cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I’m not trying to be a wiseass (this time). We have our plate pretty full dealing with the existing weapons; this one is gonna get lost in the distressingly high noise floor.That's comforting to know.
Yesterday's Mass Shooting.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
Uvalde was 19..how many more per shooting do we need, Fog?
I wonder who made it that way? No need to answer..you voted them in.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I only know what I can read on the subject. Just saying, you have your opinion, others have opinions that differ. It's going to happen. These guns will start showing up in the hands of mass shooters that purportedly can defeat nearly all armor currently used by police and do it at greater distance than the current favorite, the military style assault weapons.
I'm just wondering why people don't care. You provided a reason. But it still doesn't make sense to me that we should introduce a rifle to civilians with not even the excuse of being better at self defense than a hand gun that can kill an officer at 1000 yards even if he's wearing body armor. None of this makes sense to me. Maybe we should consider stopping this from going into mass production for civilian use.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I didn't have my sarcasm font switched on when I said that.
farmingfisherman
Well-Known Member
Many a gun of war over the years killed many civilians, M14, M1 Grand, M1 Tanker to name a few, those just aren't being produced by every Paul, Dick and Harry gun manufacturer any longer.
And your doubleactionjackson friend will still vote Right while telling you from another side of his mouth, make it stop..I dunno why..
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
My favorite is when he stated bluntly that the carnage will never stop and then wondered how kids could have become so numb to violence.
It's not funny but the way he compartmentalized his belief about gun violence from his pearl clutching over those kids who he claimed were "numb" to violence gave me a sardonic laugh.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think this bit is hyperbole.
The 120-year-old Springfield rifle carries more energy farther than the new thing, and at all ranges. An officer (heck, even enlisted) in body armor at 1000 yards will likely not be injured unless the shot hits unprotected flesh.
We’re not facing a step up in lethality.
I’m not saying this to exonerate the new gun. However, the AR in its multiple civilian elaborations is something I’d choose over it for a number of reasons, were I planning something awful.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
yep, men will see those things in the hands of young men with ripped bodies and want that gun. Which, for the most part, will amount to nothing more that seeing a fat guy with an expensive gun wearing camo that shows a bit too much belly. Meanwhile people will die and their mamas will cry.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Said it right there in the article. You have no basis for disputing it. His argument against the gun was its killing power for armored police than mass murder.
I'm wondering why we should be OK with that.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
“It can be accurate up to 1000 yards and have the power to punch through almost all body armor” but not both at the same time.
In this instance I daresay you drew a bad conclusion from a badly-worded article written by a journalist who probably does not own a rifle of any sort.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ok, point taken. So argue about unimportant minutia. The main point is this weapon was designed to defeat the kind of body armor used by our police at greater range. Maybe it's the bullet design and not necessarily the gun that is designed to accept that round. The two taken together are said to be more effective at defeating police body armor.
I'm wondering why people are OK with that.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The question is why society is so broken that people need to go about armed and looking like soldiers with body armor in the middle of a peaceful civil society. The next question is why it is permitted and no, the 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with it, the feds can regulate and tax the shit out of existence. I guess ya just need to elect more democrats until the can do something about it, because there is much that can be done, even with the current SCOTUS, unless they wanna play legal pretzel on the floor and have themselves tied in logical knots.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I did some reading just now about body armor and the Fury cartridge. To work as advertised, it needs a special round containing a carbide pin. Afaik it falls under the “cop-killer bullet” Federal proscription. Our troops will get that round, but not civilian merchants.
An old Galil or HK-91 or the aforementioned Garand with civilian-available bullets is as deadly -and as heavy. Cop body armor is good against 9mm and 45, but is not spec’d for rifle energies.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The rate of fire is important, no?
Its good to know that the Fury cartridge will not make it to the consumer market.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Oh, the cartridge will. The armor-piercing bullet won’t.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Oh thanks, that was such an important point.
Sickofitall420247
Well-Known Member
That's the same thing they did with the FN 5.7 and the FN PS90. They were demonized as cop killer guns but it was a specific round that defeated the body armor. I love my 5.7 it even has 30 round magazines not to shabby for a handgun.
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
They've been wanting a bigger round for awhile. It's not just about body armor. The AK has more knockdown power than the M4 or AR15. But the M4 is more accurate. It's always a compromise. It has nothing to do with penetrating police body armor.
Army Announces 2 New Rifles for Close-Combat Soldiers
The Army recently awarded a contract for two new soldier weapons: the XM5 rifle and the XM250 automatic rifle, which both will use the new 6.8 mm common cartridge family of ammunition and a new fire
www.defense.gov