New Bullets Mean Certain Death

[WinterBorn]

Lakhota, if you are worried about killing someone when you use "deadly force", feel free to buy nonlethal rounds for your shotgun. Either beanbags or rubber pellets hurt like hell but don't kill.

Personally, I will stick with MagSafe fragmenting rounds.

 

[Slyhunter]

I bet the cops are excited the criminals will have an ammunition that is even more lethal that what they face now.

And how about the ER doctors. When some kid is shot by these rounds and not killed immediately, it will present a real challenge for the ER staff to try and save a life. When several major organs have been damaged by this type of ammo, it will be a real challenge for sure. And expensive.

But who cares about expense and lives when you have this type of ammo available.

Actually bullet proof vest would be more effective vs this kind of ammo then what is already out there.

 

[Lakhota]

That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.

[MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details. [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?

On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

 

[WinterBorn]

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

My mistake. I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.

Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?

 

[Lakhota]

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

My mistake. I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.

Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?

To hear comments from geniuses like you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

I stand corrected on the slug barrels. I thought they were smooth bores as well. I do not use them so my knowledge is limited.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

My mistake. I guess I should have done more than look at the shotgun barrels I own.

Now, if you know so much about ammunition, why did you start this thread?

To hear comments from geniuses like you.

Right, because fragmenting bullets are new, right?

And because these bullets are much more lethal, right?

And the lethality is the reason for them, right?

And your obvious ignorance in ballistics has not been shown over and over in this thread, right?


You create a thread whining about bullets that make "deadly force" less deadly? You whine that when people do incredibly stupid things, the bullet prevent their death? And you have the gall to ridicule anyone else's mistakes?

 

[PredFan]

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.

 

[WinterBorn]

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

Oh, and one more tidbit concerning your knowledge. You asked if shotgun barrels are rifled? Only a specialized rifled slug barrel is rifled. The basic shotgun barrel is smooth. So the overwhelming majority of shotgun barrels are smooth. This is why the slugs themselves are rifled.

 

[WinterBorn]

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.

Apparently the newer models of slug barrels are rifled. Not the standard shotgun barrels.

 

[westwall]

While it's true that there do exist more than some people who shoot themselves accidentally, it's also true that more more than some people hurt themselves on accident. Risky behavior, automobiles, and controlled substances are other ways people hurt themselves, whether intentionally or not. Also Lakhota, if a person injures themselves accidentally with a gun, chances are they're not as responsible as one would think.

I've mixed feelings on this destructive bullet. How will it be used? Who will use it? I don't see why a civilian would need to be armed with such a lethal weapon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not an ardent defender of gun rights. Things like this made solely to kill instead of maim... don't make much sense to me. If someone attacks me, I'd shoot the person to put him on his back, but it wouldn't be my intent to kill him. This weapon increases the chance of fatality. How much so is a good question. If I wanted to kill a threat, I'd unload my cartridge. But this one bullet becomes like 7-8 bullets that rip through the body. Do we now intend to kill rather than stop, when it comes to personal defense? When do we start using bullets laced with cyanide?

As with all cultures, gun culture isn't perfect, and there will always be unsavory elements at play. I think there needs to be a balance. Should people be allowed to holster a handgun? Yes. Should they be allowed to pack two assault rifles on their backs? I don't believe so. There is a point where one being goes from having an effective deterrent to personal injury, to becoming a lethal force that can kill large groups of people.

I partially agree with tyroneweaver's first post. Guns aren't the problem... but they can be... if their lethality becomes ever greater. Would he be alright with bullets dripping with cyanide? What difference would it make? Guns aren't the problem, correct? With these bullets, the death rate becomes 100% for everyone without an immunity to cyanide.

And I feel there is something rather unsettling about weaponry that's made more and more so to kill. The goal should be to stop someone not increasingly assure death. In my opinion some of Lakhota's concerns are quite valid, and merit further discussion. If these bullets are used militarily, then I have little issue with that. But in the hands of civilians, to be packing such lethal force? Where does it end? And if that shouldn't matter, than stand behind citizens using bullets soaked in poison.

I am a conservative, but I don't feel glee in the thought of adding more killing force to a tool designed to keep me safe. If I wanted to kill my threat, I need only aim and pull the trigger three times. [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION], I don't particularly agree with your post #23. I feel I can stop someone trying to hurt me and mine with a good gun, and reasonable aim. One, two, maybe three quick pulls of the trigger and he's down. With these bullets, it likely takes just one pull of the trigger to rip through his guts with the lethality of 8 bullets. If lethality is not the matter, would you support using bullets that deliver lethal doses of cyanide instead, to ensure death?

Where do we draw the line on lethality?

Gunfights are not what you see in the movies. They are sudden, horribly violent and to the innocents who are victimized by them, life long nightmares. I want the best possible ammunition (this may or may not be it) to do the job because bad guys don't quit after being shot two or three times. There are plenty of cases where they have been hit 5 to 10times with mortal wounds and they keep fighting.

I don't ever want to have to take someone's life. However, if someone places me in that position through their actions, then I want to put them down as fast as possible. The faster they go down, the less likely it is that I will be harmed.

During WWII American tankers had a habit of putting hits into German tanks till they caught fire....that way they can know for sure it's knocked out. I'm the same way in a defensive shooting situation. I can't set them on fire but I can sure make sure they're laid out on the ground.

 

[daveman]

Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns. Are they "too lethal"?

That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.

*tips hat*

[MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details. [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?

Rounds containing cyanide would be correctly classed as chemical weapons, and would thus be verboten. Any other round is perfectly safe once expended. A cyanide round would be dangerous even after it's been fired.

 

[Stephanie]

People get shot a lot in America, and it isn’t always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. They’re often “playing” with their guns. Or “cleaning” them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes they’re just injured, like in the examples cited above.

But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. That’s because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.

G2 Research’s “Radically Invasive Projectile” (RIP, get it? — because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullet’s core to travel deeper through a person.

This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.

And this is the bullet’s selling point.

Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, it’s time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting “open carry” protests at restaurants and stores around the country don’t have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon they’ll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.

What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation’s military? Whom do you think you’re making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.

There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.

New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review

This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare

G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube

This certainly is a deadly looking bullet. I wonder how accurate it is. I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.

we could go back to bow and arrows...Would that make you happier?

 

[PredFan]

People get shot a lot in America, and it isn’t always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. They’re often “playing” with their guns. Or “cleaning” them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes they’re just injured, like in the examples cited above.

But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. That’s because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.

G2 Research’s “Radically Invasive Projectile” (RIP, get it? — because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullet’s core to travel deeper through a person.

This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.

And this is the bullet’s selling point.

Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, it’s time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting “open carry” protests at restaurants and stores around the country don’t have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon they’ll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.

What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation’s military? Whom do you think you’re making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.

There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.

New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review

This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare

G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube

This certainly is a deadly looking bullet. I wonder how accurate it is. I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.

we could go back to bow and arrows...Would that make you happier?

I'm thinking about buying a crossbow really. Lethal and silent. I kind of like that.

 

[Lakhota]

I'm 67 and been hunting since I was 6 - mostly deer. I no longer reload because many manufacturers provide accurate high-quality bullet/powder loads off the shelf. For home protection, I prefer a .357 with heavy grain bullets and a smooth-bore 12-gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot - open choke. For deer hunting, I prefer my old .270 Weatherby Magnum and .280 Remington. I no longer keep up with the latest bullet fads and technology. I'm somewhat old-fashioned and stick with what I know works well for me that produces sufficient accuracy, expansion, penetration, and shock. I guess Nosler remains my favorite bullet. My hunting goals remain constant - a humane kill, quality venison for the table, safety and enjoyment. As for the bullets in the OP, I wouldn't own them - for home protection or hunting.

Bottom line - I no longer consider myself an expert on any of this stuff.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Who needs that shit......the old reliable 00buck.....removes a whole head at 20 paces >>>

My 12 gauge Springfield pump sits at the head of my bed for this very reason. Though I can't really carry a shotgun around with me outside, so I also have handguns. This ammo would be good to have.

Pred fan.....the gun grabber limpwristers have no clue.

My 14 year old son has a Savage .17 HMR. Tiny little bullet........nasty as shit.....plow through a quarter at 200 yards. That thing enters the body at the shoulder and God knows how many organs it is bouncing around and tearing up as it tumbles around. In some cases, Id much prefer being hit by a round from my 7.62 X 39 AK.......be on my back and without most of my shoulder but might well survive. .17 HMR......damn thing is probably passing through a lung, the heart and stopping maybe in the liver. Awesome!!!

Stupid moron gun grabbers........bubble dwellers.

Yep....a 5.56 standard ball ammo round will pass through .400 of an inch of 4140 commercial heat treated steel at 100 yards. The bullet is only slightly heavier then a .22 bullet. Score one for hydrostatic shock!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Your opposition to this fragmenting round also applies to shotguns. Are they "too lethal"?

That's a fair question, and a valid point. I'm not exactly sure how lethal a shotgun is, but I imagine one blast from 15 feet would be enough to put a man under. It probably gets weaker from further ranges, unlike normal handguns, but that in itself is a moot point. Huh, now you've got me thinking Daveman, and I appreciate that.

[MENTION=31132]Lakhota[/MENTION], what do you make of my post, and Daveman's response to it? I don't know much about guns, so I'm likely missing quite a few details. [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION], do you think bullets containing cyanide, if they existed, would be too lethal?

On guns I do support the right to own, and would like to buy a nice, black shotgun for hunting. I went to a Reinneman's awhile ago, and found a nice black shotgun around $400 or so, and it had two interchangeable barrels. I'd like to bag some deer for venison steaks and chili.

Regarding the shotgun, are the barrels rifled?

Slug guns are. Most aren't though.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. But the slugs are rifled. It is not as precise as a rifle barrel, but for the ranges used by shotguns it works pretty well.

Hey, dumbass, I suggest you do a little more research.

Shotgun barrels are not rifled. At least none that I've ever heard of.

They make em. They're pretty common actually.

 

[September]

I want these bullets

 

[Missourian]

Soldiers made their own for a very long time by just notching the lead with a knife. They're called dum dum bullets

Yep, that was addressed by the Hague Convention of 1899.

Yet, it didn't stop them.

An M60 gunner lights up an enemy soldier as he runs from one combat position to another.

The new shavetail butter bar observes this and orders the machine gunner to ceasefire.

The green platoon leader rebukes the gunner "Were you not briefed on the geneva convention as part of your training?" he demanded.

Sure thing LT...I was attempting to destroy his canteen and rank insignia when the rest of him got in the way, Sir.