HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

Ummm, no.

"balked on the wall challenge"

*Any* firearm will shoot through a sheet of drywall at in-home distances, including a .22LR or a shotgun loaded with birdshot. .223 Remington with light civilian JHP penetrates less than most.

"And if the .223 were to fragment, tho doesn't as much, if only rarely, as at greater distance, there would be effectively two bullets to contend with. "

You are confusing robust bonded-core rounds, some types of which are known to break in two at the cannelure after a deep yaw in a fluid medium, with fragile civilian JHP that disintegrates after upset. If you wish to limit penetration to less than that of a handgun, buckshot, or .22LR, you want the latter.

"What about 9mm & .38, & dirty harry's., or a 25 caliber cf acp, or 25 cal rf (if they make them)."

9mm, .38 Special, .44 Magnum (the fictional Dirty Harry's gun) will penetrate more drywall than light .223 Remington JHP will. The anemic .25 ACP JHP (centerfire, not rimfire) will probably penetrate about like .223 JHP, but with even less energy than a .22LR. AFAIK there have been no .25 rimfires in production since the late 19th century, if then.

"ezra: A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't

You're either low balling or know people in the black market, or it's bottomed out again: june 2013 It appears that the market for the popular rifle has bottomed out. The average price of an AR-15 has in recent weeks returned to the $800-$1,050 range, down from its all-time high of $2,500 (averaged), according to the gun blog The Truth About Guns "

I see both the Ruger AR-556 and the Smith & Wesson M&P Sport right at $600 right now, and if you wait for a sale then you can indeed snag one for $550. That's about where the S&W has been for the last couple of years; the Ruger AR-556 is new to the entry-level market (their other AR, the SR-556, is aimed at the high end).

Smith & Wesson M&P Sport, $603.00

Ruger AR-556, $599.00

You can certainly pay more and get more features (cold hammer forged barrel, midlength gas system, magnetic-particle-inspected bolt and carrier, somewhat better fit and finish, free-float forend instead of standard handguards, upgraded trigger, better stock, etc.) but a basic, no-frills AR is cheaper than a Ruger Mini-14, and squarely in the working-class bracket.

"post 75: AR's dominate smaller game hunting (varmint hunting, predator hunting) down to the level at which .22 rimfires take over. They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds. "

Where did I mention using .22 rimfires for defensive purposes? I just said AR's cover small game hunting down to where rimfires take over, which is true. AR's are suitable for groundhogs and prairie dogs, and smaller than that (squirrels) you'd use a .22 instead.

I thought we were discussing centerfires, but since you mention it...

"Gun owners don't use 22 rimfires for home defense? "

I thought it was a given that we are discussing centerfires, but rimfires are a good topic to bring up. And yes, 40gr and 55gr .223 JHP penetrate less than or equal to typical .22LR in both drywall and gelatin.

The reason is that .22LR are going way too slowly, and spinning way too slowly, to disintegrate on impact with a soft barrier, whereas lightweight .223 JHP traveling nearly 3000 ft/sec and spinning at 240,000+ rpm tends to disintegrate in gelatin or after getting whacked by a couple sheets of drywall. As a result, .22LR gelatin penetration is typically 9" to 18" in gelatin depending on load, whereas 40gr .223 JHP may penetrate 7" or less, and a 55gr .223 JHP typically penetrates 10" to 12".

There are plenty of good reasons to prefer a centerfire over a rimfire (reliability being #1, and effectiveness #2), but a rimfire is nothing to sneeze at, especially in terms of penetration.

"The .223 has about 10 times more kinetic energy than a 22 short or long (by plurality used most to commit suicide). Not possible the .223 is less hazard. "

Your error is in assuming that kinetic energy correlates with drywall and gelatin penetration. It does not; in fact, all else being equal, it tends to be inversely correlated once you reach the fragmentation threshold. What matters more is fragmentation, and lightweight .223 readily fragments whereas .22LR does not.

For example, here's three gel tests of a 50gr .223, one out of an 11.5" barrel, one a 14.5", and one a 19.5". The longer the barrel and the higher the kinetic energy, the less the round penetrated.



For an even clearer example, compare a 40gr at 1250 ft/sec (.22LR) to a 40gr at 2750 ft/sec (.22 Hornet). More-than-double the velocity and quintuple the energy, and penetration goes down, but temporary cavity *diameter* goes up.





Double the energy *again* (to twice that of a .223, by shooting a 55gr load out of a .30-06 deer rifle), and you still get less penetration than a 40gr .22LR...but horrific "tissue" damage:



FWIW, I spent a couple hours looking, and the only .22LR load I found that penetrates less than a 40gr .223 JHP are some prefragmented .22LR made for squirrel hunting (Quik-Shok, and CCI Segmented HP), and those would likely penetrate drywall like any other .22LR HP. Typical .22LR hollowpoints will penetrate as much as or slightly more than 55gr .223 JHP.

Now, in terms of damage to the target, there is no question; .223 and .357 (and buckshot, and .30-06...) create a *wider* wound than .22LR, by a large margin, and .223 *FMJ* will penetrate more than most .22LR. But comparing .22LR defensive HP (CCI Velocitor is widely regarded as the best) to good .223 defensive JHP, penetration is comparable across the board.

"An ar15 - 0.223 fmj carries 3 times more kinetic energy at close range than a 357 magnum, 4 times more than a 9mm. You are contending the .223 is somehow 'less hazard' to bystanders & neighbors, than those?"

.223 JHP penetrates less than 9mm and .357 JHP. .223 FMJ penetrates less than 9mm and .357 FMJ. Comparing apples to apples, then yes, .223 is a safer choice than either, which is a primary reason why law enforcement SWAT teams have replaced 9mm submachineguns with non-automatic .223 carbines.

"Dare: I will stand behind a drywall & paneling & be shot at by a 22 rimfire, you stand behind it & get shot at by an ar15. "

If you were standing behind the third "wall" in this test, which would you rather be shot at with? The .223 loads that didn't penetrate the third wall, or the 9mm/.380/00 buckshot loads that did?

.223 with appropriate load choice is less likely to overpenetrate than any other effective load. The few loads that manage to penetrate less than good .223 JHP are those specialized for shooting squirrels and birds, and none of those are particularly effective at incapacitation even if they ultimately prove lethal.

It's aluminum alloy...not sure if 6061 or 7075. Pre-scandium, but has held up great

in spite of lots of shooting, including various +P (including Cor-Bon's very hot 1300+ ft/sec +P load).

S&W started with the basic 3913 (single-stack 3rd-gen S&W semiauto) and made some modifications to appeal to female shooters, namely a better shaped grip frame, a better trigger, the more neutral gray grips instead of the black grips of the standard 3913, and a single-side safety instead of ambi for a slimmer profile. Even now, the Lady Smith variant of the 3913 is widely regarded as one of the best 3rd-gen semiautos S&W ever made. Capacity is 8+1, with a 3.5" barrel.

The Lady Smith model was enough of an upgrade over the standard 3913 that S&W eventually came out with a limited run of Lady Smiths with no logo; those are sometimes referred to as the 3913NL.

They have to believe that, because they can't allow themselves to believe

that someone could choose differently from them for any rational reason. Most of the gun control movement as currently constituted (particularly since 2012) isn't built on policy analysis or risk/benefit calculation, but on contempt for gun owners as a despised outgroup, and hence gun owners can never be seen to be acting out of rational thought. Gun ownership may be seen as a sin, or as a compensatory outgrowth of base impulses, or as mindless slavery to corporate advertising, but it can never be allowed to be seen as a choice that a rational individual may make for herself.

As an aside, I do hold a NC carry license, and my carry gun is one of these, which (being a Lady Smith) is about as non-macho as one can get:



I notice that the haters don't like to acknowledge that women choose to own guns and obtain carry licenses, either, as doing so would undermine their contempt; instead, they portray women as neo-Victorian incompetents when it comes to guns and gun ownership.

The General Social Survey

involves describing your gun ownership face to face with some stranger from Chicago over the course of an hour and a half interview, and the interview is explicitly NON-anonymous.

I'm looking for data on how the actual GSS interviews themselves are randomized; are interviews evenly spread throughout the United States, or is the highly abberant Chicago/southern Illinois pocket oversampled relative to more normal areas?

Uh-huh. They are in deep denial.

At most, this tracks gun-owner trust in pollsters from Chicago. (And are the GSS interviews randomized nationwide, or are they clustered in/around Chicago? Because Chicago, and Illinois in general, are severe outliers from national gun-ownership norms.)

The GSS data is also wildly divergent from other gun-ownership metrics that are less prone to underreporting, such as NICS data, carry licence data, and surveys that at least attempt to preserve anonymity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx



Even with anonymous polling, the sharp decrease in self-reported ownership after the Third Way made lawful gun owners Public Enemy Number One in 1993-1994 is noteworthy. To take the self-reported answers at face value would be to imagine that 20+ million gun owners suddenly became non-gun-owners in the space of 4 years, despite gun sales and gun license applications doubling or tripling in that time.

A ban on 10-to-30 round magazines would be even more politically toxic than an AWB...

since the magazine ban wouldn't just affect modern-looking rifles, but many popular pistols and traditional-looking rifles as well.

As to requiring magazine changes every 10 or 15 rounds, here's a regular dude shooting a local-to-me USPSA match with a hard-kicking, very-low-capacity pistol (M1911 .45 ACP, capacity 8+1):



Unless you are going to ban ownership of multiple magazines, even New York's wacky 7-round limit (less than half the capacity you could buy in NY in 1861) doesn't really limit rate of effective fire. Of course, that wasn't the intent.

So by your definition, this is an "assault weapon"?

Antique military-style lever action, capacity 16+1.



Or maybe this one? .22 squirrel rifle, capacity 18+1 or 14+1.



Is this an "assault weapon"? Capacity 15+1 or 17+1.



"Regardless of what happened in the past, it is obvious that today high capacity magazines and assault-type rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murders."

The worst mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out with a compact 9mm pistol, a .22 pistol, and a backpack full of non-extended, mostly low-capacity magazines. Banning rifles with handgrips and magazines that stick out wouldn't save *any* lives.

FWIW, magazine capacity is more important for defensive use than offensive use, given that someone planning an assault can carry all the magazines they want, whereas a defender may have only the magazine in the gun (if a long gun at home), or a couple spares if carrying with reloads.



Here in NC,

I had to take an 8-hour class on NC self-defense law, pass a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, in order to obtain a carry license. Yet you would take away my own license just as readily as you'd take an Arizona resident's right to carry away from her, which shows that it's not really gun-owner training that is your goal here.

BTW, Arizona's law allowing concealed carry for lawful purposes without a license was passed in imitation of Vermont. Vermont has never required a license to CCW and has always had one of the lowest rates of violence in the nation.

It'd be cabernet, not heroin.

"I hear heroin is fun & helpful, too"

The simple fact is that the most popular civilian rifle in the United States is also among the least misused guns in the United States. Period. Even shotguns are used to commit more homicides than rifles are. So are knives, blunt objects, and bare hands.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

"What good are assault rifles (sic) in deterring crime, safeguarding homes, or providing some positive benefit from usage which couldn't be accomplished with a more conventional & 'safer' rifle?"

Just how, perchance, does a rifle become "safer" by fitting it with an old fashioned stock, while retaining the same recoil, rate of fire, and magazine capacity?



By almost any measure, the AR is among the safest of all rifles on the market. Relatively low powered, hard to conceal on the person, a better safety than most long guns, highly accurate, less penetration than most guns, and ergonomics that encourage safer handling. Not to mention that they are less prone to misuse than either handguns or shotguns, based on FBI weapon-use statistics.

"The ar15/m16 have such little recoil they perforce become more accurate when shooting quickfire"

Ummm, what? My AR will shoot about 1" groups at 100 yards, slowfire. Are you saying that if you pull the trigger frenetically like an idiot in a Youtube video, the groups will shrink?

If it's the light-ish recoil of .223 that bothers you, then you're out to ban all box-fed .22 centerfires, then? And you'd be OK with me owning an an AR in harder-kicking .243 Winchester or .308, I take it?

There's also the pesky fact that a more powerful rifle can do more damage with one hit (such as penetrating a Level III AR500 plate) than an AR can do with multiple hits...

"There. is. no. beneficial. cogent. usage. for. ar15s. in. communities. To outweigh real & potential hazards."

Given that the AR is demonstrably *less* dangerous than almost any other class of centerfire firearm, I'd say that is baloney. If AR's---rarely-misused centerfire .22's, after all---are too "dangerous" for civilians to own, then *most* repeating firearms are too dangerous for civilians to own, which is why the gun control lobby popularized the "assault weapon" fraud in the first place (Sugarmann, 1988).

"Already had this discussion, switch to birdshot in the shotgun"

If you switch to 40gr JHP in the AR, you can probably penetrate less than birdshot at close range. Neither is recommended for defensive use, though, due to that same utter lack of penetration.

"It's an 'excellent choice' is it? If you have enough money (~$1,000?) to waste for home defense & you target shoot competitively & if you live really really rural & get annoyed with varmints a quarter mile away, yeah I guess so....That's actually a good thing they cost so much, inhibits propagation."

A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't, which is comparable to a bolt-action of similar quality (say a Savage Trophy Hunter). Obviously optics and features will add to that.

"But if you're a normal ar15 owner, I'll bet most of them wish they hadn't bought the damn thing. "

Actually, looking at NSSF surveys, it looks like AR owners are among the gun owners *most* likely to enjoy shooting their purchase at the range. There are good reasons for that, as I've certainly spelled out upthread.

"And I'm sure you meant to write " .. less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or SOME handgun rounds." Didn't you? "

No, I mean *all* handgun rounds. .223 JHP penetrates less in building materials than any effective centerfire handgun JHP or SP I am aware of. Any of them. Meaning a 9mm/.40/.45 is more likely to exit a lightly constructed exterior wall than a 52-55gr JHP/SP from an AR is. The only handgun round that *might* penetrate as little as a 55gr .223 is something like a Glaser.

"By default I assume you agree that ar15s rank very low regarding defensive gun uses. That is actual usage. You just cant' get a 'verbal dgu' if you bluff & say to burglar 'go away or I'll get my assault rifle'. Nah, no cigar."

Not sure what you're arguing here. They are probably more intimidating than handguns are, which is one reason the media like to sensationalize and ban them, but I'm not sure if that equates to them being actually fired in HD less often (it may, but AFAIK there is little to no data on DGU by gun make/model). And the typical scenario with a long gun would be sheltering in place, not some sort of Clint-Eastwood-esque standing on your porch and threatening thing.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »