(02-24-2017, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The shotgun in the home is partially about over-penetration, but it is also about ease of use. Best home defense scenario is to get family in one room, behind barricade, and if someone comes through the door you fire into it. Shotgun will fill the opening with pellets. A rifle, especially in a high-adrenaline situation with your typical untrained civilian, runs the risk of not hitting the mark. Even if you aren't able to get into that defensive posture, the spread from a shotgun still affords someone a better chance of hitting their target.
I mean, ten years ago when I was doing this sort of thing there was a pretty good consensus on it. Shotgun was the top home defense weapon. Not sure what has changed, really.
Advertising that the bigger the gun the safer you are?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(02-24-2017, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The shotgun in the home is partially about over-penetration, but it is also about ease of use. Best home defense scenario is to get family in one room, behind barricade, and if someone comes through the door you fire into it. Shotgun will fill the opening with pellets. A rifle, especially in a high-adrenaline situation with your typical untrained civilian, runs the risk of not hitting the mark. Even if you aren't able to get into that defensive posture, the spread from a shotgun still affords someone a better chance of hitting their target.
I mean, ten years ago when I was doing this sort of thing there was a pretty good consensus on it. Shotgun was the top home defense weapon. Not sure what has changed, really.
Quite a bit actually. There is no consensus on what is best and you'll find a lot of people who find the shotgun less practical than an AR. You'll find a lot of argument on whether it's better to use 00 buck or #8 birdshot as well. It's no different than the caliber wars that are unending and likely to remain so. What can't be disputed, and why the AR for home defense argument exists, is the one stop incapacitating power of a rifle round over a hand gun. One need look no further than the FBI shoot out that prompted the adoption of the 10mm cartridge as an example. The suspect was hit early in the exchange by a 100% lethal 9mm round, meaning the wound was going to absolutely cause his death. He was able to continue firing back for some time.
You did highlight something that deserves further mention, the "untrained civilian". No one who owns firearms should be untrained. I'd be willing to wager heavily that your standard AR owner is much better trained on the use of their firearms than the average gun owner who owns a pistol or two and a shotgun. Regardless, gun owner and untrained don't belong together.
(02-24-2017, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You did highlight something that deserves further mention, the "untrained civilian". No one who owns firearms should be untrained. I'd be willing to wager heavily that your standard AR owner is much better trained on the use of their firearms than the average gun owner who owns a pistol or two and a shotgun. Regardless, gun owner and untrained don't belong together.
I would agree with everything you said here, but when I referred to untrained I was referring more towards untrained in the use of a firearm in a high-pressure situation. I could tell you that every firearm owner I personally know can safely and accurately use their firearms (which isn't true for every gun owner, as we all know, and that should change), but I can tell you that I am only certain that 5% of them would be able to handle themselves in a high-pressure situation. That's not to say some of the others wouldn't, myself included in that other 95%, but we haven't had the type of training that goes along with using a firearm in a situation where you are actually defending yourself from attack.
Now, your statement about being trained probably still holds true because I would be willing to bet that the percentage of AR owners that have military or law enforcement training is higher than the percentage of overall firearm owners that have, but that is more of the training I am referring to.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
I can agree with this. We require people to take driver tests and to be licensed because of the safety issues around it, the same should be true for guns. I also think you should have to carry insurance if you own a gun specifically for the gun, but thats a little different debate.
(02-24-2017, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While those are arms, that is more in reference to the rounds they use which are also used in other arms. There is a round called the .50 BMG, which is a half-inch in diameter and is used in anti-material sniper rifles. It is the high profile round used for those, however it is being replaced with the .416 Barrett because the round has a similar charge to it, but a smaller projectile, meaning it will have a higher velocity and often travel further and straighter. The .338 Lapua is a similar situation, though more of an anti-personnel round for long distance shooting. This isn't to say the .50 BMG and .416 Barret arms are not used for anti-personnel action, just that they weren't technically designated for that because according to modern conventions we are not supposed to use rounds larger than .30 caliber on personnel in warfare.
The M2 and M82 are both .50 cal weapons designed for personnel. The M203 and MK-19 fire 40mm rounds designed for personnel. I'm too lazy to look up an APERs round for a Carl Gustaz, but it's larger than 40mm. I've heard Active Duty military personnel make the same claim, but until I see it in writing I'm of the opinion it is urban legend.
Quote:Four judges dissented from the ruling, which they said effectively allows “the Government ... to take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens.
Well, that's patently false. So much for the judiciary having any common sense regarding weapons.
Assault Weapons have always been illegal and this ruling does nothing to change that.
Rifles, such as the AR15 will still be legal for the average US Citizen to own, It's the M16 that is illegal and always has been illegal to own since its an automatic.
Once the SCOTUS rules that AR15 style to be illegal is when we should start to worry.
(02-24-2017, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite a bit actually. There is no consensus on what is best and you'll find a lot of people who find the shotgun less practical than an AR. You'll find a lot of argument on whether it's better to use 00 buck or #8 birdshot as well. It's no different than the caliber wars that are unending and likely to remain so. What can't be disputed, and why the AR for home defense argument exists, is the one stop incapacitating power of a rifle round over a hand gun. One need look no further than the FBI shoot out that prompted the adoption of the 10mm cartridge as an example. The suspect was hit early in the exchange by a 100% lethal 9mm round, meaning the wound was going to absolutely cause his death. He was able to continue firing back for some time.
You did highlight something that deserves further mention, the "untrained civilian". No one who owns firearms should be untrained. I'd be willing to wager heavily that your standard AR owner is much better trained on the use of their firearms than the average gun owner who owns a pistol or two and a shotgun. Regardless, gun owner and untrained don't belong together.
Even that is disputable. There are complaints about the M4 that the high muzzle velocity is allowing the 5.56mm rounds to pass through and through instead tumbling through the body as designed allowing the enemy to continue fighting.
(02-24-2017, 01:32 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Assault Weapons have always been illegal and this ruling does nothing to change that.
Rifles, such as the AR15 will still be legal for the average US Citizen to own, It's the M16 that is illegal and always has been illegal to own since its an automatic.
Once the SCOTUS rules that AR15 style to be illegal is when we should start to worry.
Or am I reading the ruling wrong?
The Vietnam era M16s could fire on automatic, but have been changed to semiauto and 3 round burst for decades. There is very little difference between an M16/M4 and a civilian AR variant. There is a small chance firing a 5.56mm round in an AR variant designed for .223 might result in chamber over pressure and it could explode in your face. But, from what I've read it may be a million rounds or so before that happens.
Gun Control is a perverse topic as you have the conservative fighting to ensure/expand the right and you have the liberal fighting to restrict the right. Given this is a generalization and no slight on anyone’s opinion as I’m sure you think yours is the right one. It is also one that I see myself siding more and more with the liberal.
I don’t think Congress should eliminate the arms you possess; however, there should be requirements for ownership. For instance:
Every adult citizen should be able to obtain a one trigger pull/ one round type weapon for home protection. Regardless if long barrel or short barrel.
If you want more than that (multiple weapons, exotic weapons, the ability to transport/carry, hunt) then licensing should be required.
(02-24-2017, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Gun Control is a perverse topic as you have the conservative fighting to ensure/expand the right and you have the liberal fighting to restrict the right. Given this is a generalization and no slight on anyone’s opinion as I’m sure you think yours is the right one. It is also one that I see myself siding more and more with the liberal.
I don’t think Congress should eliminate the arms you possess; however, there should be requirements for ownership. For instance:
Every adult citizen should be able to obtain a one trigger pull/ one round type weapon for home protection. Regardless if long barrel or short barrel.
If you want more than that (multiple weapons, exotic weapons, the ability to transport/carry, hunt) then licensing should be required.
Well, there goes the board's self-proclaimed "lone conservative voice." Finally, the board is 100% liberal. Hillary thanks you for your assimilation.
(02-24-2017, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree with everything you said here, but when I referred to untrained I was referring more towards untrained in the use of a firearm in a high-pressure situation. I could tell you that every firearm owner I personally know can safely and accurately use their firearms (which isn't true for every gun owner, as we all know, and that should change), but I can tell you that I am only certain that 5% of them would be able to handle themselves in a high-pressure situation. That's not to say some of the others wouldn't, myself included in that other 95%, but we haven't had the type of training that goes along with using a firearm in a situation where you are actually defending yourself from attack.
Now, your statement about being trained probably still holds true because I would be willing to bet that the percentage of AR owners that have military or law enforcement training is higher than the percentage of overall firearm owners that have, but that is more of the training I am referring to.
Honestly, even with said training you don't know how someone is going to react until they're in that kind of situation. Of course, training is always better than no training. As to your last point, I would tend to agree, but even AR owners without that type of background tend to take firearms ownership more seriously than the gun owners who don't own one. As I've said before, you should be more concerned by the gun owner who owns one, or two, guns than the one who owns over twenty. The odds are excellent that the twenty gun owner knows his stuff and respects the weapons far more than the other.
(02-24-2017, 12:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: I can agree with this. We require people to take driver tests and to be licensed because of the safety issues around it, the same should be true for guns. I also think you should have to carry insurance if you own a gun specifically for the gun, but thats a little different debate.
While it seems reasonable, in some cases, what you're essentially doing is putting a tax on a person's ability to exercise their constitutional rights, which is, of course, unconstitutional.
(02-24-2017, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Even that is disputable. There are complaints about the M4 that the high muzzle velocity is allowing the 5.56mm rounds to pass through and through instead tumbling through the body as designed allowing the enemy to continue fighting.
Respectfully, no it's not. No one would prefer to be shot by a center fire rifle round over a handgun round. Maybe if you went to the extreme ends of the spectrum, .500 S&W vs. .224 varmint, but you get the idea. As for penetration without tumbling, that could happen with a high velocity ball round, but if you're using ball ammo for home defense then you're doing a lot wrong.
(02-24-2017, 06:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, even with said training you don't know how someone is going to react until they're in that kind of situation. Of course, training is always better than no training. As to your last point, I would tend to agree, but even AR owners without that type of background tend to take firearms ownership more seriously than the gun owners who don't own one. As I've said before, you should be more concerned by the gun owner who owns one, or two, guns than the one who owns over twenty. The odds are excellent that the twenty gun owner knows his stuff and respects the weapons far more than the other.
While it seems reasonable, in some cases, what you're essentially doing is putting a tax on a person's ability to exercise their constitutional rights, which is, of course, unconstitutional.
Respectfully, no it's not. No one would prefer to be shot by a center fire rifle round over a handgun round. Maybe if you went to the extreme ends of the spectrum, .500 S&W vs. .224 varmint, but you get the idea. As for penetration without tumbling, that could happen with a high velocity ball round, but if you're using ball ammo for home defense then you're doing a lot wrong.
1) Does a sales tax on firearms tax a person's ability to exercise their constitutional right?
2) What someone prefers to be shot by and claiming the one stop incapacitating power of an AR is indisputable are different arguments. The one stop incapacitating power of the M16/M4/CAR15/AR15 platform has been a topic of dispute since it was first introduced in Vietnam and has dogged it up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) Copper jacketed ball ammo is meant to fragment after tumbling inside the body to create more wound tracts, increased permanent and temporary cavitation, and transmit the maximum amount of kinetic energy from the bullet to the wound to increase tissue destruction and prevent a through and through wound. If it works like it is designed, the bullet should rip itself apart due to high muzzle velocity creating the type of one stop capacity you describe. (The wounds should be worse than a AK 7.62 round. Should be.) The muzzle velocity is supposed to make the smaller round more lethal, but it can also cause through and through wounds because the bullet never tumbles and fragments, and much of the kinetic energy carries the bullet through the body instead of being transmitted into the target. The problem is a double edged sword so to speak.
If you take the "militia" part literally wouldn't weapons of military service be covered?
But then I don't believe even a small percentage of gun owners want those guns or would be willing to join a militia either.
Tough call.
PS: Still not taking away anyone's right to own a gun.
Couple thoughts. Somewhere Obama is thinking, "Damnit, I was supposed to take their guns!"
I think the originalists should stick to their guns and rule in accord with what the founders meant - they meant you could have as many muskets as you wanted. No protection for handguns or any other long arms. Just muskets.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
(02-24-2017, 07:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1) Does a sales tax on firearms tax a person's ability to exercise their constitutional right?
No more than the price of the firearm itself. Compared to mandatory insurance to even own a fire arm this is a poor comparison.
Quote:2) What someone prefers to be shot by and claiming the one stop incapacitating power of an AR is indisputable are different arguments. The one stop incapacitating power of the M16/M4/CAR15/AR15 platform has been a topic of dispute since it was first introduced in Vietnam and has dogged it up to and including Iraq and Afghanistan.
The one stop shot wasn't really my point. The point was that a rifle round is far deadlier than a pistol round and is far more likely to incapacitate the target.
Quote:3) Copper jacketed ball ammo is meant to fragment after tumbling inside the body to create more wound tracts, increased permanent and temporary cavitation, and transmit the maximum amount of kinetic energy from the bullet to the wound to increase tissue destruction and prevent a through and through wound. If it works like it is designed, the bullet should rip itself apart due to high muzzle velocity creating the type of one stop capacity you describe. (The wounds should be worse than a AK 7.62 round. Should be.) The muzzle velocity is supposed to make the smaller round more lethal, but it can also cause through and through wounds because the bullet never tumbles and fragments, and much of the kinetic energy carries the bullet through the body instead of being transmitted into the target. The problem is a double edged sword so to speak.
Yes, I am aware of all of this. However, you didn't address my point, which was in a home defense scenario you would not want to use ball ammo in an AR or any other long gun. There are excellent JHP's (I personally like the Lehigh defense controlled chaos round) and other pre stressed jacketed rounds designed to dump most, if not all, of the bullet's energy into the target's soft tissue. This would be a good choice for home defense, m855 ammo would not.
BTW.... It penetrates too far for me to use for home defense.
Their maximum expansion round in the .300AAC subsonic is absolutely insane. I've bought a fair amount of their product, the funny thing is I hope to never have to use the vast majority of it. As for over penetration with that round, that assumes you hit no bone and that if it does over penetrate it doesn't hit a stud or the like. Any shot in the eight circle or better, even some 7 ring hits, will not carry much risk of dangerous over penetration. Contrast that with 00 buck, where your average gun owner, who doesn't even know what a choke is, will likely miss with two to three of the nine .33 caliber shot. Way more danger of a stray shot in that scenario IMO.
(02-24-2017, 09:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No more than the price of the firearm itself. Compared to mandatory insurance to even own a fire arm this is a poor comparison.
Au165 stated insurance was a separate issue when he mentioned it. I didn't make a comparison. I asked if a sales tax on a firearm was a tax on exercising a constitutional right.
Quote:The one stop shot wasn't really my point. The point was that a rifle round is far deadlier than a pistol round and is far more likely to incapacitate the target.
You specifically cited the one stop incapacitating power of a AR and claimed it was indisputable. However, it has been disputed for over 50 years.
Quote:Yes, I am aware of all of this. However, you didn't address my point, which was in a home defense scenario you would not want to use ball ammo in an AR or any other long gun. There are excellent JHP's (I personally like the Lehigh defense controlled chaos round) and other pre stressed jacketed rounds designed to dump most, if not all, of the bullet's energy into the target's soft tissue. This would be a good choice for home defense, m855 ammo would not.
Yet, every unit I was in, including 3rd Ranger Battalion, used M855 ammo for room clearing with four shooters in the same room all shooting targets. I feel perfectly comfortable using ball ammo for home defense. All my exterior walls are brick so I don't have to worry about 5.56/.223 ammo penetrating and hitting a neighbor so I only need to worry about ammo penetrating interior walls. If a round can't penetrate an interior wall made of drywall I seriously doubt it has one stop incapacitating power. Plus, I want to be able to shoot through interior walls where someone might stack on an entry or try to hide behind cover.
(02-25-2017, 01:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Au165 stated insurance was a separate issue when he mentioned it. I didn't make a comparison. I asked if a sales tax on a firearm was a tax on exercising a constitutional right.
Yes, and I gave a direct answer.
Quote:You specifically cited the one stop incapacitating power of a AR and claimed it was indisputable. However, it has been disputed for over 50 years.
Incorrect, I stated the one shot incapacitation potential of a rifle round over a pistol round was indisputable. Because it is.
Quote:Yet, every unit I was in, including 3rd Ranger Battalion, used M855 ammo for room clearing with four shooters in the same room all shooting targets. I feel perfectly comfortable using ball ammo for home defense. All my exterior walls are brick so I don't have to worry about 5.56/.223 ammo penetrating and hitting a neighbor so I only need to worry about ammo penetrating interior walls. If a round can't penetrate an interior wall made of drywall I seriously doubt it has one stop incapacitating power. Plus, I want to be able to shoot through interior walls where someone might stack on an entry or try to hide behind cover.
Every round, including moderate pistol rounds, will penetrate dry wall. The question at hand is will it do so with lethal force after penetrating a body. Your hope is that a round will hit bone, which would severely limit lethality if it penetrates the target, or, failing that, that it hits a stud, accomplishing the same effect without hitting the target. What exterior walls you have isn't really the question at hand. Also, might the military using M855 ammo have something to do with JHP and other specialty rounds both being more expensive options and, not inconsequentually, being outlawed for military purposes by convention?
Any fire arms owner worth a shit knows that mil-spec is not synonymous with highest end quality. The military has a scale balanced by quality, effectiveness and cost. A civilian can own a firearm far superior to the standard issue infantry rifle if they are willing to shell out the cash. Or maybe all those GI's spending cash on Geiselle triggers just wanted to waste money, not because the trigger group was far superior to SMI?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
