wayno wrote:Giddy_up wrote:wayno wrote:rabbit ammunition of a 22 has around half the velocity of the ammo used in military .223 weapons if you read the articles you'll see the extra energy of the .223 round causes a lot more damage
rabbit amo is lead and distorts on impact and doesnt penetrate like the .23 full metal jacket ammo. it doesnt always tumble, not when it hits soft flesh, from what i recall it tumples on hitting harder objects
See my previous posts
i know the difference in calibres, I've used a variety of ammo, and i've seen the difference in damage between them.
the energy delivered by the various rounds can vary massively because of the velocity the bullet is traveling at, it has more energy as explained in my links,
thats one of the main reasons of the reason high velocity weapons are far more likely to kill than lower velocity ammo.
thats why rabbit ammo is no good for large animals and high velocity weapons are...
GPSGuided wrote:Gosh, turned into a discussion on ammunition and cavitation and others, typical ploy of the gun lobby in side tracking debates on the issue.
Giddy_up wrote:No one is sidetracking anything GPS and I don’t think any of the comments here are from poster boys or girls for the gun lobby in the U.S or Australia!
Moondog55 wrote:Wrong GPS, discussing the technicalities of why they maim and wound so badly is a part of the "wh we need to remove them from the open market" discussion.
There is now no way they can be removed from the black market however, there are simply far too many of them world wide,
wayno wrote:I am not a firearms enthusiast, i simply have an understanding of firearms and ammunition.
my exposure to weapons was mainly in cadets when i was doing as I was told, and rabbit shooting over 30 years ago, it was standard to give us target practice and teach us gun safety at cadets, other than that a bit of goat and deer hunting, again, 30 years ago...
wayno wrote:dont think what you've seen in most war movies is the reality.
Moondog55 wrote:wayno wrote:dont think what you've seen in most war movies is the reality.
Wayno I have seen shot people [ and animals] and the damage it can do and how long recovery takes, most people have not, but then most people don't hunt either or have any first-aid training etc.
GPSGuided wrote:I suspect you are an optimist. As for all past disasters, there'd be a bump in public opinion and then the debate and actions will get drowned out by the mass media with endless excuses. It's entrenched and brainwashed in a significant section of the society and the moment one brings out 2nd Amendment rights, all gets shut. Unless one can reverse the Supreme Court interpretation...
wayno wrote:my comment is rebuttling GPS's argument that we are unecessarily raking over the details about ammunition.. its a timely discussion to have in my view
Lophophaps wrote:I am an optimist. Your comments about the bump of public opinion are most probably correct, but might not the groundswell supporting gun control be rising? Polls suggest this. The constant drips, drip, drip of water wears away solid rock. So it is with all the mass shootings. All it takes is the perception by politicians that this issue could see them lose power and they will start moving. Baby steps are better than no steps. The Pacific Crest Trail is 4264 kilometres long and takes five months to walk. The journey starts with one step.
GPSGuided wrote:wayno wrote:my comment is rebuttling GPS's argument that we are unecessarily raking over the details about ammunition.. its a timely discussion to have in my view
Well, physical damage caused by 'military weapon' to 'pop gun' really is a continuum out there. Apart from actual military gears, at what rate of firing is acceptable? At what muzzle velocity is acceptable? At what bullet weight is acceptable? At what bullet head design is acceptable? And what civilian firearm can not be used in wars? All quite arbitrary. The question should primarily be about tight gun regulation as all firearms have far greater killing power and distance projection than other manual weapons. For the recent events in the US, even without automatic weapons, is it acceptable for the guy to run in with a shotgun and blast away? Or a rifle and picking off students? Reduced death numbers but is it acceptable?
wayno wrote:the AR15 appears in a lot of mass shootings, the rest have similar semi auto matic weapons, when do you hear about mass shootings with bolt action rifles? ...
Moondog55 wrote:I have seen posts from people I know about buying lots of assault rifles before they get banned [ these people are assuming a ban is inevitable] but partly this is an economic choice as they believe that massive dollar compensations will be paid when these firearms are surrendered, these people are simply making a rational decision based on probability...
Gadgetgeek wrote:Fundamentally any attempt to regulate a technology is going to be fraught. We can get mired in the technical details of what is and isn't an assault rifle, or an assault weapon, or what is "military hardware" but I don't think they lead anywhere. All they do is allow one side to feel like they have one up on the other. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. One little change, a label, a feature and its suddenly something else. Nothing has proliferated the shear number and types of semi-auto rifle-like objects for sale in the US greater than regulation. Each new rule leads to a dozen new designs to skirt it. And they don't matter. Saying that AR-15s are more dangerous is like saying that honda civics have more crashes (or whatever the current most common production car is here, in the US it would be F-150s) Its a matter of scale. They are common, off patent, pretty cheap to make, and modular. You can spend from a couple hundred up to many thousand, and so yeah, they turn up a lot. Its also not the problem.
Orion wrote:I don't buy that argument. An inability to draw a perfectly clean line is no justification for drawing none at all. The fact is that there are limits now, imperfect though they may be. To pretend they don't make a difference is to ignore the scientific evidence.
Gadgetgeek wrote:I'm not saying that there should be no regulation at all. I'm saying that why is an ar-15 bad but a ruger mini-14 is fine? I feel like regulation should stop where the lines are clear. Class them as single shot, repeating, and semi-auto. Minimum overall length might be appropriate as well. Past that, banning one gun or another for some arbitrary reason doesn't make much sense to me.
Gadgetgeek wrote:Fundamentally any attempt to regulate a technology is going to be fraught. We can get mired in the technical details of what is and isn't an assault rifle, or an assault weapon, or what is "military hardware" but I don't think they lead anywhere. All they do is allow one side to feel like they have one up on the other. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. One little change, a label, a feature and its suddenly something else. Nothing has proliferated the shear number and types of semi-auto rifle-like objects for sale in the US greater than regulation. Each new rule leads to a dozen new designs to skirt it. And they don't matter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests