Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

Gun Control (please don't read if it is too soon for you)

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, IanforHeisman said:

Google CCI’s quiet .22lr rounds. You wouldn’t hear it fire if it was next to your phukking ear.

 

 

Anyone who says there aren’t any virtually silent rounds out there is a phukking moron who has never spent a single minute around them.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was talking about pistol vs rifle noise using a suppressor, specifically the crack of rifle rounds cracking the sound barrier. I didn't get into subsonic rounds because there has never been an example of someone using a suppressor in a criminal act that I am aware of. 

You aren't wrong. I've hog hunted with a suppressed .300 blackout rifle with subsonic ammo at ranges of less than 80 yards and it is very quiet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2017 at 12:05 AM, bluerules009 said:

In most cases a bump stock or suppressor would if anything aid the potential victims more than the shooter.

A tower shooter into a massed crowd is about the only instance a bump stock would help the shooter.

I am sure many of you morons like Akkulla and Tapeworm think a suppressor makes a gun quiet like in the movies.  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!   As if there is no sonic boom from a bullet exceeding 1130 feet/second.

This makes zero sense to me... How would a bump stock with or without a suppressor help victims? Those combinations would be incredibly lethal.

Also, you wouldn't hear the "sonic boom" until the round has already gone by, hit its target? What am I missing.

As far as the "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", total crap. It doesn't specify that the suppressor needs to be for rifles.

House:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367/text?q={"search"%3A["hr367"]}&r=1

Senate:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/text?q={"search"%3A["s59"]}&r=1

They can/will sell these for handguns as well if this ever passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SFtoVA said:

This makes zero sense to me... How would a bump stock with or without a suppressor help victims? Those combinations would be incredibly lethal.

Also, you wouldn't hear the "sonic boom" until the round has already gone by, hit its target? What am I missing.

As far as the "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", total crap. It doesn't specify that the suppressor needs to be for rifles.

House:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367/text?q={"search"%3A["hr367"]}&r=1

Senate:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/text?q={"search"%3A["s59"]}&r=1

They can/will sell these for handguns as well if this ever passes.

Random thoughts of mine.

A high powered rifle with a scope is much more accurate.  If my targets were spread out, random, etc.  A single shot delivery would be much more lethal, wouldn't give up my location as easy, etc.  If I was shooting into a dense crowd the bump stock would allow me to injure a lot of people, but not necessarily be as lethal.  With a high powered rifle I think as many people in Vegas could have been killed, probably more.  Wouldn't have had nearly the numbers that were injured.  With a few high powered rifles, I could have gotten off 15-20 kill shots a minute.  In 10 minutes I could have hit 150 targets with some serious accuracy, all in the chest.

The suppressor wouldn't matter much at all in my opinion.  A suppressor and subsequent sonic boom you've got a split second delay in knowledge a shot was fired.  That's the difference we're arguing about?

Handguns, that's an entirely different subject.  I own two guns (well and a 22), a 30.06 and a 357.  The 30.06 is for hunting and the 357 used to make me feel like Clint Eastwood.  Now I pretty much feel the 357 is not of much great value.  For safety I'd rather own a shotgun (I don't bird hunt).  I shot my first AR 15 a few years ago.  My ears hurt for days and I wore earplugs.  Accuracy wasn't very good.  I like my 357 more and as I said, I don't see much value in my 357 anymore.

More would have died in Vegas if the shooter had 3-5 high powered rifles mounted and fully loaded at the two windows.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFtoVA said:

Yeah, that's why I checked as I didn't think it would work.... I guess the idea is that it will not cycle a semi-auto effectively making it a bolt action (sorry if that's wrong terminology), but that's the trade off.

They also do list a 5.56 that will cycle with their (proprietary?) upper receiver.

None-the-less, it's an rifle round that is manufactured apparently...

It would require you pull back the charging handle in order to chamber each round. So essentially bolt action but more cumbersome and slower.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

The whole point of Marbury vs Madison was to review legislation for any conflicts with the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison certainly did not give Federal Courts power to change the meaning of the constitution as society changes.

The more you talk on these subject the more you show yourself to be completely ignorant on multiple subjects.  

 

 

The point is that you guys all like to talk about "activist judges" and pretend like a very narrow reading of the text of the constitution is the only thing matters.  If that is the case...you would be against any judicial review of constitutionality because it wasn't spelled out in the constitution. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

The point is that you guys all like to talk about "activist judges" and pretend like a very narrow reading of the text of the constitution is the only thing matters.  If that is the case...you would be against any judicial review of constitutionality because it wasn't spelled out in the constitution. 

Both sides talk about activist judges, depending on how the outcome comes about.  I think the court system works pretty much as intended.  Do judges overstep, sure.  Then an appeal happens and the case goes up the chain.  By the time a case gets to the SCOTUS it's been touched a few times by lower courts.  There are cases that the constitution simply doesn't address.  If the constitution was clear, the matter wouldn't be in the courts.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IanforHeisman said:

I’ve been to Iraq twice. I’ve fired suppressors with and without correct ammunition dozens of times. Without correct ammunition it’s a quick crack, not meant to conceal all sound, just meant to make it more difficult to track your position. 

 

With correct ammo there is no crack. You wouldn’t hear a sound across the street.

 

4 hours ago, SFtoVA said:

This makes zero sense to me... How would a bump stock with or without a suppressor help victims? Those combinations would be incredibly lethal.

Also, you wouldn't hear the "sonic boom" until the round has already gone by, hit its target? What am I missing.

As far as the "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", total crap. It doesn't specify that the suppressor needs to be for rifles.

House:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367/text?q={"search"%3A["hr367"]}&r=1

Senate:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/text?q={"search"%3A["s59"]}&r=1

They can/will sell these for handguns as well if this ever passes.

It would help victims by making the weapon incredibly inaccurate and difficult to manage if you are using a bump stock.  The action of the stock makes it impossible to do anything but aim in a general direction.    Plus the rate of fire means a mass shooter would use ammo at such a rate that he wouldn't be able to carry enough to make him dangerous for very long. 

 A silencer reduces the velocity of the round making it less deadly.   You would also melt it off pretty fast if you were shooting full auto through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

 

It would help victims by making the weapon incredibly inaccurate and difficult to manage if you are using a bump stock.  The action of the stock makes it impossible to do anything but aim in a general direction.    Plus the rate of fire means a mass shooter would use ammo at such a rate that he wouldn't be able to carry enough to make him dangerous for very long. 

 A silencer reduces the velocity of the round making it less deadly.   You would also melt it off pretty fast if you were shooting full auto through it.

FWIW the Russians developed a 9mm heavy round for a silenced sniper rifle. Good luck getting one though

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bluerules009 said:

Anything that is going less than 1130 feet/sec isn't much of a rifle.  

From what I've led the spetz love it but the rifle is in very limited production because it is so expensive to make. Effective to 300m, so better than a .223, and apparently actually silent

Go Soviet engineers I guess

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IanforHeisman said:

Google CCI’s quiet .22lr rounds. You wouldn’t hear it fire if it was next to your phukking ear.

 

 

Anyone who says there aren’t any virtually silent rounds out there is a phukking moron who has never spent a single minute around them.

Sounds like you would have a great silenced rabbit gun.  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Seriously are you joking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

From what I've led the spetz love it but the rifle is in very limited production because it is so expensive to make. Effective to 300m, so better than a .223, and apparently actually silent

Go Soviet engineers I guess

A normal 125 grain 1250ft/sec 9mm round won't knock over a 2lb steel target at 100 yards.

So you are saying it is effective to 300 yards?   Doesn't make sense.

 

A 223 is accurate and effective to about 650 yards after that it goes subsonic and starts tumbling and although deadly for another 600ish yards probably it is not accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

A normal 125 grain 1250ft/sec 9mm round won't knock over a 2lb steel target at 100 yards.

So you are saying it is effective to 300 yards?   Doesn't make sense.

 

A 223 is accurate and effective to about 650 yards after that it goes subsonic and starts tumbling and although deadly for another 600ish yards probably it is not accurate.

It isn't a normal 9 mm round. The bullet is over twice the length, developed especially for this rifle. It's closer to a fat .308 than a pistol 9mm.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happycamper said:

It isn't a normal 9 mm round. The bullet is over twice the length, developed especially for this rifle. It's closer to a fat .308 than a pistol 9mm.

Well a long round or what they call "boat tail",  is more accurate especially subsonic as the 338 lapua proved.  Showing that a long round even after it went subsonic at 1100 meters like the Lapua could still be accurate.

My understanding is the military is developing a round with the ballistics of the Lapua and the capabilities of the 50 cal now.  A .46 caliber round is my understanding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pokebball said:

Random thoughts of mine.

A high powered rifle with a scope is much more accurate.  If my targets were spread out, random, etc.  A single shot delivery would be much more lethal, wouldn't give up my location as easy, etc.  If I was shooting into a dense crowd the bump stock would allow me to injure a lot of people, but not necessarily be as lethal.  With a high powered rifle I think as many people in Vegas could have been killed, probably more.  Wouldn't have had nearly the numbers that were injured.  With a few high powered rifles, I could have gotten off 15-20 kill shots a minute.  In 10 minutes I could have hit 150 targets with some serious accuracy, all in the chest.

The suppressor wouldn't matter much at all in my opinion.  A suppressor and subsequent sonic boom you've got a split second delay in knowledge a shot was fired.  That's the difference we're arguing about?

Handguns, that's an entirely different subject.  I own two guns (well and a 22), a 30.06 and a 357.  The 30.06 is for hunting and the 357 used to make me feel like Clint Eastwood.  Now I pretty much feel the 357 is not of much great value.  For safety I'd rather own a shotgun (I don't bird hunt).  I shot my first AR 15 a few years ago.  My ears hurt for days and I wore earplugs.  Accuracy wasn't very good.  I like my 357 more and as I said, I don't see much value in my 357 anymore.

More would have died in Vegas if the shooter had 3-5 high powered rifles mounted and fully loaded at the two windows.

You could hit 150 moving targets from 300 yards out in ten minutes? I'm grateful this shooter didn't have that skill set.. Or, maybe he did, but decided volume was better than accuracy.

I would suggest that we should consider a semi-auto .223 (I've not actually seen/heard what he had) is sufficiently powerful and accurate enough to be considered "high powered", especially when the "targets" are humans. In my mind the math gets worse, exponentially, when you add high capacity magazines, a bump stock, and a dense group of people. From the pics I saw, he had scopes, so pretty much just aim in that direction and hold your finger. Accurate, no. Effective, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

It would help victims by making the weapon incredibly inaccurate and difficult to manage if you are using a bump stock.  The action of the stock makes it impossible to do anything but aim in a general direction.    Plus the rate of fire means a mass shooter would use ammo at such a rate that he wouldn't be able to carry enough to make him dangerous for very long. 

 A silencer reduces the velocity of the round making it less deadly.   You would also melt it off pretty fast if you were shooting full auto through it.

Agreed on the accuracy when using a bump stock and just emptying magazine after magazine. However, in this scenario, seems like aiming in a general direction is sufficient. The rate of fire and carrying ammunition, I guess it depends on the scenario. This particular shooter wasn't worried about carrying anything, he had days to stock up.

Disagree on the suppressors reducing velocity. The more I read about it, the clearer it is that modern suppressors have little impact on the velocity of the round. Melting, okay... But this guy had multiple rifles. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards he didn't have suppressors because he didn't want to do the paperwork and draw attention to himself. If that legislation had passed and he could just get as many as he wanted, makes me shiver. LEO and victims had a hard enough time trying to figure out where the shots were coming from, no idea how much worse that would have been if the sound is reduced by 30db at the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFtoVA said:

You could hit 150 moving targets from 300 yards out in ten minutes? I'm grateful this shooter didn't have that skill set.. Or, maybe he did, but decided volume was better than accuracy.

I would suggest that we should consider a semi-auto .223 (I've not actually seen/heard what he had) is sufficiently powerful and accurate enough to be considered "high powered", especially when the "targets" are humans. In my mind the math gets worse, exponentially, when you add high capacity magazines, a bump stock, and a dense group of people. From the pics I saw, he had scopes, so pretty much just aim in that direction and hold your finger. Accurate, no. Effective, yes.

300?   I think I clearly said 150

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SFtoVA said:

Agreed on the accuracy when using a bump stock and just emptying magazine after magazine. However, in this scenario, seems like aiming in a general direction is sufficient. The rate of fire and carrying ammunition, I guess it depends on the scenario. This particular shooter wasn't worried about carrying anything, he had days to stock up.

Disagree on the suppressors reducing velocity. The more I read about it, the clearer it is that modern suppressors have little impact on the velocity of the round. Melting, okay... But this guy had multiple rifles. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards he didn't have suppressors because he didn't want to do the paperwork and draw attention to himself. If that legislation had passed and he could just get as many as he wanted, makes me shiver. LEO and victims had a hard enough time trying to figure out where the shots were coming from, no idea how much worse that would have been if the sound is reduced by 30db at the shooter.

In the instance of a tower shooter into a crowd.  Where he could haul a whole bunch of ammo up to his tower a head of time.  Combining that with thousands of packed in targets, the bump stock in that narrow instance is an advantage probably.  Especially for a poorly trained shooter.

Almost any other situation like say a school shooter or a mall shooter the bump stock would save lives.   Just from the fact the shooter couldn't carry enough ammo to make the strategy effective.   Second much of what he had would be put in ceilings and walls because automatic fire is difficult to control.     I am not saying he wouldn't kill anyone, I am just saying i think he would be less effective.

I do not care if they outlaw bump stocks or suppressors.  I would never have a use for a bump stock and a oil filter can be modified as a suppressor very easily and for a lot less cost.  Even a liter coke bottle and some paper and duct tape can make a suppressor.

So go ahead and outlaw the stuff.  It won't save any lives but it will make you feel better i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...