I changed my stance on gun control!!!

[Subduction Zone]

Because of the speed and light weight, it can also skip off heavy bones instead of penetrating. So all you get is a surface wound. I don't recommend hitting the shoulder bone on a deer but with a 30.06 it will punch a hole through the other side that you can fit a softball through. Now if the bullet of the smaller caliber does make it into the vitals sometimes it will tumble and spin around and cause all kinds of internal damage. We were talking earlier about the dude that Rittenhouse shot in the arm. With a heavier round he might not have had any arm left because it would be more likely to hit and shatter the bone. Like swinging a sledge instead of a ball peen hammer, the power is more spread out.

But he missed the bone. And that was the point in the example of why a high speed bullet can easily be more deadly. A .30-06 that did not hit bone would leave a small and rather clean hole. A least compared to the .233.

By the way, when you change the story that makes your argument a strawman argument. Using one is an acknowledgement that you could not deal with the actual argument given.

 

[Jamdoc]

I think you've got that part backwards. If it doesn't penetrate, the faster lighter bullet is always going to do more damage. That's because if a body stops the bullet, then all the bullet's energy is transferred to the body. It doesn't matter if the bullet fragments or not, that energy has to go somewhere. If the bullet passes through the body, then the smaller bullet can do less damage to the body, since not all of the energy is going to be transferred to the body.

actually the fragmentation is what makes it an effective round against humans and human sized targets like cougars, wolves, whitetail deer, razorbacks, etc. Not so effective against larger animals.

 

[Aldebaran]

I never implied the same powder charge for all guns. Where did you get that from? I sited the .223 as an example, not as an absolute limit. A reasonable top barrel speed per bullet in a standard length gun barrel could be decided upon. The charge behind a bullet could still vary, but only up to that limit. If your gun had a shorter barrel length you would have a slower bullet. If you wanted to carry around a gun with a ten foot barrel you would have a higher muzzle velocity.

What speed limit do you propose would be suitable for a bullet leaving the barrel of a rifle?

 

[Aldebaran]

But he missed the bone. And that was the point in the example of why a high speed bullet can easily be more deadly. A .30-06 that did not hit bone would leave a small and rather clean hole. A least compared to the .233.

It depends on the bullet design. Most aren't designed to stay straight and go straight through. Rifle bullets of any caliber are meant to either tumble, fragment, or expand. It takes very little energy to go straight through. Even a 9mm fired from a shorter barreled pistol can go straight through if it's a FMJ bullet since those would stay straight. A hollow-point would expand and use up it's energy inside the body.

 

[RDKirk]

I never implied the same powder charge for all guns. Where did you get that from? I sited the .223 as an example, not as an absolute limit. A reasonable top barrel speed per bullet in a standard length gun barrel could be decided upon. The charge behind a bullet could still vary, but only up to that limit. If your gun had a shorter barrel length you would have a slower bullet. If you wanted to carry around a gun with a ten foot barrel you would have a higher muzzle velocity.

You actually need to be talking about the energy level of the bullet, not the velocity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You actually need to be talking about the energy level of the bullet, not the velocity.

The two are tied together. The velocity can be said to have twice the impact that mass does. If you double the mass of a bullet and leave its velocity the came you double its energy. If you leave the mass of a bullet the same and double the velocity you have quadrupled its energy.

 

[RDKirk]

The two are tied together. The velocity can be said to have twice the impact that mass does. If you double the mass of a bullet and leave its velocity the came you double its energy. If you leave the mass of a bullet the same and double the velocity you have quadrupled its energy.

That's my point. You're trying to discuss the energy level of the bullet by only one factor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's my point. You're trying to discuss the energy level of the bullet by only one factor.

It appears to be the most crucial one when it comes to damage accompanied by a bullet that does a through and through shot.

 

[Aldebaran]

It appears to be the most crucial one when it comes to damage accompanied by a bullet that does a through and through shot.

More velocity often results in the body absorbing the energy. This is seen most in hollowpoint use. High velocity=bullet expansion and staying within target. Low velocity=little to no expansion and a through and through shot.

In the case of a rifle bullet, high velocity=bullet fragmentation and staying in body, while low velocity=bullet weight retention and ability to over-penetrate.

 

[RDKirk]

It appears to be the most crucial one when it comes to damage accompanied by a bullet that does a through and through shot.

Only if you're talking about rifle velocities, in which case velocity does tend to dominate as the major factor...but you're trying to generalize it across all firearms, and that won't work.

You are trying to set up rules for new laws as though you understand the subject, but you actually don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you're talking about rifle velocities, in which case velocity does tend to dominate as the major factor...but you're trying to generalize it across all firearms, and that won't work.

You are trying to set up rules for new laws as though you understand the subject, but you actually don't.

I am far from an expert in it, but I appear to know more than the pro-gun people here. I already acknowledged that a handgun would have lower muzzle velocities. They would have to since it would be too easy to redesign a 9mm long gun for example. The one thing to remember is that criminals would be using guns with lower muzzle velocities too. You could not use handguns for long distance shooting since accuracy is tied to muzzle velocity as well, but they are designed for up close work.

What are your objections to this? My answer may be "too bad".

 

[RDKirk]

I am far from an expert in it, but I appear to know more than the pro-gun people here.

It only sounds like that to you because their side of the debate includes the factors you are skipping over.

 

[Bradskii]

The selection of a gun should include one's environment. If you live in an apartment, a shotgun with birdshot might be good for not overpenetrating walls, but not a great manstopper. It's a compromise. For someone who lives in a rural area, pretty much anything could work. In a suburban neighborhood home, you could choose a gun/ammo type based on what is beyond the most likely line of fire. For example, if a gun is being kept in a bedroom to be used in a stationary way such as closing the door and aiming at it in case the intruder enters, then you'd just have to be mindful of what's beyond the door and subsequent walls. If there are no other homes in that line of sight, or maybe your own garage is there to soak up the bullets, you're good to go.

You think you need a gun to protect yourself yet you're suggesting someone could make it to your bedroom door before you're aware there's anyone in the house? Save money on guns and spend the money on a security sytem for heaven's sake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It only sounds like that to you because their side of the debate includes the factors you are skipping over.

But I am not. Can you try to support your claims? When all you have is denial that takes away from your credibility. That is all hat the pro-gun people can post so far. They are their own worst enemies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think you need a gun to protect yourself yet you're suggesting someone could make it to your bedroom door before you're aware there's anyone in the house? Save money on guns and spend the money on a security sytem for heaven's sake.

Or on a bork bork nom nom.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure there is. In a defensive situation, there may be more than one antagonist, they're likely to be moving, and they will be creating an extreme amount of nervous anxiety, all of which will call for more than five rounds in a defender's guns.

Now we have a bunch of people in the house and somehow they've made it to the bedroom door wothout being noticed (zero security I guess) and now you want to spray bullets everywhere (after checking if they're all armed) as you have luckily kept your weapon under the bed and have had time to get it, get to the ammo (surely under lock and key), load it all while they wait patiently outside until you're ready and the kids are ducking for cover, get your wife somewhere out of danger and mentally prepare yourself to shoot an unknown number of assailants. We're truly back in fantasy land.

Where on earth do you live?

 

[Aldebaran]

You think you need a gun to protect yourself yet you're suggesting someone could make it to your bedroom door before you're aware there's anyone in the house? Save money on guns and spend the money on a security sytem for heaven's sake.

Who said they wouldn't be aware someone was in the house? The scenario I talked about where someone would keep a gun in the bedroom to take up a stationary position there and have the gun pointed at the closed door is obviously a case where someone was aware of an intruder in the house. If the intruder decided to come through the door, they'd be met with a shot. The idea here is to take up a safe position as opposed to searching through the house and looking for the intruder, which is usually not a good idea. Best to stay in one room (in this case a bedroom) with the door closed, call the police to tell them an intruder is in your house, and wait for them to come. If the intruder decides to come after the homeowner through the door before the police get him, the homeowner could then defend himself.

 

[Bradskii]

You actually need to be talking about the energy level of the bullet, not the velocity.

Is physics an optional subject in tbe US?

 

[Bradskii]

Who said they wouldn't be aware someone was in the house? The scenario I talked about where someone would keep a gun in the bedroom to take up a stationary position there and have the gun pointed at the closed door is obviously a case where someone was aware of an intruder in the house. If the intruder decided to come through the door, they'd be met with a shot. The idea here is to take up a safe position as opposed to searching through the house and looking for the intruder, which is usually not a good idea. Best to stay in one room (in this case a bedroom) with the door closed, call the police to tell them an intruder is in your house, and wait for them to come. If the intruder decides to come after the homeowner through the door before the police get him, the homeowner could then defend himself.

You have quite likely got kids in the house and, apart from having useless household security, if you hear whatt could be an intruder, you are going to hunker down in your bedroom and leave some drug addled guys, possibly armed, wander about the house and leave the kids to sort themselves out? You haven't thought this through, have you.

More fantasy.

 

[Aldebaran]

You have quite likely got kids in the house and, apart from having useless household security, if you hear whatt could be an intruder, you are going to hunker down in your bedroom and leave some drug addled guys, possibly armed, wander about the house and leave the kids to sort themselves out? You haven't thought this through, have you.

More fantasy.

I originally posted the scenario to someone else when we were talking about which gun would be appropriate in particular settings, and how they could be used safely. If you want to go into other details and derail the topic, please start a new thread.