories

straw man: Surely you're joking. This isn't Dr. Who. "Very little of the mass is retained" because it has been pulverized into dust, the ultimate in fragmentation.

I was joking about the black hole of course, but not really about Einstein's equation E = mc2; since the kinetic energy formula of a bullet is derived from Einstein's equation, a corollary from it, imo.
(tho since I presume kinetic energy theory was known prior to Einstein's birth, it's kind of a reverse engineered corollary. Uranium 235 revealed as fissionable in 1900's doesn't mean U235 wasn't fissionable 10,000 years ago. One could argue e = mc2 is a special case of ke formula I guess).

E = mc2 = m x c x c , where c = velocity of light of course
KE = 1/2 x m x velocity x velocity.
.. the only diff is the scalar 1/2, the other variables essentially the same; kinetic a subset of total.
.. in other words, e = mc2 fits Einstein's general theory of relativity, while KE = 1/2(mv2) fits his special theory.
.. to penetrate 1/4 inch steel by a 62 grain bullet requires quite a bit of energy, which is, as you say largely pulverized;
... learn something new every day, dontcha?

straw man: Now your contention is clear -- it was not clear before, due to your vagueness and inaccurate word choices.

uh huh, by you it was absolutely all my fault, I was totally to blame for your misinterpretation of what I wrote, I should apologize to you I suppose, eh? I should prostrate myself before you & the board & ask forgiveness for writing 'vaguely & inaccurately'.
I cannot foresee other readers misconstrueing what I write due to their own presupposing things they see or don't see, due to nuances in the English language.
I wrote what I wrote as I saw fit at the time - 'Couldn't do this with higher recoil rifles' - not really caring what bozos might intentionally manipulate or misconstrue in the future.

straw man: However, your contention is still nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get that level of accuracy at speed from a .223 handgun, even at point blank distances.. The notion that someone could do that in a combat situation beggars belief.

Well, I admitted previously that this was a bit of strained reasoning on my part, enhancing my argument for the green tip ban.
But it also demonstrates my other point of you misinterpreting what I have written, since I never said this would work in a dynamic situation. I previously qualified this would be only for a stationary target, as in an assassination:
.... jimmy wrote: The interval between braced rapid fire handgun bullet hits could be what, a fifth of a second to a half second? momentum transfer from one or two 55 grainers usually isn't enough to push a man off, mainly his own reflex reaction, so dunno about much change in a stationary, perhaps sitting, target, after a second or two.

straw man: ne pictures the assailant telling the police officer to hold still and stop shooting back so that he (the assailant) can line up his next shot.

See? you are fabricating a false premise. Again. Shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #73)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:03 AM

74. Relative nonsense.

Pardon the appeal to authority, Jimmy, but I am a teacher and make my living instructing college students in grammar and rhetoric. On a daily basis, I attempt to wring meaning out of tortured syntax and improper diction. When I say that your writing is vague and inaccurate, it's a professional opinion. It's sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, Jimmy: "C" work at best.

As for the rest, pure junk and pseudo-science. Let's review, shall we?

You propose that there could be an assassination in which (a) the assassin uses a .223 pistol, (b) the victim is wearing body armor, (c) the assassin is able to get close enough to deliver three precisely aimed shots without interference yet chooses to fire repeatedly into the vest rather than the victim's head, and (d) the victim remains absolutely stationary throughout all three shots, enabling the shooter to achieve a precision with an awkward, short-barreled weapon that is difficult for skilled marksmen to achieve with scoped rifles. If Mythbusters were to test your vest-penetration theory, the vest-wearing dummy would have to be strapped to a board and the firearm would have to be clamped in a vise.

Are you claiming that this scenario is plausible? Puh-leeze ... It's not my false premise; it's yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:35 AM

75. he am teacher, hear him roar

straw man: When I say that your writing is vague and inaccurate, it's a professional opinion. It's sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, Jimmy: "C" work at best.

To someone who has reading comprehension problems, that would be a perfect answer.
As far as your professionalism, tack on unprofessionally biased & prejudiced.
You cherry pick your answers, avoid difficult questions you can't properly answer, apparently block out of your mind your contradictions and obvious errors as if they never existed, & twist about what others say with obnoxious spin.

straw man: Pardon the appeal to authority, Jimmy, but I am teacher and make my living instructing college students in grammar and rhetoric.

I don't give a crap who you are or what you think, mister.

uh, correct grammar would be 'I am a teacher'. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 12:32 PM

78. Thanks for pointing out my typo, Jimmy.

I am well aware of proper use of the indefinite article, but I failed to proofread my work. Mea culpa.

It doesn't change the fact that your post was vague and poorly worded, nor the fact that your posts are rife with sloppy usage, such as your inability to capitalize consistently and your persistent use of ampersands instead of the conjunction and. These are apparently deliberate choices you have made, and they are poor ones. This is a contest you are not going to win, Jimmy. You can't blame your failure to adequately express yourself on the reading comprehension skills of your readers. That's a lame dodge.

I notice that you're scrupulously avoiding your ludicrous scenario about penetration of body armor with repeated impacts by .223 rounds. Would you care to come back to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 01:20 PM

81. little big man

straw man: It doesn't change the fact that your post was vague and poorly worded, nor the fact that your posts are rife with sloppy usage,

In spelling & grammar I rate myself in the top ten percent of pro gun posters on this forum as to sentence structure & grammar & cohesiveness, even when it is using a reduction or slang. I base this on past high school & university ratings in English.

You admonish me you admonish half the pro gun enthusiasts on here.
samples: duckhunter: Those goalpost must get heavy after awhile
icon: 14. The whine cellar is gonna have a sad about that!
icon: You should be. I only stea...err, borrow from the best!


sm ..such as your inability to capitalize consistently and your persistent use of ampersands instead of the conjunction and.

Who are you to judge, little big man? who the hell do you think you are? to harp on your biased opinion emanating from your narrow mind. I'm not taking an English test here, nor a writing test, this is casual posting.
.. to wit others, I'm an ee cummings fan; the ampersand is a 'quick' type which I prefer, & is not that I know of, incorrect usage - helps reduce post length, is quicker, & (rumor is) can alleviate carpal tunnel.

sm These are apparently deliberate choices you have made, and they are poor ones.

Fantastic - your above remark allows me to parry that I think your posting style is sick & perverted, & that you have a monstrous ego to think you are some authority here.
This is not a paid job I have here, it's leisure or casual typing.
You never cease to make me ill, that such garbage could come from a supposed civilized poster on DU.

straw man: This is a contest you are not going to win, Jimmy. You can't blame your failure to adequately express yourself on the reading comprehension skills of your readers. That's a lame dodge.

I can express myself quite clearly, even with asterisks: ***** ***, ***-****.

straw man: I notice that you're scrupulously avoiding your ludicrous scenario about penetration of body armor with repeated impacts by .223 rounds. Would you care to come back to that?

I've addressed that a couple of times already, open your blind eyes. You only goad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #81)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 01:51 PM

83. Grammar Games

I realize that online forums are not expected to follow the same standards as academic settings, but you're certainly nowhere near the "top ten percent of pro-gun posters" (notice the hyphen) here. There's a typo in duckhunter's post (failed to pluralize goalposts), but icon is merely using online vernacular. None of this interferes with communication. In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own.

You opened this exchange with your criticism of my reading comprehension skills. Remember? I'm not about to take that lying down. If you're going to try to make your failures my fault, you can expect a strong rebuttal.

I'm not the only one here who finds your prose vague and often impenetrable. It is rife with non-typo errors and general fuzziness.

Would you like to keep score? Here's a sampling of your work from another thread:

That would tend to support the several polls which show declining gun ownership rates, or at least would not oppose them.

"... polls that show ..." -- restrictive vs. non-restrictive clause

Third, Illinois recently allowed shall issue concealed carry after discontinuing it's handgun ban, which tend to inflate early post-year gun ownership rates.

"... its handgun ban ..." -- Don't use apostrophes in possessive personal pronouns.

" ... which tends to inflate" -- The referent of the relative pronoun isn't clear, but neither of the possible subjects is plural.

Some polls I have seen have a column which accounts for 'refused to answer', ...

"... that accounts for" -- restrictive clause again

& percents have been rising over the past couple decades, but not significantly to overall rates.

"... and percentages ..." -- Use "percent" only with a number to refer to a specific quantity.

"... significantly to overall rates..." is vague and ambiguous. It could mean "the rise is not significant in comparison to overall rates" or "the rise is not significant to overall rates." Either way, the contention is unsupported.

And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls.

This is hopelessly muddled. What is the referent of "this"? Shouldn't the verb tense be "has been disclosed"? Who disclosed what to whom? What "shouldn't be given much concern"? What does "given concern" even mean? The commonly used collocation is "cause concern," but that wouldn't fit in passive construction you're using.

This is not a game you're going to win, Jimmy. When you fail to communicate due to sloppy and imprecise language use, you cannot pin the blame on your reader -- not this reader, anyway.

I can express myself quite clearly, even with asterisks: ***** ***, ***-****.

Your asterisks communicate nothing but rage. I suspect that that's your real purpose on this forum.

I notice that you're scrupulously avoiding your ludicrous scenario about penetration of body armor with repeated impacts by .223 rounds. Would you care to come back to that?

I've addressed that a couple of times already, open your blind eyes. You only goad.

You've addressed it inadequately. The scenario was ludicrous, your defense was absurd, and now you're trying to walk away from the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:23 PM

86. picking nits, straw man style

I wrote: Illinois recently allowed shall issue concealed carry after discontinuing it's handgun ban, which tend to inflate early post-year gun ownership rates.

grammar cop: " ... which tends to inflate" -- The referent of the relative pronoun isn't clear, but neither of the possible subjects is plural.

You lose. 'Shall issue concealed carry', and, 'handgun ban', are two separate concepts, & thus justify using 'tend' rather than 'tends'. Using 'tends' would imply only 'handgun ban', but not both, which was the intent.

I wrote: .. percents have been rising over the past couple decades, but not significantly to overall rates.
straw man: "... and percentages ..." -- Use "percent" only with a number to refer to a specific quantity

Percents had been rising. Gonzo journalism.

Nit picker straw man: "... significantly to overall rates..." is vague and ambiguous. It could mean "the rise is not significant in comparison to overall rates" or "the rise is not significant to overall rates." Either way, the contention is unsupported.

This is BS from straw man, pure & simple BS.

I wrote: And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls.
straw man: his is hopelessly muddled. What is the referent of "this"?

Any unbiased reader would see that 'this' referred to what was previously noted (refused to answer iirc), which you have clipped, thus taken out of context.

strawman: .. icon is merely using online vernacular. None of this interferes with communication.

translation: if a gunnut does it it's OK, but if a guncontrol advocate does it, it's WRONG.

straw man: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own.

Said after defending two other posters.

straw man You opened this exchange with your criticism of my reading comprehension skills. Remember? I'm not about to take that lying down.

With justification did I write that, & by your own admission you conceded that you had erred in comprehending what I had written. You even had the gall to call my post bs & you now don't even have the integrity to retract your sleazy ad hominem:

straw man wrote: I've never seen such a bunch of back-pedaling bullshit in my life. AK-47? The entire previous discussion was .223. ---- tack on level III bpv airhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #86)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 04:02 PM

87. More games.

Do you really want to play this game, Jimmy? You can't win.

I wrote: Illinois recently allowed shall issue concealed carry after discontinuing it's handgun ban, which tend to inflate early post-year gun ownership rates.

grammar cop: " ... which tends to inflate" -- The referent of the relative pronoun isn't clear, but neither of the possible subjects is plural.

You lose. 'Shall issue concealed carry', and, 'handgun ban', are two separate concepts, & thus justify using 'tend' rather than 'tends'. Using 'tends' would imply only 'handgun ban', but not both, which was the intent.

That's not how grammar works, Jimmy. You didn't connect your "two separate concepts" with any sort of conjunction or use parallel structures. They don't constitute a grammatical plural. In fact, the two actions in your sentence aren't grammatically "separate concepts" since the latter, "after discontinuing its handgun ban," is really just a prepositional phrase giving the time frame for the main clause, which is "allowed shall issue concealed carry."

Here's an analog of your sentence, to help you understand:

He went swimming after eating a big dinner, which (is/are) dangerous.

Pick an answer.

See how that works?

You lose again.

I wrote: And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls.
straw man: his is hopelessly muddled. What is the referent of "this"?

Any unbiased reader would see that 'this' referred to what was previously noted (refused to answer iirc), which you have clipped, thus taken out of context.

I didn't "clip" anything. The entire sentence appears in three successive quote excerpts. The context is there. The pronoun this could refer to the existence of the "refuse to answer" column, the rising percentage of refusals, or the relative significance of the percentage. These are three separate entities. To which is the "unbiased reader" supposed to assume that you are referring?

straw man: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own.

Said after defending two other posters.

Hence the disclaimer "in any case." Perhaps you've encountered it, or even used it. It connotes that the preceding wasn't the real issue. Got it?

straw man You opened this exchange with your criticism of my reading comprehension skills. Remember? I'm not about to take that lying down.

With justification did I write that, & by your own admission you conceded that you had erred in comprehending what I had written. You even had the gall to call my post bs & you now don't even have the integrity to retract your sleazy ad hominem:

No -- I did not concede that I had "erred." In fact, your meaning only became clear after you clarified it. This was necessary because of the failure of your original message to communicate what you later claimed to have "meant." Furthermore, I'm not the only person to have read the original message the way I did. The way it was worded suggested that you were comparing .223 pistols with .223 rifles, not .223 pistols with larger calibers in rifles. I might add, too, that even with your clarification, the contention was still nonsense, as has been amply supported elsewhere in this thread.

Calling your post "bs" is not an ad hominem. It simply means "untrue," and doesn't directly address your character. Your calling my posts "sick" and "perverted" comes much closer to actual defamation.

I've never seen such a bunch of back-pedaling bullshit in my life. AK-47? The entire previous discussion was .223. ---- tack on level III bpv airhead.

Right: .223 and body armor. Then you're suddenly talking about AK-47s. Back-pedaling, Jimmy, back-pedaling.

What's with the sixth-grade insults, Jimmy? I thought we were having a grown-up discussion ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:55 AM

91. straw man on a high horse

1 Straw man: I didn't "clip" anything. The entire sentence appears in three successive quote excerpts. The context is there. The pronoun this could refer to the existence of the "refuse to answer" column, the rising percentage of refusals, or the relative significance of the percentage. These are three separate entities. To which is the "unbiased reader" supposed to assume that you are referring?

By omitting ggjohn's text you clipped it. In 'fuller' context (next paragraph), with ggjohns sentence as the basis for what I wrote, it's clear what I was referring to. I also list the proper link, since you did not - you erred posting your link.

gg: .. it can't be proven that there are less homes with firearms in them, more than likely, more and more firearms owners are refusing to admit that they do have a firearm to an anonymous person on the phone, in person, on an internet poll.
jimmy replied: Some polls I have seen have a column which accounts for 'refused to answer', & percents have been rising over the past couple decades, but not significantly to overall rates. And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163196

2 straw man: Hence the disclaimer "in any case." Perhaps you've encountered it, or even used it. It connotes that the preceding wasn't the real issue. Got it?
..referring to straw man saying: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own

In any case: Also, at all events; in any event. No matter what happens, certainly; also, whatever the fact is, anyway. In any case dates from the second half of the 1800s, at all events from about 1700, and in any event from the 1900s. For an antonym, see in no case. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+any+case .... in any case whatever happens

Your turn, straw man, post a link where 'in any case' means 'the preceding wasn't the real issue'.
I think straw man might be confusing 'in any case' with 'nevertheless'.

3 straw man: No -- I did not concede that I had "erred." In fact, your meaning only became clear after you clarified it.

It was accurate enough as first written, tho I had to 'explain' it 2 or 3 times before you realized you were wrong, continuing to mock, & then you conceded you were wrong even tho you blamed me for your errant jump to conclusion: straw man conceding he was wrong: Now your contention is clear -- it was not clear before, due to your vagueness and inaccurate word choices.

4 straw man: Furthermore, I'm not the only person to have read the original message the way I did. The way it was worded suggested that you were comparing .223 pistols with .223 rifles, not .223 pistols with larger calibers in rifles.

No it didn't, that was you jumping to a wrong conclusion, your rush to a malicious judgement. I think ezra knew what I was referring back to, since I was replying to him.

5 straw man: However, your contention is still nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get that level of accuracy at speed from a .223 handgun, even at point blank distances.

You need get off your high horse. You are not the one to be talking about the .223 bullet due to your ignorance of its characteristics. You did not understand the .223 fragmenting characteristics, hitting a soft or hard target, & thought it would be more likely to fragment upon hitting a hard target: straw man's 'unexpertise' with the .223: So your contention is that the bullet will fragment less on impact with a hard target than it does on impact with a soft target? Peculiar indeed. Remember that we're not talking about hollowpoints here. Do you have a reference for this? Perhaps you're thinking of the legendary "tumbling" of the .223 round on contact with a soft target, something that wouldn't be an issue with a hard target.

Yes indeedy I was contenting the .223 bullet will tend to fragment in a soft target & tend to remain intact hitting a hard target like 3/8" steel helmets. You didn't know? obviously you didn't know, I schooled you. I've been discussing this bullet for over 15 years, since I first became interested in the m16 & ar15, and after having shot the m16 in the navy.
So get off your high horse straw man, & stop pretending you're an expert, when you're clearly not.
Before I respond to any further crap from you, straw man, you will need supply the recoil rating for the .223 from a few of those handguns you posted, so we can compare & contrast the ar15 & m16 rifles with the .223 shooting handguns. Don't just pick the high end, post a few.

6 straw man: Here's an analog of your sentence, to help you understand: He went swimming after eating a big dinner, which (is/are) dangerous. Pick an answer. See how that works? You lose again.

'Both of which' are dangerous, & in my sentence 'both of which' is understood by knowledgeable readers, those following what I was saying. Gonzo journalists need not care much about nit pickers like you (tho I can't stand HST).
You are a pro gun sanctimonious charlatan nit picking over precise semantics, which is hardly practiced here by most all posters, so why don't you shut up about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:02 PM

92. The hits just keep on coming.

Yes indeedy I was contenting the .223 bullet will tend to fragment in a soft target & tend to remain intact hitting a hard target like 3/8" steel helmets. You didn't know? obviously you didn't know, I schooled you. I've been discussing this bullet for over 15 years, since I first became interested in the m16 & ar15, and after having shot the m16 in the navy.

Please point me to some test data that shows FMJ .223 rounds remaining intact after hitting 3/8 steel. No glancing blows, please: dead-on hits, such as would happen against a trauma plate.


So get off your high horse straw man, & stop pretending you're an expert, when you're clearly not.
Before I respond to any further crap from you, straw man, you will need supply the recoil rating for the .223 from a few of those handguns you posted, so we can compare & contrast the ar15 & m16 rifles with the .223 shooting handguns. Don't just pick the high end, post a few.

I will need to supply nothing, Jimmy. Do your own homework. You're fooling no one with this obstructionism.

And you're desperately avoiding your original contention -- remember, the one about three rapid-fire hits in the same spot? That's the real nonsense: the rest is just window-dressing.

You are a pro gun sanctimonious charlatan nit picking over precise semantics, which is hardly practiced here by most all posters, so why don't you shut up about it?

Ladies and gentlemen, the reasoned, rational voice of the gun control movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #92)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 03:45 PM

95. pile driving effect still true, afaik

1 straw man on recoil ratings: I will need to supply nothing, Jimmy. Do your own homework.

2 straw man: Please point me to some test data that shows FMJ .223 rounds remaining intact after hitting 3/8 steel.

To quote you: I will need to supply nothing ; either do your own homework, as you say, or, first provide some handgun recoil ratings of the .223 which you contend are so much less than the m16 or ar15. Readers will note straw man's double standard above, wanting it both ways, his ways.

straw man: And you're desperately avoiding your original contention -- remember, the one about three rapid-fire hits in the same spot? That's the real nonsense: the rest is just window-dressing.

My original contention was that the 'pile driving' effect of a greentip could penetrate level III vests, & that I consider true.
What I concede is that I made the 'assassin worry' overblown, in that it's remote that it would happen. I am not avoiding this, except from those who harp on it repeatedly.

I wrote: You are a pro gun sanctimonious charlatan nit picking over precise semantics, which is hardly practiced here by most all posters, so why don't you shut up about it?

straw man replied: Ladies and gentlemen, the reasoned, rational voice of the gun control movement.

Thanks, that's the most intelligent thing you've said so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #95)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:02 PM

96. Blahdy blahdy blah blah ...

To quote you: I will need to supply nothing ; either do your own homework, as you say, or, first provide some handgun recoil ratings of the .223 which you contend are so much less than the m16 or ar15.

So much less? So much more, Jimmy, so much more. Using the same round, the smaller, lighter gun will recoil more than the bigger, heavier gun. Are you disputing that?

My original contention was that the 'pile driving' effect of a greentip could penetrate level III vests, & that I consider true.

Except that the "pile driving" cannot happen under real world conditions. At best you could hope to achieve it under very controlled test conditions: gun in a vise and and absolutely stationary target.

What I concede is that I made the 'assassin worry' overblown, in that it's remote that it would happen. I am not avoiding this, except from those who harp on it repeatedly.

So remote as to be impossible: in other words, your whole premise was fairy-dust and bullshit.

So you're a gonzo journalist, huh? But you hate HST? Isn't that kind of like a Republican who hates GWB?

A gonzo journalist who claims to deal in rationality: now there's an oxymoron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #96)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:33 PM

99. more

So much less? So much more, Jimmy, so much more. Using the same round, the smaller, lighter gun will recoil more than the bigger, heavier gun. Are you disputing that?

So much more, typo. Off for day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #99)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:14 PM

104. Typo?

Yeah, that happens to me all the time: I type l-e-s-s when I meant to type m-o-r-e. The key pattern is so similar and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #96)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:44 AM

110. what was so good about him?

straw man: So you're a gonzo journalist, huh? But you hate HST? Isn't that kind of like a Republican who hates GWB?

What was so good about him? name some positive things.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:30 AM

112. HST?

straw man: So you're a gonzo journalist, huh? But you hate HST? Isn't that kind of like a Republican who hates GWB?

What was so good about him? name some positive things.

He invented and pioneered the style of which you claim to be a practitioner. Doesn't mean that I have to like him, but you should at least acknowledge his influence there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 12:53 PM

115. gonzo journalism

straw man: He invented and pioneered the style of which you claim to be a practitioner. Doesn't mean that I have to like him, but you should at least acknowledge his influence there.

You lost me; I said I 'can't stand' him, & by using his logo & monogram I acknowledged his existence, & influence somewhat.

straw man: So you're a gonzo journalist, huh? But you hate HST? Isn't that kind of like a Republican who hates GWB?

You're misquoting, I said I 'can't stand' him in post91, won't say I hate him. When you noted GWB it appeared you were thinking truman as HST. He stood for some positive things sure, but its not for those that I can't stand him (see bottom of report):

Hunter S Thompson {HST} is often credited as the creator of Gonzo journalism, a style of writing that blurs distinctions between fiction and nonfiction. His work and style are considered to be a major part of the New Journalism literary movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which attempted to break free from the purely objective style of mainstream reportage of the time. Thompson almost always wrote in the first person, while extensively using his own experiences and emotions to color "the story" he was trying to follow. His writing aimed to be humorous, colorful and bizarre, and he often exaggerated events to be more entertaining.
The term Gonzo has since been applied in kind to numerous other forms of highly subjective artistic expression.

He was unable to formally finish high school as he was incarcerated for 60 days after abetting a robbery. He subsequently joined the United States Air Force before moving into journalism. He traveled frequently, including stints in California, Puerto Rico, and Brazil, before settling in Aspen, Colorado, in the early 1960s.
... with his own brand of New Journalism which he termed "Gonzo", an experimental style of journalism where reporters involve themselves in the action to such a degree that they become central figures of their stories.

Thompson died at Owl Farm, his "fortified compound" Colorado, 2005, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
He was a proponent of the right to bear arms and privacy rights. A member of the National Rifle Association, Thompson was a firearms and explosives enthusiast (in his writing and in life) and owned a vast collection of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and various automatic and semi-automatic weapons, along with numerous forms of gaseous crowd control and many homemade devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #115)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:13 PM

116. So in Jimmy's lexicon ...

... "can't stand" doesn't mean "hate"? Is this one of those "gonzo" things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:17 PM

93. The "straw man" is pretending that M855 out of a pistol can penetrate Level III armor. It can't.

Out of a derringer-length barrel, .223 has the ballistics of .22LR. Out of a 7"-ish barrel, it has the ballistics of a light .357 or maybe a slow 5.7x28mm, and would likely be stopped by even soft armor. Out of an 11.5" barrel, it barely cracks 2400 ft/sec, if that (when it won't even penetrate Level III plate at 2900+ ft/sec). But even out of a 22" hunting length barrel, it won't penetrate Level III AR500, and out of a 16" or less barrel (or even a longer barrel at a few dozen yards) an AR500 Level III plate can withstand 60+ M855 hits before being penetrated, including many hits in the same spot.

The irony is, if you ban non-AP, non-Level-III-penetrating M855, you push the market toward the lighter, faster loads, which *can* penetrate Level III plate at across-the-room distance out of a 20"-24" barrel.



But since the First Rule of Gun Control Advocacy is apparently "If any restriction on gun owners comes along, no matter how pointless or counterproductive, it must be enacted at all costs", the ban-M855 circus must go on. Even though Bloomberg's own gun-control groups say it's not a ban they advocate, even though the Fraternal Order of Police says it's pointless, even though the FBI LEOKA data says that M855 isn't a threat to police officers, and even though M855 is less lethal than almost any other centerfire rifle round and is less of a threat to body armor than other .223. We'll see hand-waving, name-calling, media scaremongering, and imaginary scenarios until either M855 is banned, or the banners suffer enough political setbacks over it that they finally give up in order to cut their losses. Since some people have been trying for 25 years now to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out and are only now starting to accept that that's not going to happen, I'm not expecting the hardcore ban advocates to give up on ammo bans easily, either. But pushing this ban on non-AP ammo is going to get your precious AP ban scaled back or repealed outright if it keeps up, and maybe it needs to be if it is going to be abused in this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #93)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:52 PM

94. The military uses it...

...therefore, the same argument, if it looks military, if it used to be military and especially if it meets current mil-spec, then having it in civilian hands is just wrong.

Military weapons in civilian hands are dangerous.
Military looking weapons in civilian hands are dangerous.
Military functioning weapons in civilian hands are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #93)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:32 PM

98. pile drivers

ezra: The "straw man" is pretending that M855 out of a pistol can penetrate Level III armor. It can't.

By 'pile driving' it can, ezra, you yourself sorta backed me up on it:

Level III hard armor should stop multiple .223/5.56mm unless they impacted exactly the same spot on the armor, since NIJ Level III is rated to stop steel-jacketed .308/7.62x51mm. That could only be done with careful shooting from a braced rifle and a perfectly stationary, compliant target at close range. It could work in the movies, but would be pretty darn unlikely in real life, particularly with a "pistol" without an actual shoulder stock.

I pretty much believe everything you wrote. But you say 'particularly unlikely' a handgun could do it, ergo unlikely but possible.

I backtracked on the plausibility of this pile driving effect ever occurring with the handgun & .223, so you win that battle, bravo; I was brainstorming that day trying to enhance my argument & went a bridge too far, excuuuse me.

ezra: A stockless .223 "pistol" recoils considerably more than a full-length AR, and is considerably harder to aim. Less mass, less moment of rotational inertia, no shoulder-and-cheek weld, more wobble, more difficulty in tracking the dot from shot to shot.

What is, or what would you gauge, a 'handgun'/.223 recoil rating as? whatever scale they use.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #98)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:42 PM

107. "Unlikely but possible"

I pretty much believe everything you wrote. But you say 'particularly unlikely' a handgun could do it, ergo unlikely but possible.

It is "unlikely but possible" that someone will drop a lottery ticket on my front lawn that wins me millions, too.

It is exceedingly unlikely that someone could retrieve an AR "pistol" from any sort of concealment and shoot several rounds into a dime sized target or smaller in a second even under no-stress conditions, never mind under stress. It is several orders of magnitude more likely that one could retrieve a pistol from concealment and put one round through a football-sized target in a couple of seconds.

As far as I am aware, there are no cases whatsoever of .223 penetrating Level III armor on the street since NIJ ratings were invented, whether from rifles or "pistols".

As to the feasibility of shooting through Level III armor with an AR "pistol" by shooting multiple rounds through the same hole, it turns out that modern Level III plate is apparently even tougher than I previously thought, based on the videos below. Here is an amateur video of a guy (who thought M855 is AP, FWIW) being surprised that a basic plate of Level III armor stands up to more than 60 rounds of M855 out of a rifle (looks like an 18" to me):



At 2:36, after 30 hits with M855, he shows where four M855's have hit a spot roughly the size of a dime, without penetrating.
At 4:08, ~50 hits on the same plate with M855 from a rifle, still no penetration.
At 5:43, after 90 hits on the same plate with M855, the plate has become deformed and weakened to the point that 2 rounds have finally slipped through.

Keep in mind that this is from a rifle, with considerably more energy at 35 yards than an AR "pistol" would have with the muzzle pressed directly against the armor.

Now, check out one round of regular lead-core 55-grain FMJ out of a 22" barrel at close range, against the same brand and rating of armor that stopped 60+ rounds of M855 above:



2:31, the very first hit from 55-grain lead-core FMJ penetrates right through the armor.
4:14, a round of green-tip M855 does not penetrate, but harmlessly disintegrates.

Advocates of a ban on M855 want to ban the second bullet above (the one that didn't penetrate). Does that really make sense?

FWIW, a round of actual 5.56mm AP (M995 tungsten core) would penetrate that plate at a few hundred yards; M855 is most assuredly not AP.

What is, or what would you gauge, a 'handgun'/.223 recoil rating as? whatever scale they use.

Recoil can be expressed in terms of free recoil energy (which takes into account linear recoil only, but is a nice, neat measure of recoil magnitude); shot to shot splits will also be affected by muzzle jump or wobble from shot to shot. In terms of free recoil energy, a typical AR pistol should between 1.5 and 2 times the recoil of a typical AR-15, depending on weight and configuration, or roughly comparable to a 7.62x39mm or .243 Winchester rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #107)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:08 AM

108. recoil chart

ezra: a typical AR pistol should between 1.5 and 2 times the recoil of a typical AR-15, depending on weight and configuration, or roughly comparable to a 7.62x39mm or .243 Winchester rifle.

--------------------------rifleWt -- recoilE -- recoilVel
223 Rem. (62 at 3025) .. 7.0 ...... 3.9 .......6.0
243 Win. (75 at 3400).... 8.5 ........7.2 .........7.4
.243 Win. (95 at 3100) 7.25........ 11.0 .........9.9
.243 Win. (100 at 2960) 7.5 ..........8.8 .........8.7
7.62x39 Soviet (125 at 2350) 7.0 ... 6.9 ....... 8.0
7.62x54R Russ (174 at 2600) 9.0 ...15.0 ..... 10.4
30-30 Win. (160 at 2400) 7.5 ........ 12.7...... 10.5
376 Steyr (270 at 2580) 8.0 ...........39.0........ n/a
http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

Presuming 'chuck hawks' is good enough even if a blog, and your estimate is close, a 75 grain from the Winchester approximates the stockless handgun shooting a .223. The higher weight bullets run a bit high. I wasn't really thinking a 75gr would qualify tho, moreso over 150.
You estimate a stockless handgun shooting .223 between 5.7 & 7.8 free recoil energy.
I included some rifles above I know nothing about, for perspective.
Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #108)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 12:22 PM

114. Couple problems that will affect the calc.

For one, .223 Remington is not 5.56 NATO.

M855 is 5.56×45mm NATO. You can fire .223 Remington in a AR, but you cannot fire M855 in a bolt Remington .223. Why? Pressures are different. M855 is a cartridge for war, not game. .223 Remington is a non-war ancestor of the 5.56 NATO.

Or to put another way, .223 Remington is rated up to 55,000 psi, 5.56 NATO all the way up to 62,366 psi.


I mostly agree with Erza's estimate, but I'd lean toward the high end. For comparison, the 7.62x54R is notoriously brutal to fire. Like, you go to the range all day with it, you go immediately to your chiropractor afterwards. Most people will fire it once or twice, and then they're pretty much done with it. Humorous comparisons of the 5.56-firing AR, 7.62x39mm AK47, and the 7.62x54R Mosin-Nagant below:

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

Bottom line, the AR-15/M16 is a tack driver. Insanely accurate at much longer distances than the sloppier competitor, the AK-47. However, an AR Pistol is:

1. Shorter, so you have less leverage to hang on to it. (No foregrip allowed, by law.)
2. No stock, so you can't brace it against your shoulder.
3. Lighter, so it soaks up less recoil/transfers more recoil to your hands.
4. Doesn't develop anywhere near the muzzle velocity of a full-length barrel, so you're going to blind yourself with the fireball/not punch through armor like a rifle can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #114)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 02:14 PM

119. It's not that pressures are different (they are the same), it's the way the leade is cut.

The chamber profile, but not the max pressure, is slightly different in the two specs.

http://ballistictools.com/articles/5.56-vs-.223-myths-and-facts.php

CIP is the European version of SAAMI, they define the specifications for cartridges, including maximum pressures. Except that they don't use the same method as SAAMI. SAAMI measures pressure using a piston on top of an intact brass casing (called the "conformal piston" method). CIP uses a hole drilled through the chamber wall and the brass, exposing the sensor to hot gasses directly. NATO (outside the US) uses CIP's method when they define pressures.

When you measure a 5.56 cartridge that rates 55,000 PSI under the SAAMI method using the CIP method, you get somewhere around 62,000 PSI instead. Same cartridge, same pressure, same chamber, just two entirely different methods of reading the pressure. NATO uses the CIP method, so their documents will reflect the higher number, even though the specified pressure is the same.

You can prove this to yourself by checking out MIL-C-9963F and MIL-C-63989A(AR), the older US specification documents for 55gr and 62gr 5.56 NATO ammunition. Both of them specifiy a maximum average pressure of 55,000 PSI, along with the full velocities that 5.56 NATO is rated for. They aren't specifying a reduced power load for our military, they are correctly specfying the unit as measured with a test method similar to SAAMI's.

Another telling piece of evidence is that CIP specifies 62,000 PSI for both 5.56 and 223 remington, measured using their test method. This isn't some case of European ammo being hotter, unlike some calibers, there are no .223 remington antique guns that were not designed for the full pressure.


Here is the difference between a SAAMI .223 spec chamber and a NATO 5.56x45mm spec chamber:



The leade is longer in the 5.56x45mm spec, allowing the bullet to exit the case and get more of a running start before being engraved by the rifling, allowing the pressure to drop a little. Meaning that a load tailored for a 5.56x45mm chamber can use a tiny bit more powder while maintaining the same peak pressure (55,000 psi/62,000 CIP), resulting in a smidgen more velocity if the manufacturer tailors the load for a 5.56mm chamber.

Generally speaking, relatively few guns, even those marked .223, use true .223 chambers; a lot use a hybrid chamber like .223 Wylde that offers some of the theoretical accuracy benefits of SAAMI .223 without the potential overpressure problems if you fire an at-the-pressure-limit 5.56mm load in a .223 chamber at the lower bound of .223 tolerances. For example, my Ruger Mini-14 was marked ".223 Remington" on the barrel, but all mini-14's except the heavy barrel Target model had the NATO leade.

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

As a current AR- and Mosin- owner and a former AK owner, I laughed out loud...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #108)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 12:03 PM

118. Yes, exactly.

Which means that as I said, a .223 pistol kicks approximately like a 7.62x39mm (.30 caliber AK/SKS round) out of a rifle or a .243, except that the AR "pistol" will lift and rotate more in recoil due to the lack of shoulder/cheek weld and lower moment of rotational inertia.

BTW, that 75gr .243 has twice the powder behind it as .223 and is going 3400 ft/sec, compared to a 75gr out of a .223 which is only going ~2600-2700 ft/sec, depending on barrel length. The .243 is a .308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO) firing smaller bullets at much higher velocity than .308. The 75-grain .243 loads are about 200 ft/sec faster than a 55gr .223, and will handily penetrate things that M855 can't, out of the same length barrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #93)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:08 AM

111. knight's gambit thru enemy territory

ezra: But since the First Rule of Gun Control Advocacy is apparently "If any restriction on gun owners comes along, no matter how pointless or counterproductive, it must be enacted at all costs", the ban-M855 circus must go on. Even though Bloomberg's own gun-control groups say it's not a ban they advocate..

You realize, ezra, you contradicted yourself in the above sentence.
We often concentrate on the most extreme forms of firearms & ammunition.

even though the FBI LEOKA data says that M855 isn't a threat to police officers,

This reminds me - you, & nobody else either, has answered of what use are these greentips? or ar15s? what are they good for in American communities? I know you enjoy target shooting but that is no reason to allow extreme ammunition to filter into communities (gun control would be merely hindering the supply), where they could be used to down planes & helicopters & penetrate cars, firing several accurate shots where higher recoil rifles could not, due to rifle rise.
Also, ar15s account for relatively few of the yearly gun deaths & crimes, but they also account for relatively few defensive gun uses, especially legally shooting in defense. So what good are they for? when a safer alternative would do?
While they may account for few illicit uses now, over the course of the next few decades they will become more hazardous.
Over the course of approx. a handguns lifetime (~2 human generations), approx. 10% to 15% of existing handguns will be used in a crime. Perhaps 30% will be used illicitly.

even though M855 is less lethal than almost any other centerfire rifle round and is less of a threat to body armor than other .223.

Answer me this: you are driving a windowless army jeep, armor plated with 1/4 inch steel. You can take one of two routes to get where you need to get. First is a 10 mile stretch thru rough roads, patrolled by isis guerrillas armed only with ar15's shooting 62 gr rem .223s. The other route is a very similar 10 miles stretch over rough roads, but patrolled by isis guerrillas armed only with ar15's shooting greentips.
Which route would you want to pass thru, which would provide the best chance of getting thru with less damage to the jeep & less injury to yourself? (sorry, you can't shoot back in this scenario).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #111)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 09:29 AM

117. Well...

"ezra: But since the First Rule of Gun Control Advocacy is apparently "If any restriction on gun owners comes along, no matter how pointless or counterproductive, it must be enacted at all costs", the ban-M855 circus must go on. Even though Bloomberg's own gun-control groups say it's not a ban they advocate..

You realize, ezra, you contradicted yourself in the above sentence."

Ummm, you and the gun control advocates in the media and Congress *are* advocating to ban M855, even though it has less ability to penetrate police armor than plain 55gr FMJ, and the gun control caucus in Congress has introduced at least two bills to make possession of it a crime. One even goes so far as to ban any ammunition that can penetrate a vest not designed to stop rifle ammo, which is downright silly. Bloomberg is distancing himself and his organizations from it, but gun control advocates in general don't seem to be.

"We often concentrate on the most extreme forms of firearms & ammunition."

Uh-huh. That's why you are fighting tooth and nail to outlaw centerfire .22's that are among the least misused weapons in the whole damn country, and slow ammo that penetrates less than faster lightweight pure-lead-core, and less than most deer rifles.

"This reminds me - you, & nobody else either, has answered of what use are these greentips? or ar15s? what are they good for in American communities? I know you enjoy target shooting but that is no reason to allow extreme ammunition to filter into communities (gun control would be merely hindering the supply), where they could be used to down planes & helicopters & penetrate cars, firing several accurate shots where higher recoil rifles could not, due to rifle rise."

Ummm...

(1) I've answered several times what use "these greentips" with the Scary Green Paint of Death are. Namely, inexpensive paper-punching at ranges beyond 200 yards, especially in rifles zeroed for slower, heavier bullets with high ballistic coefficients. That's what they're primarily used for, because they are certainly less effective for defensive purposes or for shooting through hard cover than 55gr or 77gr are.

(2) "extreme ammunition" that won't even penetrate Level III plate out of a 22" barrel at point blank range, when ordinary 55gr lead-core you can buy at Walmart will?

(3) "where they could be used to down planes & helicopters" --- seriously? What centerfire rifle caliber won't penetrate light plexiglas or thin-gauge aluminum? Heck, a .22LR will.

(4) "penetrate cars" - Actually, M855, and .223 in general, is relatively lousy at shooting through regular car doors and windshields compared to heavier calibers, which is one big reason M855 is being ditched by the military in favor of barrier-blind rounds like SOST, Mk 262, and M855A1.

"Also, ar15s account for relatively few of the yearly gun deaths & crimes, but they also account for relatively few defensive gun uses, especially legally shooting in defense. So what good are they for? when a safer alternative would do?"

How is an AR-15 less "safe" than a 9mm pistol? The AR-15 penetrates less, is less concealable, and is vastly less likely to be misused. I'll remind you that the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out with an ordinary 9mm and a backpack full of non-extended 10- and 15-round magazines.

"While they may account for few illicit uses now, over the course of the next few decades they will become more hazardous.
Over the course of approx. a handguns lifetime (~2 human generations), approx. 10% to 15% of existing handguns will be used in a crime. Perhaps 30% will be used illicitly."

Uh-huh. How are 2-foot-long pseudo-rifles going to suddenly become as concealable as a 5"x7" 9mm? And how are they going to penetrate Level III armor with those stubby barrels, especially shooting slower, less-penetrative-at-close-range ammunition like M855?

"Answer me this: you are driving a windowless army jeep, armor plated with 1/4 inch steel. You can take one of two routes to get where you need to get. First is a 10 mile stretch thru rough roads, patrolled by isis guerrillas armed only with ar15's shooting 62 gr rem .223s. The other route is a very similar 10 miles stretch over rough roads, but patrolled by isis guerrillas armed only with ar15's shooting greentips.
Which route would you want to pass thru, which would provide the best chance of getting thru with less damage to the jeep & less injury to yourself? (sorry, you can't shoot back in this scenario)."

If you're talking about 1/4" steel armor, that's probably Level III rated, meaning 55gr M193 will penetrate it but M855 will not even at close range. So I'd be glad that the hypothetical morons were using 62gr that won't get through, instead of 55gr that might. I'd be especially glad that they bought the hype about non-AP green tip instead of simply procuring black tip AP that will penetrate 1/4" steel armor at several hundred yards, or 1/2" steel at 100 yards...

And of course, out of an AR pistol, M855 wouldn't penetrate even if your hypothetical assailant walked right up to the jeep and fired with the muzzle pressed directly against the armor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:58 PM

103. 2-5 leave.....m

 



3:49 PM

Automated Message

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

straw man on a high horse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163326

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Does this"You are a pro gun sanctimonious charlatan nit picking over precise semantics, which is hardly practiced here by most all posters, so why don't you shut up about it? " sound like "participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere". Or am I mistaken on the meaning of the words in the Community Standards? 



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:49 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Juries decide if a post is, "is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." This one is not. 


Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I simply disagree with the alerter.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: damn skippy
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert. Iti s one thing to hate the positions of the pro-gun group, it is another to develove into name calling and poo flinging.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'll take the word of a seaman over all else. Leave. Go Navy. msanthrope.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not into parsing every word of an opinion you don't agree with. 
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm pretty sure "sanctimonious charlatan nit" could be broadcast on network TV.  The poster does need to get a life, however.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #103)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 01:19 PM

120. thanks, ms ann thrope

Ms Anthrope: You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:49 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Why thank you Ms Ann; this could be the start of beautiful love-hate relationship. Wondering which way you voted? hopefully to 'leave it', you didn't say, that I saw, unless the offset juror #1 is you, then thanks again.
(your avatar does not appear, hope I read your name correctly).

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Juries decide if a post is, "is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." This one is not.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I simply disagree with the alerter.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: damn skippy
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert. Iti s one thing to hate the positions of the pro-gun group, it is another to develove into name calling and poo flinging.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'll take the word of a seaman over all else. Leave. Go Navy. msanthrope.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not into parsing every word of an opinion you don't agree with.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm pretty sure "sanctimonious charlatan nit" could be broadcast on network TV. The poster does need to get a life, however.


I guess if the worst that is said of me is that I'm a 'skippy poo flinger', I'll blend right in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 12:33 PM

79. Here's the thing, James.

 

This particular "green tip" round is no more dangerous to LEO's than any almost every other center-fire rifle round. 20+ years ago when I first started out, we were told that our ballistic armor was not rated to stop any rifle rounds. It was designed to resist rounds from the one weapon at every call to which we responded; our service weapons.

Attempting to ban this round due to perceived threats to LEO's is, at it's core, dishonest. Attempting to address criminal misuse of firearms by restricting ammunition is about as senseless as attempting to address the issue of DUI by restricting mag wheels, rag-tops and horsepower. They avoid dealing with the core issue of the bad actors.

In response to another post you made regarding this issue; I can confirm that body armor does help if you have to lay down a motor cycle. It is also very warm in summer months; "you pays your money and you takes your chances".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 06:12 PM

71. And this particular contention is *ludicrous*.

"I then countered that with rapid fire ability, due relatively low recoil of a handgun firing greentips at a fixed spot, a couple could penetrate level III in same spot. And, how other rifles with higher recoil - gained by heavier bullets - could not penetrate level III bpvs by concentrating fire on one spot, due to rifle rise. "

A stockless .223 "pistol" recoils considerably more than a full-length AR, and is considerably harder to aim. Less mass, less moment of rotational inertia, no shoulder-and-cheek weld, more wobble, more difficulty in tracking the dot from shot to shot.

Blathering about drawing from concealment and putting several rounds in one hole in a second using a shorty AR "pistol" is like talking about shooting an Olympic-level skeet score with a stockless short-barreled PGO shotgun. Not. Gonna. Happen. Even Jerry Fricking Miculek can't do that. And anyone who *could* somehow do that could just shoot their intended victim in an unarmored region instead, much faster. If you can shoot 0.25-sec splits while hitting a dime-sized target with an AR pistol, how fast are your splits on an 8" paper plate at the same distance?

If you can do that, you should quit your day job and go kick everyone else's ass in every top-level practical shooting competition in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:01 PM

63. .223 handguns

They look like this:

http://www.impactguns.com/handguns.aspx?Caliber=223+Remington

With the exception of the Heizer, they are essentially stockless rifles: large, unwieldy, and hard to conceal. The Heizer is a single-shot, and therefore incapable of your "three rounds in the same spot" rapid-fire scenario.

They are essentially curiosities for hobbyists, and not what a criminal would want. Less accurate than a rifle, less concealable than a pistol: the worst of both worlds. The notion that you could land three rounds in the same spot with a .223 pistol in a combat situation is absurd. You'd be hard-pressed to do it under optimal conditions on a range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:46 PM

90. You are completely, totally and hilariously wrong.

Could not be more wrong.

My AR weighs 9lbs. Yes, the barrel on a AR Pistol is shorter, developing less pressure behind the bullet, thus less kickback, but the Colt AR pistol weighs 5 lbs. 13.3 oz.

The weight of the gun has an enormous impact on felt recoil.

You could not be more wrong. Not only does the full sized rifle weigh more, but you get more leverage hanging on to it, because the grip is, in fact, longer, and has a stock you can weld to your shoulder. AR pistol has none of that.

So uh...

yeah. Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #90)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:23 AM

109. enormous or hilarious

crusader: You are completely, totally and hilariously wrong .... Could not be more wrong.
My AR weighs 9lbs. Yes, the barrel on a AR Pistol is shorter, developing less pressure behind the bullet, thus less kickback, but the Colt AR pistol weighs 5 lbs. 13.3 oz. The weight of the gun has an enormous impact on felt recoil.


Not sure what you're contending here; you say a stockless handgun shooting .223 has less kickback than an ar15 or m16? I'll ask straw man to comment on this.
Confiteor I initially thought an ar15 rifle would have similar recoil to a handgun shooting a .223, but it doesn't seem to be 'enormously' higher when considering recoil ratings; & that an ar15 has such low recoil for a rifle to begin with.
And I dunno the diff between free recoil & felt recoil, seem similar.

But the lesser weight has an 'enormous impact' on felt recoil?

---------------------------rifleWt ... recoil ... recoilVel
223 Rem. (62 at 3025) .. 7.0 ...... 3.9 .......6.0 --- ar15
http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

Ezra estimates a stockless handgun shooting rem .223 between 5.7 & 7.8 free recoil energy.
Is that 'enormous' to you, crusader? or hilarious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #109)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:36 AM

113. I agree with Erza's comment.

"I can tell you have never shot a rifle-caliber stockless "pistol". You are talking about trying to put two or three bullets through the same hole a couple dozen feet away, after handicapping yourself with a stockless, wobbly goofball of a firearm that kicks like a .30 caliber and has the muzzle flash of a .50 even though it's a .22. The recoil of the first shot will walk the muzzle off that dime-sized spot you are trying to shoot. "


That's a very apt analogy.

Also highlights additional cost to the shorter barrel.
1. Fireball. ("Did you hit him?" "I dunno, but he was smoking when he ran out of here"
2. Lower muzzle velocity, meaning it's not going to penetrate a vest like the same round from a 16" barrel. Because it's not going to go as fast, because it's not going to pick up as much momentum, etc. Dwell time in the barrel translates to velocity, and anything that spills out as a fireball represents momentum from the gas pulse that didn't go into the bullet.

So yeah, making a .22 kick like a .30 is apt.

Wobbly is accurate too, because you have to consider the mass of the rifle-sized bolt slamming back and forth, which is going to weigh, oh, just spitballing it, probably 5-7x what an actual pistol bolt weighs. Probably more.


There's a reason that, I'm pretty sure, not a single military in the world has ever gone 'hey, you know what would be really cool? Let's hack our rifles down into pistols'.

No, they use submachine guns for that purpose (Which fire pistol ammo). And they are not armor piercing without special ammo.


Edit: Truly sorry, didn't answer part of your question.

Not sure what you're contending here; you say a stockless handgun shooting .223 has less kickback than an ar15 or m16? I'll ask straw man to comment on this.

More. Way more. The barrel is shorter, and the mass leaves the barrel sooner, but all that hot gas comes out the other end like propellant burning from the thrust end of a rocket exhaust nozzle. I was trying to acknowledge that there are countervailing forces in play, but they are by no means equal. Meaning, they don't cancel each other out. The expanding gas doesn't cease to exist as the bullet exits the barrel. You're just clearing an obstruction, so the gas pressure will drop a bit.


Basically I thought I was forestalling an objection from you, but what I really did, was confuse the issue with a level of complexity that wasn't necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 07:08 PM

40. It works that way in Call of Duty, amirite?

All you have to do is release the left trigger and pull it again!

(/sarcasm)

Having fired both an AK "pistol" and a stockless PGO pump shotgun owned by friends, I am of the firm opinion that stockless firearms that aren't light enough to shoot from an isosceles or Weaver stance with a good sight picture are pretty useless compared to their stocked counterparts. But, what do I know. Maybe I just suck because I can't blaze round after round through the same quarter-inch hole at quarter-second intervals while yelling yee-hawww, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:47 AM

77. you are making good points Jimmy

long posts with numbers and pictures doesn't mean the argument is logical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #77)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 01:23 PM

82. play it again, sam

you are making good points Jimmy
... long posts with numbers and pictures doesn't mean the argument is logical


thanks sam, play it again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #82)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:00 PM

84. In other words ...

... "Don't confuse me with the facts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Landgrebe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:42 PM

89. Do people shoot at you a lot on your motorcycle?

Why the fuck would you wear a IIa vest on a motorcycle? You'd get better coverage and protection from a leather jacket. it would at least then cover your ARMS.

I have a IIa vest. I have a motorcycle. I have no fucking clue why you would attempt to mate the two materials. It doesn't even cover the parts of the body likely to get hit in a wreck, abraded against the road, and does nothing AT ALL for blunt force trauma.

No commercial motorcycle armor allocates protective material like a IIa ballistic vest. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:25 PM

97. leather better than kevlar? dark ages logic

atheist crusader: Why the fuck would you wear a IIa vest on a motorcycle? You'd get better coverage and protection from a leather jacket. it would at least then cover your ARMS. I have a IIa vest. I have a motorcycle. I have no fucking clue why you would attempt to mate the two materials. It doesn't even cover the parts of the body likely to get hit in a wreck, abraded against the road, and does nothing AT ALL for blunt force trauma.

Atheist crusader contends that a leather jacket will protect better than 16 layers Kevlar.
Should I even bother with a rebuttal? OK, I take the rifle plate out, sets off metal detectors.
I'm not that worried about road rash for I also wear boots, elbow pads, knee pads & sometimes a leather jacket or coat over the bullet vest. I'm worried about surviving a collision with another motor vehicle, or guardrail etc, & a Kevlar vest is much better at blunt force trauma & penetration than a leather jacket. Enough said?
(note: Kevlar does not provide much protection against knife or dagger penetration, but antennas not that much a worry).

Blueridge had this to say about it post79, so I'll redirect your criticism to him as well.

blueridge, #79: In response to another post you made regarding this issue; I can confirm that body armor does help if you have to lay down a motor cycle. It is also very warm in summer months; "you pays your money and you takes your chances".

Thanks to blueridge for this.

atheist crusader: No commercial motorcycle armor allocates protective material like a IIa ballistic vest. None.

cordura jacket kevlar motorcycle suit kevlar motorcycle jacket kevlar motorcycle vest
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/cordura-jacket-kevlar-motorcycle-suit-kevlar_168975391.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 04:51 PM

100. Reading comprehension. It's fundamental.

"No commercial motorcycle armor allocates protective material like a IIa ballistic vest. None."


Yes, Kevlar and other synthetics are used for some motorcycle armor. They do not ALLOCATE protective material over the same parts of the body, as a ballistic vest.

There's more on the back and lumbar plates, than there is on the front. Armor is concentrated over the top of the shoulders, elbows, forearms, knees, hips. Places your IIa vest doesn't cover at all. And it is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT shit. The Kevlar in a motorcycle jacket is to protect against abrasion, as your happy ass slides down the roadway. Kevlar in a ballistic vest is meant to catch a very small cross section bullet at high speed. If you get shot with a vest on, it's like getting hit with a baseball bat, because it distributes a bit of the load. MOTORCYCLE armor uses LARGE abs plastic plates to distribute a blunt force impact, not a penetrating poke. The plate that covers right or left breast/ribcage in motorcycle armor is as big as the steel chicken plate in you IIa vest. EACH ONE. To say nothing of the MASSIVE plate system that covers from collar bone to the lumbar on the back.

Your IIa vest isn't going to do shit for your ribcage. Nothing. It's not that kind of armor at all. There are different grades, types, and weaves of Kevlar, as well. You are using the wrong thing for the job. it might be better than nothing, but it's horseshit anyway.

"guardrail"

the edge of a guardrail will slice right through a IIa vest, and you'll bleed out just like the idiots that buy a Kevlar bullet-resistant vest and ask a buddy to try stabbing them, and lo and behold, the knife goes right through it. Different job, different weave. There are ballistic Kevlar weaves. There are slash-proof weaves. There are combinations of the two. IIa isn't slash proof.

"surviving a collision with another motor vehicle"

Wrong. Soft Kevlar won't distribute the load of a blunt force impact so as to aid you here. It might give your torso a bit of abrasion resistance, assuming the pavement doesn't STRIP IT OFF YOUR BODY. It's not meant to hang on to you in that scenario.

here's your standard IIa soft vest.

plate is usually a steel piece 1/8" thick, 5"x5", centered over the heart. A fartskin, basically.

Here's your standard motorcycle jacket.


And here's more or less what's going on under the hood:


Notice the coverage is a little different. If I punch the guy with the plates in the kidney, I break my hand. I punch the guy wearing the IIa vest in the kidney, he's still going to piss blood.


"Atheist crusader contends that a leather jacket will protect better than 16 layers Kevlar."

That's because you don't know shit about riding, apparently.

"Kevlar also offers a fair amount of protection to the rider, particularly when compared to other synthetic textiles like nylon and polyester, though not as much as leather. It is also advisable to have additional protection for your knees, elbows and back, whatever material you choose."

http://www.pioneer-motorcycles.com/leather-kevlar/

Kevlar shines in two categories; weight and breathability. Problem is, in selecting a BALLISTIC Kevlar vest, you've chosen a weave that is NOT BREATHABLE. You might as well be wearing a thick leather bustier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:12 PM

101. The Straight Dope; Fighting ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=200636

Personally I prefer leather because I find it more comfortable than body armour and believe that it provides better all over abrasion protection etc. However, I also recognise that abrasions are not the only types of injuries from motorcycle accidents and body armour may protect you better from some of the knocks incurred during an impact.


Have a look at what the MotoGP riders wear - leather suits with kevlar body armour either built in or worn underneath.


Leather is the go...if synthetics were better, racers would wear them. Synthetics can melt on a high-speed off; leather, OTOH, just looks cool when its been thrown down the black stuff at 200kph.


I'm with Motog and R-con; leather all the way.


Leather is out right the best protection one can get. Well if it's comp weight leather. I would say that most of the stuff you can get off the rack will be better then a t-shirt in the event of a get-off. I know that Belstaff from the UK works pretty well and is supposed to be waterproof as well. One of my exs when she was learning to ride went down in a set of Belstaffs at 30-40 after hitting some gravel. There wasn't any damage to either her or the suit.

You are just gonna have to make some sort of choice though, either you like the coolness of the leather and get somewhat hot, or you take the synthetic and have less protection in the long run but are at least somewhat cooler.


Leather is by far the best thing you can cover your skin with when riding. At any speed. It will hold up much better in a crash. It is reusable. Yes it is heavy and not that breathable, but I have never seen a quality set of leathers develop a hole from 1 crash.
Aerostitch is your second best bet. Less durable than leather, but still likely to hold up for at least a couple of moderate (less than 100mph) "incidents". It also has the added bonus of being lighter and cooler thank leather.
Textiles are the next rung down on the protective gear ladder. They are quite lite, very breathable, but only good for 1, maybe 2 crashes if you are lucky.
Balistic mesh is fine for riding around the city. Anything over about 30mph will melt the fabric and render them useless. Onlt good for 1 crash. The Joe Rocket one is the worst of them all. The armor is notorious for moving around when you need it most. I'd get a mesh jacket as a last resort. But if you need one, get the Teknic or First Gear or Feildsheer jackets before you even look at Joe Rocket. AND STAY AWAY FROM THE GLOVES!!!!!!!! Get real leather gloves. I have yet to see anyone crash in the mesh gloves who actually had them hold together on contact with the ground.
Personally I wear leather all the time. Even in our Houston summers. If it is too hot for me to wear leather, then it is too hot for me to go ride.


Basically, you can spend 150 on a good textile jacket that will survive one accident, or 350 on a good leather one that will last a few years. Either way, get the removable interior armor.


It depends to some degree on what the climate's like where you are... I live in Florida, so synthetics have the huge upside of not making me sweat to death during a trip to the store... however, for comfort in mild weather, and definitely for protection, I'll swear by leathers to my dying day.


Pro-Kevlar LOL:

But for basic commuting and occasional fun times, I personally didn't see the need to spend the outrageous price for more leather. I don't ride 150mph enough to worry about the ultimate in protection. Leather will abrade less than textile, but where you will be most concerned is where the armor is.



Motorcycle Kevlar (Aerostitch) breathes better, and is lighter.
Leather is thicker, tougher, stronger, abrades less, and protects you MUCH better. But it is heavy and hot. Like your IIa vest which is NOT aerostitch kevlar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:14 PM

102. "It's just they're terribly comfortable I think everyone will be wearing them in the future"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:20 PM

105. By the way, that motorcycle suit you linked to? 600D Coudra, not Kevlar. Genius move there.

If any part of that suit is Kevlar, it's the pads in the elbows, shoulders, hips and knees. (but most likely not, that's cheap shit and It's not listed in the specifications at all.)

So, you basically just went off a word in the title there. Good job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:00 PM

9. Everyone knows this is a feel good Moms and Bloomy pleasing ban.

Not one that has anything to do with "safety" or "common sense"

It lets the "they're gonna ban AR ammo" folks have a small ego enhancing victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:11 PM

11. Hmmm. Wonder why our resident "statistics expert" is remaining silent? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:37 PM

12. It's just another ploy to chisel away at gun rights.

I'm quite sure I will never fire one of these rounds as long as I live, but I can spot a scam when I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:24 PM

13. I wonder if this changes things?

 

"On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework, including legal and technical analysis, to guide its determination on what ammunition is "primarily intended for sporting purposes" for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on Armor Piecing Ammunition. This proposed framework is posted for public comment only; no final decisions have been made as to its adoption.
Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for Armor Piercing Ammunition, and concluding that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded.
Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.
The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.
The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.
"

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Publications/notice_of_publishing_error.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:45 PM

14. The whine cellar is gonna have a sad about that!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:16 AM

15. funny they say firearms are not regulated

 

Maybe they should read this

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Publications/atf_p_5300.4-updated_2014_firearms_reference_guide_3-7-15.pdf
NOTICE OF CORRECTIONS
March 7, 2015
On January 15, 2015, ATF posted the 2014 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (the “2014
Guide”) to the ATF website (www.atf.gov). ATF last published this guide in 2005; the 2014 Guide
incorporates almost a decade of updates to the federal firearms regulations.
Since posting the 2014 Guide, ATF became aware that it contained some inadvertent omissions and
editing errors. ATF has corrected these omissions and errors in an update to 2014 Guide posted on
March 7, 2014.
The corrected omissions and editing errors are:

(1) At page 90, within Section III, Laws and Regulations, Sub-Part B., National Firearms Act, the
citation and title for one of the regulations was not included with the text of the regulation. That
citation and title, “§ 479.105 Transfer and possession of machine guns,” is now included.
(2) At page 190, within the General Information section, the last two subparts of Item 10, Armor
Piercing Ammunition, were not included. These subparts consist of: (a) the text of the 1994
amendment Congress made to the Gun Control Act’s (GCA) definition of armor piercing
ammunition and, (b) a listing of the projectiles that have been granted exemptions to the GCA’s
prohibition on armor piercing ammunition. These subparts are now included.

(3) At page 102, within Section III, Laws and Regulations, Sub-part C, U.S. Munitions Import List,
Category XIV, Toxicological Agents and Equipment and Radiological Equipment, the text of 27 CFR
447.21(c) did not reflect recent regulatory changes. Those language changes are now included.
(4) At page 198, Question & Answer Item B8, grammatical errors have been corrected.
(5) At page 206, Question & Answer Item I3, grammatical errors have been corrected.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:02 AM

42. "The whine cellar..."

I'm flattered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 11:49 PM

45. You should be. I only stea...err, borrow from the best!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:24 AM

17. Piling this atop the rest of this fiasco certainly doesn't help their case...

even if it were a publishing error, it comes on top of a proposed rule declaration that clearly violates the underlying statute (a projectile that is 80% lead cannot be AP under this statute, by definition), and the notice of proposed rulemaking was not published in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act as is required by law. In this context, the "publishing error" does make it look as if the agency was pushing the M855 ban and the created-from-thin-air "framework" as fait accompli, even if it was an actual mistake.

Of course, one could argue that this whole shark-jumping fiasco was a mistake, given that the number of LEO's killed annually with M855 is zero, it doesn't penetrate any differently than other .223 or hunting ammo, the agency has no statuatory authority to ban lead- or composite-core ammunition, and .223 is the most popular centerfire rifle caliber in the nation. I suspect this was pushed by someone who doesn't understand the underlying issues and thus had no idea of the pushback they'd get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:43 AM

18. If I wore a tin foil hat

 

I might indeed think they tried to sneak this through and were caught and are backtracking. I work in the government though and know how screwed up publications can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:13 PM

19. Trial balloon?

 

Not to join the tinfoil hat brigade, but the Feds don't have the best reputation in this area lately. It doesn't strain credulity too much to envision posting this "in error" to see if anyone gets riled up; if not, then post in accordance with the APA to put the regulation in effect.

These "AR pistols" don't worry me much as an LEO; they seem to be a hobbyist's toy with the worst of both worlds. Too large to easily conceal, but without the range and accuracy of an actual rifle/carbine. I'm more concerned with a .22 derringer that I cannot see in someone's pocket. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:49 PM

20. Why does every article

Make a big deal about "green tip" ammo?

Anyone with knowledge of military small arms ammo (or take 15 seconds to look it up)will know green tip indicates ball ammo. Black tip is AP. (So the exempt 30 cal M2AP actually is armor piercing) Red is tracer rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 05:14 PM

21. predictably, another post in the other group that links to

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628413
at best a very poorly written oped. I think it is more passing off lies myself.

The title says it all.....
Protect the Police From Armor-Piercing Bullets

The nation’s police forces should be the first to rally behind a federal proposal to ban the sale and manufacture of the 5.56-millimeter steel-core bullet. The bullet can be used in newly adapted handguns to provide lethal force to pierce the vests and body armor used by law enforcement officers.

Until now, the powerful “M855 green tip” bullet has been legal for use in AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, typically used by target shooters and hunters. But the gun industry’s reckless development of new handguns that use the bullet — criminals prefer handguns over rifles — has led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to sensibly propose banning it in the name of greater gun safety.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/protect-the-police-from-armor-piercing-bullets.html?emc=edit_th_20150308&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31465010&_r=0

Police vests are not rated to stop any rifle ammunition, normal or with a steel core. Why are they all scared about this type when any 5.56 or .223 ball ammo will do the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 06:32 PM

23. And as expected:

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628413#post1

Someone eventually decided to comment on the issue and was slapped down for not showing sufficient "purity" for the group and directed to this group. You really cannot make this stuff up. It looks like facts are a cross between holy water and kryptonite for the GCRA group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 06:42 PM

24. Facts do not matter as much as purity

 

Over in that group. I Find it amazing reading some of the utter crap that is posted by the two or three posters over there. And they say this group is bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:54 PM

25. Think this question will be answered

 

or be blamed as some NRA talking point?


Why don't we ban the manufacture of pistols that fire rifle cartridges?
That would make sense. It would be more logical than banning one specific type of 5.56. Also, even a pure lead bullet on a 5.56 cartridge will go through body armor so I don't see the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628413#post3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:57 PM

26. You guys would whine about that, too, if it went that way. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:00 PM

27. Nope, just curious how many more you are going to block

 

to censor speech that you do not like.

By the way are you ready to answer any simple questions posed to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:20 PM

28. I notice you haven't chimed in much on the ammo ban proposal.

 

Since you guys are always talking about "reasonable" gun control, how about telling us all whether you see this as "reasonable" or not.

Or is it your view that ALL gun control is reasonable, because its gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:02 PM

30. just ask him as a simple yes or no question

 

see if you do better than me with that host.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 06:20 PM

106. Reclass them as SBR's, problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

29. another answer as expected in that group

 

The NRA/ILA, ALEC, and Rush Limbaugh agree with your thinking, and so do their right-wing supporters and apologists, so thank you for your contribution, but you too are posting in the wrong Group. The Gungeon is down the hall, and to the right.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628413#post4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:43 AM

31. Hey, they admitted that AR-15 rifles are typically used by target shooters and hunters.

"Until now, the powerful “M855 green tip” bullet has been legal for use in AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, typically used by target shooters and hunters."


Hey, they admitted that AR-15 rifles are typically used by target shooters and hunters. Nice to see facts breaking through the facade...

"the gun industry’s reckless development of new handguns that use the bullet — criminals prefer handguns over rifles — has led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to sensibly propose banning it in the name of greater gun safety."


The "pistols" in question aren't regular, concealable handguns, but are essentially a full sized AR-15 rifle with a bare buffer tube or arm brace instead of a shoulder stock and a shorter barrel. So they are shorter than a full length rifle, but are still as bulky as a full sized AR-15 and way too big to realistically conceal on the person and deploy in a hurry. Visual aid (pictured without sights, since the owner's choice of sight or optic is usually added after purchase):

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=231

Even the 7" barreled version is still nearly two feet long overall (23", and the 10.5" barrel version is 26.5" long, longer than the legal minimum length for an actual rifle, and 10-11" from top to bottom. By comparison, a Glock 19 9mm is 7.3" long and 5" high, and that is not a particularly small gun (it's considered a midsize pistol).

The dumbest thing about all of this is that out of a pistol-length barrel, a .223 wastes half or more of its potential muzzle energy making noise and flame instead of accelerating the bullet, as I mentioned upthread. In a true rifle, M855 is going between 3000 and 3100 ft/sec out of a 20" barrel or 2850-2900 ft/sec out of a 16" barrel, and carries 1120-1320 ft-lb of energy at muzzle exit. Out of an 11" barrel, it manages only 2650 ft/sec or so (967 ft-lb) at muzzle exit, and a 7" barrel manages only ~2200 ft/sec (670 ft-lb). So not only are they far harder to shoot accurately than an actual rifle, but the shorter AR-15 "pistols" are only about half as powerful as a full-length AR-15 even using the exact same ammunition. To me, that pretty much delegates them to range-toy and paper-punching status, since .223 is the least powerful of common rifle cartridges to begin with.

Now one of *these* rifle-caliber pistols can be concealed, and they are available in .243 Winchester, etc. up through .375 JDJ and .45-70 Government. But they suffer the same barrel-length handicap as any other rifle-caliber pistol; rifle cartridges are made for rifle-length barrels, and they need that length to attain rifle velocities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:24 AM

32. and when some gun manufacturer comes up with a bullpup pistol version, what then?

 

So what then if they make one with a 16" barrel that's 16.5" long, total. Or a 10" barrel that's only 10.5" long.



I don't think these should be allowed for civilian use, if/when they're made. Would you like to make a case why they should be, other than you want one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:25 AM

33. nice cartoon

 

we are talking about how stupid it is to ban one type of non-armor piercing ammunition, not a imaginary gun.

And to your simple question

Here is my answer, I do not want one and most shooters would not for the reasons so well stated upthread.

Now would you care to answer my simple questions or my PM to you? I do and it is easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:58 AM

34. We buy one...or two...a in home self defense dream come true.



I looked at the tavors last weekend in Winston Salem gunshow (the fishing/boating show was a bust after a few hours) I was impressed with the quality but it still seemed rather bulky. Of course the 2200 buck price tag is a little steep.

For 800 you could buy a piston powered pistol AR, 200 bucks for a SBR stamp and you'd have a better gun IMHO. Pick up a suppressor and you'd be in business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 08:51 AM

35. They already do (Steyr AUG and IMI Tavor).

"when some gun manufacturer comes up with a bullpup pistol version, what then?"

They already do; the civilian variants of the Steyr AUG and the IMI Tavor.

Steyr AUG

I've wanted an AUG since 1989, but unfortunately Bush the Elder and his arch-right-wing "drug czar" William J. Bennett got AUG importion banned before I was old enough to buy one, so I eventually ended up with an AR instead. They now make AUG's domestically, so I'll own one someday, unless you guys get your way and ban domestic production too (make mine an A3 flattop version with an Aimpoint, please).

But notice the profound size difference between the real 16"-barrel .223 bullpup (which is as small and light as they could figure out how to make one) and the imaginary gun from Deviantart (awesome site, btw, but you have to keep in mind that unicorns and Detonics-sized .223's aren't real):

Imaginary bullpup .223:


Real bullpup .223:


Believe me, if it were feasible to make a .223 action as light and compact as shown in the Deviantart drawing, it'd be even more popular as the basis of lighter, more compact .223 rifles. Thing is, there are fundamental engineering reasons why even a bullpup .223 built from the most advanced materials cannot be 16.5" long with a 16" barrel. A Browning-style tilting barrel system (shown, although the artist didn't allow room in the receiver for that barrel to tilt) is compact, but not strong enough to handle the bolt thrust from a rifle cartridge, with a working pressure over 55,000 pounds per square inch. Also notice that the front of the magazine is in *front* of the rear of the barrel, meaning that the imaginary design postulates pulling the cartridges out of the magazine from the rear (which has been done with short, fat pistol cartridges, but I don't think it's been done successfully with a rifle round). AFAIK, not even single-shot break-open .223's (e.g. Thompson-Center Contender) are that short.

But let's say that fundamental breakthroughs in materials science did allow you to make a .223 or .308 pistol that small, and let's further imagine it had onboard gyroscopic stabilizers and whatnot that made it easier to shoot. How would even that justify the ban on 80%-lead M855, which penetrates just like other .223, .243, or .308 lead-core non-AP, including plain Walmart FMJ and M193? M855 is stopped by properly constructed NIJ III (which is tested against steel-jacketed 7.62x51mm FMJ) and M855 will splatter against AR500 plate just like other non-AP will. Postulating imaginary pistols that don't and probably can't exist doesn't change the pesky fact that M855 isn't an armor-piercing round. Also keep in mind that concealable 9mm handguns aren't 16" or 20" long overall, they're 5"-9" long overall, and .223 acts like a .22 rimfire out of any barrel that short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 09:06 AM

36. The basic mechanics of firearms...

...prevent either of those designs for any modern cartridge. The single piece of material that includes the barrel and chamber would require an assembly behind large enough to accommodate one round of the ammunition and behind that a mechanism that would include a firing pin. Possibly a muzzle loading gun could be made to those specs but not one that fits modern ammo.

What aspects of these designs are you concerned with? Why should they not be allowed for civilian use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:29 PM

38. You haven't made the case why they shouldn't be allowed for civilians.

 

"I don't think these should be allowed for civilian use, if/when they're made. Would you like to make a case why they should be, other than you want one?"



You haven't made the case as to why they shouldn't be available to civilians other than "I don't think these should be allowed for civilian use".

Since the default is "allowed", its up to you to make the case why they shouldn't be, beyond "I don't like them".










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 07:27 PM

55. "its up to you to make the case why they shouldn't be, beyond 'I don't like them'."

Next thing we know you'll be on about consent of the governed, freedom or some other such rot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 08:07 PM

56. Me and my high-minded beliefs...

 

Some of our interlocutors behave remarkable similar to the "officials" in the below story, do they not?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/03/05/philadelphia-officials-seek-to-cure-journalism-student-of-his-high-minded-ideas-about-government/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 08:40 PM

57. Ugh! Why must these peasants always be starting so much trouble!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 05:26 PM

43. Update: It looks like the good guys won.

No M855 ammo ban from the ATF - this time anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:27 PM

44. Good to hear. It appears sometimes facts can win out over the scaremongering.

I am still seeing a few media outlets calling M855 ball "armor piercing" so we may see this meme around for a while, but I think ultimately the only lasting outcome of this misadventure is going to be an uptick in M855 sales for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:32 PM

53. And likely another bump in NRA, SAF and state associations membership N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:54 PM

50. if you want to ban something, you go after the least effective regulations first

 

They want it because it does almost nothing to improve people's lives. If it worked people wouldn't keep fighting for more draconian laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 04:15 PM

51. Excellent and informative post

IMO the problem stems from the media picking up on a few scary phrases ("Cop killer bullets", "armor piercing" and then applying those phrases to situations they just don't fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 05:36 PM

52. Yup, exactly. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 05:24 PM

88. INTERESTING. I just learned that 55gr lead-core FMJ (but ironically not 62gr M855)

can penetrate some thinnish AR500 steel armor rated NIJ III at very close range if fired out of a hunting length barrel; the test below is from a 22" barreled bolt-action .223 varmint rifle pushing the 55-grain FMJ at about 3240 ft/sec. To reiterate, this is plain lead-core copper-jacketed target-style ammo, not M855.



Ironically, the guy also fired a "green tip" M855 round out of the same rifle at the same distance at the same plate, and it did *not* penetrate even with the extra velocity from the 22" barrel.

So it looks like a 20" to 24" barrel can push a 55-grain lead core FMJ (but not 62gr M855) fast enough to penetrate a thin plate of AR500. That's interesting. I've pointed out before that M193 lead-core FMJ penetrates hard cover better than M855 at close range, but I had no idea M193 would penetrate actual III-rated AR500. Apparently even M193 is stopped if the distance is more than a few yards, though, as the relatively draggy bullet loses velocity quickly from aerodynamic drag.

So basically, from a hunting-rifle-length barrel, you get hunting-rifle penetration, but only with the light-for-caliber loads; M855 is too slow to penetrate even from long barrels.

That means that a lot of light-for-caliber .243, .270, .308, .30-06 non-AP hunting/varmint/target loads will likely penetrate NIJ III as well, if fired from hunting-length barrels. It also means that from an officer safety standpoint, redefining the NIJ III standard to what is sometimes called the "III+" standard would be a really good idea for those rare instances where officers face a perpetrator armed with a rifle at close range. Making III+ the default standard for rifle-resistant armor would mean that such armor could be counted on to stop multiple .223 through .308 rounds even at across-the-room distances from hunting-length barrels, whereas the current standard might let a light-for-caliber .223, .243, or .308 varmint round slip through from a long enough barrel if fired from across a room.

It also goes to show that M855 from a pistol-length barrel isn't really a threat as far as penetration of NIJ III armor goes; out of a 7-8" pistol barrel, M855 is barely going 1900 ft/sec, and out of a longer pistol barrel it might hit 2300-2600 ft/sec, whereas in this video it didn't even penetrate a level III plate out of a 22" barrel going ~3000 ft/sec.

I saw another video where a guy shot the same NIJ III-rated AR500 plate 60+ times with M855 green-tip, including multiple hits in the same holes, before the plate finally eroded/fatigued enough to start letting rounds through; this was from what looked like an 18" barrel at ~35 yards, which would be a decent stand-in for a 16" rifle or a long-ish "pistol" at point blank range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread