‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 02:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, and I gave a direct answer.

Well, that's like your opinion, dude . . . Because I didn't see a direct answer.

Quote:Incorrect, I stated the one shot incapacitation potential of a rifle round over a pistol round was indisputable.  Because it is.

I'm quoting you, "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."

"Why the AR for home defense argument exists"

"AR"

Quote: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.  

I don't understand what you are trying to explain. If a round hits bone it usually makes the wound more lethal for several reasons. 1) It causes the bullet to fragment. 2) The fragments are redirected along multiple wound tracts increasing tissue destruction and the chance a fragment hits a vital organ or major vessel. 3) It will usually fracture the bone which can be fatal in and of itself (femur fx).

Quote:What exterior walls you have isn't really the question at hand.

It matters if your worried about the rounds passing through the target.

Quote: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?

The military procurement system and the law of land warfare aside, none of that changes the fact I used M855 for room clearing with three other shooters engaging targets in the same room and I feel comfortable using M855 for home defense.

Quote:Any fire arms owner worth a shit knows that mil-spec is not synonymous with highest end quality.

I never claimed it was. I stated what I have used and what I am comfortable using.

Quote: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?

Of course the can buy better. But, it seems you have been disputing the indisputable one stop incapacitating power of the AR and the M855 rifle round for several posts after you claimed they were indisputable.

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we settled the what's indisputable debate because even you're disputing it. 

[xxlt]

(02-24-2017, 06:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, there goes the board's self-proclaimed "lone conservative voice."  Finally, the board is 100% liberal. Hillary thanks you for your assimilation. 

I blame Obama. Honorable mention to fluoride.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2017, 02:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, that's like your opinion, dude . . . Because I didn't see a direct answer.

Maybe look again? I assure you it's there.

Quote:I'm quoting you, "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."

"Why the AR for home defense argument exists"

"AR"

Of course, you're being a bit disingenuous when ignoring the plainly stated part of that sentence, "the one s(hot) incapacitating power of a rifle round over a hand gun.  The AR being a rifle it would, of course, fall under that definition.

Quote:I don't understand what you are trying to explain. If a round hits bone it usually makes the wound more lethal for several reasons. 1) It causes the bullet to fragment. 2) The fragments are redirected along multiple wound tracts increasing tissue destruction and the chance a fragment hits a vital organ or major vessel. 3) It will usually fracture the bone which can be fatal in and of itself (femur fx).

I don't understand why you're confused.  The point about it hitting bone is that it would naturally limit over penetration.  I made no mention of the increased lethality of such wounds because it wasn't relevant to the point being made.

Quote:It matters if your worried about the rounds passing through the target.

If the target is your wall, sure.

Quote:The military procurement system and the law of land warfare aside, none of that changes the fact I used M855 for room clearing with three other shooters engaging targets in the same room and I feel comfortable using M855 for home defense.

It doesn't change the fact, no, but it changes the reason.  Given the choice of a well made JHP or a round designed to fragment and dump kinetic energy at a quicker rate it makes absolutely zero logical sense to choose M855 ammunition instead.

Quote:I never claimed it was. I stated what I have used and what I am comfortable using.

Allow me to explain the concept of implication then.  You can be comfortable using it all day, that doesn't mean it's the best choice, or even the logical one.

Quote:Of course the can buy better. But, it seems you have been disputing the indisputable one stop incapacitating power of the AR and the M855 rifle round for several posts after you claimed they were indisputable.

Not at all.  It confuses me that you could reach such an ill conceived conclusion.  Saying M855 is not the ideal choice for home defense in no way denigrates the incapacitation power of a rifle round over that of a pistol.  You're attempts to conflate the two arguments is ill conceived and poorly stated.

Quote:I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we settled the what's indisputable debate because even you're disputing it. 

I see your confusion continues.  I'm not disputing anything except your claim that M855 ammunition is a good choice for home defense.  Maybe in your desperation to be internet correct you're ignoring the points that are actually being made?

[Rotobeast]

(02-24-2017, 11:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Their maximum expansion round in the .300AAC subsonic is absolutely insane.

*dawns best Jeremy Clarkson voice*
"Yes !.....yes...."
It might be a couple years (too many projects), but a 8-10" suppressed .300 AAC AR will be in my future.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 04:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe look again? I assure you it's there.





Of course, you're being a bit disingenuous when ignoring the plainly stated part of that sentence, "the one s(hot) incapacitating power of a rifle round over a hand gun.  The AR being a rifle it would, of course, fall under that definition.




I don't understand why you're confused.  The point about it hitting bone is that it would naturally limit over penetration.  I made no mention of the increased lethality of such wounds because it wasn't relevant to the point being made.



If the target is your wall, sure.



It doesn't change the fact, no, but it changes the reason.  Given the choice of a well made JHP or a round designed to fragment and dump kinetic energy at a quicker rate it makes absolutely zero logical sense to choose M855 ammunition instead.



Allow me to explain the concept of implication then.  You can be comfortable using it all day, that doesn't mean it's the best choice, or even the logical one.



Not at all.  It confuses me that you could reach such an ill conceived conclusion.  Saying M855 is not the ideal choice for home defense in no way denigrates the incapacitation power of a rifle round over that of a pistol.  You're attempts to conflate the two arguments is ill conceived and poorly stated.



I see your confusion continues.  I'm not disputing anything except your claim that M855 ammunition is a good choice for home defense.  Maybe in your desperation to be internet correct you're ignoring the points that are actually being made?

Let's keep it simple. An AR is a rifle, correct? And M855 is a rifle round, correct?  And now you're disputing its stopping power which you claimed earlier was indisputable. 

Would you care to explain why M855 would be a poor choice?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2017, 11:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's keep it simple. An AR is a rifle, correct? And M855 is a rifle round, correct?  And now you're disputing its stopping power which you claimed earlier was indisputable.

Nope, only disputing it's suitability as a home defense round compared to other, far more suitable, choices.

Quote:Would you care to explain why M855 would be a poor choice?

You mean compared to a JHP, fragmenting or other pre-stressed jacketed round that's designed to dump kinetic energy into a target and not over penetrate?  You're being so fond of fire arms related pedantry I'm shocked you haven't already told the class.  Maybe you can then explain why an indoor range won't allow their use?

[*bfine32*]

SSF and Breech:

It's a tie.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, only disputing it's suitability as a home defense round compared to other, far more suitable, choices.


You mean compared to a JHP, fragmenting or other pre-stressed jacketed round that's designed to dump kinetic energy into a target and not over penetrate?  You're being so fond of fire arms related pedantry I'm shocked you haven't already told the class.  Maybe you can then explain why an indoor range won't allow their use?

Is that a yes or a no?  Would you like to explain why M855 is a poor choice or not?  And why would you compare one rifle round to another rifle round when claiming the stopping power of a rifle compared to a handgun is indisputable in a home defense scenario?

Is it because you might get a through and through wound with the rifle when shooting someone less than 20' away and a handgun or a shotgun might be a more suitable choice in that scenario? There are many different opinions. It's far from indisputable. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Gotta admit I had to look up pedantry. I think it is funny I'm accused of attention to detail in a discussion about the details of firearm and ammo selection for home defense.

So guilty as charged.

[Rotobeast]

(02-25-2017, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: SSF and Breech:

It's a tie.

This was kind of sweet.
Just sayin'.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I haven't seen a single person mention this yet... aside from home defense/self defense, I also just simply enjoy shooting for hobby/leisure.

There's a lot of hobbies I don't understand that other people enjoy. I don't understand people who collect or work on cars and make them all super powered and shit. Cars are hella dangerous, but I don't feel the need to try to remove their enjoyment from their life, and their hobby doesn't even have the added potential to save their life.

Even if you ban guns/gun types from the law abiding folk, it won't make the criminals less criminal. Just hypocritical people who don't know what they're talking about making laws about things they don't know about. As if they aren't constantly being protected by people with guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2017, 02:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is that a yes or a no?

It's a no, in comparison to other, far more suitable, rounds.

Quote:Would you like to explain why M855 is a poor choice or not?

Seriously?  I've literally done that since you asked.  Ball ammo with a steel penetrator is not ideal for home defense by dint of it's very manufacturing.  Why would anyone use ball ammo to defend their home when there are numerous JHP, fragmenting and pre stressed jacket ammunition options.  I get why the military uses it, it's what they've got.  They don't want to spend over a $1 a round for their ammunition.  Any reasonable home owner looking to defend their property and family will absolutely shell out the extra cash.

 

Quote:And why would you compare one rifle round to another rifle round when claiming the stopping power of a rifle compared to a handgun is indisputable in a home defense scenario?

This might be the most insane question I've ever been asked regarding ammunition.  Do you really think all rounds were created equal, is there a one size fits all round out there?  This question honestly makes me think you're trolling.

Quote:Is it because you might get a through and through wound with the rifle when shooting someone less than 20' away and a handgun or a shotgun might be a more suitable choice in that scenario? There are many different opinions. It's far from indisputable. 

What is best for home defense is absolutely far from indisputable, in general terms.  What is not indisputable is that a rifle round is more lethal than a handgun round.  


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2017, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a no, in comparison to other, far more suitable, rounds.

"I see the confusion continues." The yes or no question was in reference to if you wanted to explain why M855 was a poor choice.

Quote:Seriously?  I've literally done that since you asked.

Seriously?  Simply repeating it is a poor choice over and over isn't much of an explanation.  You're just repeating yourself.

Quote:Ball ammo with a steel penetrator is not ideal for home defense by dint of it's very manufacturing.  Why would anyone use ball ammo to defend their home when there are numerous JHP, fragmenting and pre stressed jacket ammunition options.

Whether the round has a steel penetrator or a copper base that penetrates up to 22 inches of ballistics gel you still have the same problem you have thus far avoided explaining.

Quote:I get why the military uses it, it's what they've got.  They don't want to spend over a $1 a round for their ammunition.  Any reasonable home owner looking to defend their property and family will absolutely shell out the extra cash.

In your opinion, the average gun owner doesn't know what a choke is, but they will concern themselves with this level of pedantry?

 

Quote:This might be the most insane question I've ever been asked regarding ammunition.  Do you really think all rounds were created equal, is there a one size fits all round out there?  This question honestly makes me think you're trolling.

So far you've made a lot of false assumptions about what I believe and attributed a lot of false claims I've never made while dolling out one insult after another about my intelligence.  The latest of which is do I really think all rounds are created equal.  You would have to be "insane" and "trolling" to suggest I believe such nonsense.  You're the one who made the blanket statement that the whole AR argument exists because of the one stop incapacitating power of a rifle round over a handgun round is indisputable.  But, you have disputed your own claim.  There are rifle rounds that don't have the same one stop incapacitating power of a handgun round. M855 being one of them.  A handgun with "JHP, fragmenting and pre stressed jacket ammunition options" (such as a Lehigh Defense .45 acp maximum expansion round) is a superior choice to an AR with M855.  That is a handgun to rifle round comparison which was your original comparison.

Quote:What is best for home defense is absolutely far from indisputable, in general terms.  What is not indisputable is that a rifle round is more lethal than a handgun round.

Except when the increased muzzle velocity of the rifle causes a through and through wound, right?

Quote:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

I hate when I'm wrong, too.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 11:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I haven't seen a single person mention this yet... aside from home defense/self defense, I also just simply enjoy shooting for hobby/leisure.

There's a lot of hobbies I don't understand that other people enjoy. I don't understand people who collect or work on cars and make them all super powered and shit. Cars are hella dangerous, but I don't feel the need to try to remove their enjoyment from their life, and their hobby doesn't even have the added potential to save their life.

Even if you ban guns/gun types from the law abiding folk, it won't make the criminals less criminal. Just hypocritical people who don't know what they're talking about making laws about things they don't know about. As if they aren't constantly being protected by people with guns.

If you were shot, would you walk to the ER or drive an automobile there?

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 11:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I haven't seen a single person mention this yet... aside from home defense/self defense, I also just simply enjoy shooting for hobby/leisure.

There's a lot of hobbies I don't understand that other people enjoy. I don't understand people who collect or work on cars and make them all super powered and shit. Cars are hella dangerous, but I don't feel the need to try to remove their enjoyment from their life, and their hobby doesn't even have the added potential to save their life.

Even if you ban guns/gun types from the law abiding folk, it won't make the criminals less criminal. Just hypocritical people who don't know what they're talking about making laws about things they don't know about. As if they aren't constantly being protected by people with guns.

I've made the comparison of high-performance vehicles to high-performance weapons plenty; most cannot (or more likely will not) understand the analogy.

I too like to shot as a hobby; however, I still advocate that you should be trained and licensed prior to doing so. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2017, 12:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "I see the confusion continues." The yes or no question was in reference to if you wanted to explain why M855 was a poor choice.


Seriously?  Simply repeating it is a poor choice over and over isn't much of an explanation.  You're just repeating yourself.



Whether the round has a steel penetrator or a copper base that penetrates up to 22 inches of ballistics gel you still have the same problem you have thus far avoided explaining.


In your opinion, the average gun owner doesn't know what a choke is, but they will concern themselves with this level of pedantry?

 

So far you've made a lot of false assumptions about what I believe and attributed a lot of false claims I've never made while dolling out one insult after another about my intelligence.  The latest of which is do I really think all rounds are created equal.  You would have to be "insane" and "trolling" to suggest I believe such nonsense.  You're the one who made the blanket statement that the whole AR argument exists because of the one stop incapacitating power of a rifle round over a handgun round is indisputable.  But, you have disputed your own claim.  There are rifle rounds that don't have the same one stop incapacitating power of a handgun round. M855 being one of them.  A handgun with "JHP, fragmenting and pre stressed jacket ammunition options" (such as a Lehigh Defense .45 acp maximum expansion round) is a superior choice to an AR with M855.  That is a handgun to rifle round comparison which was your original comparison.



Except when the increased muzzle velocity of the rifle causes a through and through wound, right?


I hate when I'm wrong, too.

I'll boil this back and forth down to this down to this; given the choice, for home defense, would you use M855 or a JHP or similar type round in your AR?



I love the lehigh defense ME in .45 ACP.  Have it loaded in magazines for all three of my .45s.

[*bfine32*]

(02-26-2017, 12:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you were shot, would you walk to the ER or drive an automobile there?

I suppose it would depend on how close I was to the hospital when shot. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2017, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it would depend on how close I was to the hospital when shot. 

Good point. But, that assumes you're fortunate enough to be walking wounded. 

[CageTheBengal]

Sometimes I pretend I am an action-hero bad ass and I have to save the world and I'm worried my ability to play pretend will be severely hampered if I can't carry and play with military style weapons. If I'm pretending I'm going toe to toe with a ruthless ISIS killer how can I imagine a simple hand gun will take him out? What about a government uprising? Facing off against the Terminator? The government is ruining my fun hence my life!

Some people play basketball, some people ride motorcycles and some people blow off deadly military style weapons in their backyard. We all got our hobbies.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-26-2017, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll boil this back and forth down to this down to this; given the choice, for home defense, would you use M855 or a JHP or similar type round in your AR?



I love the lehigh defense ME in .45 ACP.  Have it loaded in magazines for all three of my .45s.

I'll boil it down to this: let's say I'm recalled to active duty and I'm barricaded in my home when the police show up to arrest me after I refuse to report and the zombie apocalypse hits. I might use an AR with M855 to defend my perimeter until they're able to breach, say 25m-300m, beyond that bolt action 300 win mag and match grade, under 25m and dead space field expedient claymores, inside the house most likely a 12 gauge shotgun with 3" 00 shot with the shortest barrel legally allowed (not that it would matter during the apocalypse) and/or a .45 semi, along with some other tricks I know. 

Not that I've ever thought about it. This is all strictly hypothetical.