The Gaming Den

*sigh* With cars and guns so deadly they're never going to legalize tank ownership, are they?

Switzerland sold a bunch of their retired Centurion MBTs to private owners after disabling the weapons, provided the tank was not going into "hazardous countries". So, tank ownership is kind of legal here.

I think you need (very) special permissions to drive them outside private property though.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Anyone suggesting the use of FMJ projectiles for most hunting applications is a monster. Thats just plain inhumane.

Can you explain that one to me? I take it when hunting ducks/deer/giant monster pigs you want AP so it will definitely pierce their hide and skull and potentially give you a relatively painless through-and-through?

Fuchs: IIRC, Switzerland is one of the few countries where the roads are designed with tanks in mind so tanks can roll along the highway without tearing the roads up.

I'm not fucking with you, the reason most countries don't let people drive tanks has nothing to do with "they might reactivate the cannon!" or "they look scary" and more to do with roadworks. Though I imagine fuel usage would also discourage most? I have trouble seeing them being particularly fuel-efficient.

Well, any movement of tanks over roads has to be planned carefully, a bunch of Panzer 68s wrecked a freshly paved road once. And even driving the dinky 12 ton M113 APCs of the unit I was in we regularily crushed some cornerstones.

And yes, even APCs guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow, we lugged a lot of fuel around to top the tanks up.

FMJs generally overpenetrate, meaning they blow through people without deforming much which means they do not transfer their kinetic energy as well as hollow points, which spread on impact, usually don't exit the target and cause bigger wounds and stop people more often.

I would assume that means hollow points are better for hunting too, less chance of the animal suffering for long, but I am no hunter.

Koumei wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:Anyone suggesting the use of FMJ projectiles for most hunting applications is a monster. Thats just plain inhumane.

Can you explain that one to me? I take it when hunting ducks/deer/giant monster pigs you want AP so it will definitely pierce their hide and skull and potentially give you a relatively painless through-and-through?

Disclaimer: I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

I'd think you'd want something likely to expand if you're hunting. The purpose is to kill the target, so you're not really worried about the more grievous wound inflicted by such ammunition. Having a through-shot seems to have the problems of increased risk/collateral damage (that bullet has to go somewhere) and decreased stopping power (if the bullet goes through, not all of its force was absorbed by the target, resulting in a less serious wound).

At least that's how I understand it. I thought AP rounds are basically really only intended for armored targets, and FMJ are sort of a best of and worst of both worlds compromise. The advantage of FMJ is you can fire on armored and unarmored targets with decent effectiveness without the worry of carrying two types of ammo. You trade some of your effectiveness on each shot for the ability to switch target types without reloading.

Draco, you can say that, and yet, the NRA specifically lobbied to stop that law. Now, part of the reason they did it is because the wording was so bad, it would have banned all rifle ammunition. (Because bullet proof vests can't do shit to rifle shots). But instead of trying to change the wording, or reach a compromise, they just lobbied to crush the whole thing. The NRA always lobbies to stop all gun laws, no matter what.

So you can go punch yourself in the face instead.

FrankTrollman wrote:That is the most stupid fucking thing anyone has said on this thread. Which is impressive, considering that it's a gun thread. The bullet's composition has everything to do with whether it breaks the sound barrier, and if it does the noise is very much louder than if it does not. Like how a whip cracks and a sword whooshes. High velocity armor piercing rounds are called that because they go very fast. Subsonic FMJ rounds are called that because they go slower than the speed of sound. Bullets travelling at high speed make more noise than bullets traveling at low speed.

OK Frank, you are not retarded, so I'll just say you are ignorant. In this case the "armor" is a standard issue flack jacket. The bullet is brass with a teflon coating because the brass would significantly damage the barrel.

In the mid 1960's, Dr. Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant) and Donald Ward (Dr. Kopsch's special investigator) began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets like windshield glass and automobile doors. Conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, are often ineffective against hard targets especially when fired at handgun velocities. In the 1970's, Kopsch, Turcos and Ward produced their "KTW" handgun ammunition using steel cored bullets capable of great penetration. Following further experimentation, in 1981 they began producing bullets constructed primarily of brass. The hard brass bullets caused exceptional wear on handgun barrels, a problem combated by coating the bullets with Teflon. The Teflon coating did nothing to improve penetration, it simply reduced damage to the gun barrel.

So why was the NRA so up in arms ... well the "cure" was worse than the disease, especially since these bullets were neither designed to be used to go against kevlar armor nor were they sold to the general public.

Following significant media hype and widespread misconceptions, Congress got into the act and proposed legislation that would have outlawed any bullet based on its ability to penetrate certain bullet resistant material. The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and other forensic experts cautioned that the proposed ban was too vague to be enforceable. The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only the controversial armor piercing handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well. (Most rifle ammunition will easily penetrate the most commonly worn protective vests.)

Full links here. These aren't super sonic depleted uranium rouns Frank and we are not talking about going through tanks.

Here are the facts:

• "Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces.
• Rather than opposing the ban on "armor piercing" ammunition, the NRA was in fact instrumental in crafting the law that Congress ultimately passed.
• When properly wearing the appropriate body armor, not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their vest. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certifies three levels of body armor. The most commonly worn, Level IIA, offers realistic protection against all .22, .25, .32, .380, and .38, caliber handgun ammunition, against most 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum handgun ammunition and against 000 buck shotgun pellets. Level II and Level IIIA armor protects from even greater threats including 12 gauge shotgun slugs and the "hottest" .44 Magnum rounds.

"Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. An objective, rational look at the facts quickly separates the myth from the reality. Knowledge is power.

FrankTrollman wrote: That is the most stupid fucking thing anyone has said on this thread. Which is impressive, considering that it's a gun thread. The bullet's composition has everything to do with whether it breaks the sound barrier, and if it does the noise is very much louder than if it does not. Like how a whip cracks and a sword whooshes. High velocity armor piercing rounds are called that because they go very fast. Subsonic FMJ rounds are called that because they go slower than the speed of sound. Bullets travelling at high speed make more noise than bullets traveling at low speed.

Now: stop being retarded.

-Username17

Frank, I'm actually going to delurk to tell you exactly why you're wrong here. Bullet design has very little to do with velocity. The primary determinants of bullet velocity are cartridge loading (the propellant) and barrel length. Bullet design makes very little difference, especially in rifles; if it isn't a wadcutter round (which has basically no aerodynamic properties at all (the front end of it is flat)), the bullet is pointy and streamlined, and goes fast. Supersonic ammo (which is most ammo) has a powerful propellant load, goes fast, and does lots of damage to whatever it hits. Also, very loud. Subsonic ammo (which you have to hunt for specifically) has a much smaller propellant load, does a whole lot less damage to the target, and doesn't make that horrendously loud sonic boom when it leaves the barrel. It's still loud, though; you're still setting off a good power explosion in the chamber. When combined with a suppressor, and a firearm built for quiet operation, then you can have nearly silent shooting - but those weapons are kinda rare, kinda gimmicky, and most of them are just the stuff of fantasy. In general usage, a suppressor + subsonic ammo = no real need for hearing protection, by comparison; that said, you're also going to have a short effective range and limited terminal effectiveness.

Now, why your post was dumb: FMJ rounds are typically supersonic. Seriously. FMJ is mil standard, and all of that stuff is seriously supersonic - think 3000+ FPS at the muzzle. Seriously, the standard 5.56 Nato round used in your bog standard M16 (the ss109) has a muzzle velocity of 3250 FPS. That is literally one of the most common bullets in the world, along with 7.62 Nato (2800 FPS) and 7.62x39 (the AK47) (2400 FPS). All of these are FMJ, all of these are seriously supersonic. For the unknowing - the speed of sound at sea level is 1126 FPS.

Further wrongness. AP ammo for small arms is typically about bullet design, not speed. AP ammo for the 7.62 Nato? The M61 round (2750 FPS). For 5.56? The M995 (3324 FPS).

Now pistols work at much lower speeds. Getting subsonic pistol ammo isn't nearly as big a deal. Finding JHP ammo that's subsonic is easy - but so is finding 1300+ FPS JHP ammo, which is supersonic. FMJ tends to hover even closer to the sound barrier, while kicking those up to 1300 FPS is quite common. (The preceding deals in 9mm Parabellum, most common pistol load in the world). AP rounds are a lot harder to find for pistols. It's really hard to get pistols to punch through much of a barrier - you can't hot load them too much because they'll explode, and you can't make your bullets terribly pointy and armor-piercing because pistol ammo is short and fat.

Cold loading a pistol round so it's just barely subsonic isn't a big deal, since most pistols can cycle their actions with a low amount of energy. Getting rifles to cycle with subsonic loads is a pain unless the rifle is built for them.

TL,DR: cartridge loading makes much more difference in bullet velocity than bullet design; most FMJ ammo is in fact supersonic, especially military loads; almost all rifles are supersonic, and pistols tend to be, but can be made subsonic just by switching brands of ammo; my first post on the Den was over long and pedantic. Dammit.

Hadanelith wrote: my first post on the Den was over long and pedantic. Dammit.[/b]

You'll fit right in. Welcome aboard.

Indeed. Good firstpost.

That was incredibly pedantic. Also: you're stupid. APDS is a thing. Also, I specified Subsonic FMJ, which is also a thing. Note that the bullet composition does affect both. For fuck's sake, the initial claim was that the "bullet's composition is not relevant" (for the amount of noise made). Obviously, if the bullet is composed of a discarding portion and a high velocity dart or is an explosive/incendiary round then it very much is fucking relevant.

So long pedantic tirades about the overall importance of the charge in the cartridge are retarded. Even though you're "right", you're still attempting to correct a true statement, so you're fucking wrong.

-Username17

@Hadenelith
As for muzzle velocities... 9mm rounds actually in use today fired from a standard handgun barrel can vary in muzzle velocity from ~900ft/s to ~2000ft/s. That's pretty significant variation. To boot, the standard 9mm handgun round (~1300ft/s) and the standard assault rifle round (~3000ft/s) are both supersonic, but the second is still louder than the first because the muzzle velocity is more than twice as high. The fact that nearly all rounds are supersonic is actually pretty irrelevant because some are a lot faster than others.

But mostly, muzzle velocity isn't even the only factor. Bullets don't 'crack' all along their flight, even when they maintain speed. The actual source of the noise is the release of pressurized gases at the muzzle. And all else being equal, a higher muzzle velocity is a good indicator of the amount of gas but it's not only the only indicator; heavier bullets need more energy to accelerate them, and that means more pressurized gases, and that means a louder noise even if the muzzle velocity ends up being the same. Longer barrels can actually help to reduce noise, because the gases are more dispersed and the escape is prolonged and therefore less energetic. That, and the source of the noise is further displaced from the user. Having a gun go off one foot from your ear is worse than two feet by quite a bit, given how quickly the energy of the sound dissipates with distance.

So, yeah, a better refutation of Frank's post would be: standard rounds and AP rounds typically have very similar muzzle velocities and weights, so the noises each produces are not significantly different. Most of what you actually said is almost completely irrelevant to whether or not 'armor-piercing' rounds are actually louder than standard rounds.

Somewhat important to this thread:

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/ ... /?iref=all

Heh.

What about fused alloy rounds?

Oooh. So the Swiss allow tank ownership? I'll keep it in mind the next time the Germans decide to have another Leopard II sale .

Also, tanks are not supposed to be used for normal transport. They're designed to intimidate random neighbors and be a mobile shelter in case of the Zombie Apocalypse.

FrankTrollman wrote:So long pedantic tirades about the overall importance of the charge in the cartridge are retarded. Even though you're "right", you're still attempting to correct a true statement, so you're fucking wrong.

-Username17

So your refutation of my claim that bullet design is irrelevant is to google the fact that FMJs can be loaded as subsonic even though they are normally supersonic loads? Thats really damn retarded, you just proved my point.

So long pedantic tirades about the overall importance of the charge in the cartridge are retarded. Even though you're "right", you're still attempting to correct a true statement, so you're fucking wrong.

graceful in defeat as always

So your refutation of my claim that bullet design is irrelevant is to google the fact that FMJs can be loaded as subsonic even though they are normally supersonic loads? Thats really damn retarded, you just proved my point.

it takes a certain quality of character to admit he is wrong but claim he is right because he is wrong

Draco_Argentum wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:So long pedantic tirades about the overall importance of the charge in the cartridge are retarded. Even though you're "right", you're still attempting to correct a true statement, so you're fucking wrong.

-Username17

So your refutation of my claim that bullet design is irrelevant is to google the fact that FMJs can be loaded as subsonic even though they are normally supersonic loads? Thats really damn retarded, you just proved my point.

And that high velocity discarding sabot rounds exist and are compositionally distinct from slower velocity bullets and thus your statement that bullet composition is never relevant is demonstrably wrong.

-Username17

The major factor with handguns and rifles is the propellant though. Sabot rounds are almost exclusively used in cannons.

Zinegata wrote:Oooh. So the Swiss allow tank ownership? I'll keep it in mind the next time the Germans decide to have another Leopard II sale :D.

Also, tanks are not supposed to be used for normal transport. They're designed to intimidate random neighbors and be a mobile shelter in case of the Zombie Apocalypse. :thumb:

Britain allows Tanks to be owned by private persons too, as long as the small weapons have been removed and the main gun has been disabled permanently by ripping out the ammo feeder i think.
also, you will need special rubber parts that go into the tracks so you won't rip up streets nilly willy . .

You don't really need Sabot rounds to defeat conventional (human) body armor anyway. If you're going for that much penetrating power, it's probably an anti-material sniper rifle (i.e. the type that can pierce through car engines).

Stahlseele wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Oooh. So the Swiss allow tank ownership? I'll keep it in mind the next time the Germans decide to have another Leopard II sale .

Also, tanks are not supposed to be used for normal transport. They're designed to intimidate random neighbors and be a mobile shelter in case of the Zombie Apocalypse.

Britain allows Tanks to be owned by private persons too, as long as the small weapons have been removed and the main gun has been disabled permanently by ripping out the ammo feeder i think.
also, you will need special rubber parts that go into the tracks so you won't rip up streets nilly willy . .

It depends on the weight of the tank and the grade of the road really. But realistically, any tank that a civilian owns will not be used (due to the cost of operation) except for emergencies and demonstrations of force.

Also, with Germany obsessed with reducing their Panzer forces (they currently have less tanks than the Poles and Turks, and they seem determined to eventually have less than the Danes), Switzerland is probably an easier place to store a second hand tank. Just a short drive over the border

Zinegata wrote:Oooh. So the Swiss allow tank ownership? I'll keep it in mind the next time the Germans decide to have another Leopard II sale .

You know, I used to have a "tank farm" (basically an outdoor museum) in my town, but the neighbors complained, the town wouldn't help and they moved to another state.

sabs wrote:And if you DID use Hollow Points, that means you didn't just want it for protection, but you /wanted/ to kill.

You misunderstand the purpose of hollowpoints. They are designed to reduce overpenetration.

First off, when it comes to guns protection IS killing. Guns literally have no other purpose than to kill.

A hollow point makes sure you kill who you intend to. Otherwise, you run the risk of killing someone on the other side of the wall from them.

EDIT: Didn't see Neil's post. I am agreeing with him.