PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Armor Piercing Bullets

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Should armor piercing bullets be banned ? 

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/armor_piercing.HTM

(Edited by admin 10/8/2002 at 6:54 PM).
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 10:04 AM on May 1, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes.  It would lead to less deaths of flak jacketed police, etc.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 3:44 PM on September 25, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I actually agree with you Exxoss.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 4:41 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
therut

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually that would be very difficult to do because there is really no such particular thing.  Everyone needs to not take media hype and words for truth.  The truth is almost any rifle ammo will pierce body armour.  Good site to look at for some real basic info is Guncite.  Just like they made up the Plastic Gun crappo.  This is the Glock.  It got all hyped by the anti-gun people when there was never any gun made that did not have enough metal in it to trip off a metal detector.  They got all upset because this was the first handgun made out of polymer material but it always had enough metal in it's design.  But the point is the media never corrected their slander.  But what would you expect when people like Katie Couric  seemed to be in awe talking about the spiral marking inside the barrel of a rifle. It is a disgrace for blond women (I'm one I can say that).. Hey Katie the barrels of rifles have rifling in their barrels hence their name"RIFLES".Duh!!!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:00 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Therut made a very valid point, any round from a high caliber rifle is going to go straight threw a vest without even blinking.  There are bullets for pistols that do pierce armor and they should be banned though.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 9:37 PM on October 12, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why ban pistol ammo that will penetrate a vest, but leave the rifle ammo that does the same thing legal?
BTW, which pistol ammo is this you are speaking of?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:31 AM on October 13, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe they are called rhinos.  But any deer rifle will go straight threw a vest, and good luck rounding all hunting rifles up.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 12:11 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
oskarelias

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no protection from high-velocity bullets. Flak vests stop - flak.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:35 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flak vests have a lower rating than commercially available body armor.
Flak vests should not be confused with what most people know as "bulletproof vests".
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:22 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think banning armor piercing ammunition is just another way to ban firearms. What's the point of having the right to bear arms if you make the bullet incapable of penetrating vests that criminals as well as cops wear?
The reason we have the right to bear arms is because our founding fathers wanted to guard against a potentially corrupt government.
That corrupt government will use the police and military to impose it's will on the population.
Did you know that crossbows were banned by the Kings of England simply because they were the only weapon that would penetrate a knights armor. Owning one meant you were subject to the death penalty. Only soldiers were allowed to have them, why, because it was part of their job to keep the
non- property owning surfs(peasants) down.
This is also the reason why the Japanese Samurai were the only ones by law able to own any weapons.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:29 PM on May 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you ban "armor piercing" ammo you limit your ability to fight back against foreign invasion and government tyranny.. which is why we have a 2nd ammendment.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:06 AM on May 10, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the Japanese Samurai were the only ones by law able to own any weapons

This is exactly the point I'm making. Because if you know more about fuedal japan you understand that even though owning "weapons" was illegal, people just found better ways to conceal it. Warriors of Shinobi Ryu and other Ninjitsu Arts, learned to conceal different weapons thousands of ways. And ronin, and "retired" samurai often carried swords concealed in canes. Laws may be a deterent, but only law abiding citizens will respect those laws. Criminals don't. Secondly if you know anything about bullets you'll know that you can cast your own bullet heads and reload your own casings. It's not hard to make your own armor peircing rounds, even with just a file, or by adding additional powder (just a little bit) to each round to increase the velocity. [This is all pertaining to pistols of course]. And they do now make body armor that will stop rounds up to 7.62mm (that's .308 for all you hunters) rifle round and muzzle velocity. It's made by a company called Cerodyne, and is being manufactured specifically for police and military use.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 08:18 AM on May 13, 2003 | IP
DarKnight

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeay! exactly my point!

Armour piercing bullets are a problem cause they can kill cops in vest right?
Well the guys aiming to kill cops are hardly going to stop shooting because their ammo is illegal!

Actually banning armour piercing/high velocity rounds would simply shift their production into the illegal front meaning that the only difference is that the criminal arms dealers make more money then before.

Whos to say they won't customize their illeagal products to specialize in taking out specifically the king of ballistic protection that cops use?
Just think about it, we'd only be pushing the criminals to fight back harder.


-------
I know the beauty in the shadows of the people and strive to serve as their guardian.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 12:10 PM on May 14, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but nevertheless with them illegal it would cut down on criminals owning them, not completely but no law ever does, but it might do it just enough to save a few policemen's lives.
And if the government starts cracking down on you to the point when you need armor piercing bullets, why can't you make them the same way?  Its not like you need them for every day use.  I mean I may be young but I certainly can't remember the last time the tyrannical united states went after its population.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:09 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I certainly don't think that Armor Peircing Bullets are neccissary either (personally I subscribe to larger caliber pistols like the .45 that even if it doesn't penetrate the vest would knock someone clean off their feet, most likely breaking a rib or two in the process). My point was simply that they can be made without needing to buy them, thus selling them won't solve the problem.

http://www.guntruths.com is an excellent site with tons of statistics that disprove alot of rumors, check it out.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 04:13 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the big deal with AP?  How often was it used by criminals?  Or maybe it's just another "buzzword" by the anti's to get one more thing banned.

Wasn't a problem before the "ban" and it isn't a problem now.  So it was a "useless" law.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:39 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it boils down to the fact that a lot of civilians like myself really are sick and tired of all the excess gun laws.  It's not your business why I want "armor piercing" ammo.  It's my right as an American do do whatever the hell I want in private, as long as it is within the scope of reasonable law, and it's not your worry.  Banning certain types of ammo is just as ridiculous as banning the bulletproof vests themselves in hopes that criminals won't wear them.  If you do that I'm just going to shove a phonebook down my shirt and tell you to go screw yourself.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 16, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point is not that it is used by criminals now, its a new thing, but that it might be later.  Thats allthey're saying, nip it in the bud before it gets in the wrong hands.  But I do agree that criminals most likely wont stock up on armor piercing bullets and then wage war on the police, but where does it end?
Do we have the right to own tear gas? grenades? Squad Machine guns? Tanks? Surface to Air Missiles? Where would you draw the line, because if you guys are serious about protecting yourself from a tyranical federal governent your gonna need more than a .44 magnum with armor piercing bullets.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 01:07 AM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CalDave1413 at 01:07 AM on May 18, 2003 :
The point is not that it is used by criminals now, its a new thing, but that it might be later.  Thats allthey're saying, nip it in the bud before it gets in the wrong hands.  But I do agree that criminals most likely wont stock up on armor piercing bullets and then wage war on the police, but where does it end?


So becasue something "might" be used wrongly we should go ahead an ban it?  Just like the .50cal rifles they are trying to ban because someone "might, maybe,  someday" use it for a bad thing?


Do we have the right to own tear gas? grenades? Squad Machine guns? Tanks? Surface to Air Missiles? Where would you draw the line, because if you guys are serious about protecting yourself from a tyranical federal governent your gonna need more than a .44 magnum with armor piercing bullets.

Actually all of those thing you mentioned are legally owned by private citizens (except the SAM's) of the US.  

Here is where you draw the line....ANY US citizen that is legally able to own a firearm can own ANY firearm..period.  

But some people in power think that no one but themselves and their bodyguards should own firearms because the "unwashed" masses can't be trusted.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:08 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you missed the point of what I said, I said that "criminals most likely wont stock up on armor piercing bullets and then wage war on the police."  So I'm not for banning armor piercing bullets not because I think you have a right to them but because not many criminals will really use them and the NRA will put up to much of a fight to make it really not worth the effort.
And tanks are legal? tanks!? please find me one person who owns a fully functional tank.  And I know Squad Machine guns are illegal even before the assault weapons ban was passed, they were illegal.  And I still fail to see how you can effectively stand up to a tyrannical goverment with a handgun.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:30 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you missed the point of what I said, I said that "criminals most likely wont stock up on armor piercing bullets and then wage war on the police."  So I'm not for banning armor piercing bullets not because I think you have a right to them but because not many criminals will really use them and the NRA will put up to much of a fight to make it really not worth the effort.
And tanks are legal? tanks!? please find me one person who owns a fully functional tank.  And I know Squad Machine guns are illegal even before the assault weapons ban was passed, they were illegal.  And I still fail to see how you can effectively stand up to a tyrannical goverment with a handgun.


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:32 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry about that double post, don't know what happened there


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 2:19 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They would use handguns on us..
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:02 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
CalDave1413

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and tanks and bombs


-------
GO BEARS!!
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 3:15 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um ... I gotta tell ya that armor piercing rounds are outlawed!  I dunno what you're reading but you can't just go down to the local gun shop and buy these things. Only law enforcment can buy them. On CNN they showed a non law enforcment person buy them, what they didn't say untill the NRA got on them was the person worked for the DA and had a badge that looked "real". Once CNN aired that cop killing in CA went up. Cops said it was because CNN told everyone they wear vests so the criminals started doing head shots. It had nothing to do with armor piercing bullets.
Enforce the laws we have and this would be a non issue!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:39 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CalDave1413 at 04:30 AM on May 19, 2003 :
And tanks are legal? tanks!? please find me one person who owns a fully functional tank.  And I know Squad Machine guns are illegal even before the assault weapons ban was passed, they were illegal.  And I still fail to see how you can effectively stand up to a tyrannical goverment with a handgun.


You are uninformed....There are "several" tanks and other armored fighting vehicles privately owned in the US.

"Squad machine guns"??? Ilegal???  Really??
Go back and do more research..."Squad Machine Gun for sale"

So please do a little more research before you state what you  "know".

Stand up to a tyrannical govt with a pistol???  Where did that come from?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:34 AM on May 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Check again.  Half of all machineguns are not owned by the government.  The other half are privately owned.  It is just next to impossible to find a machine gun built after 1994.

The second amendment does not mean you fight a dictator with inferior weapons.  You use the same modern military weapons that a dictator will be using against you.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:01 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
CainnAbel

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you know, i think you're right about owning tanks, machine guns, etc.  i mean when our government starts going all tyrannical, someone has to stand up to them! like robert e. lee and jefferson davis did! there were some real american heroes.  how dare the government try to ban guns!!??  we all have the right to be in a militia (which is what the second amendment also says).  i for one, want a bunch of redneck racist illiterates protecting my home with m16s and grenade launchers.  i would sleep so much better at night.  by the way, for all u gun toting enthusiasts, how many of you are in a milita?  i was just wondering.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:01 PM on August 17, 2003 | IP
KaosKat

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The cop-killer bullets the media hyped some time back tend to be the armor piercing ammo that people bring up, so I'll assume that here. Those bullets never killed a cop. Bulletproof vests work on the idea that many (I believe over 40 or 50) layers of kevlar, being stronger than steel when woven together, will prevent a bullet from piercing the vest. This turns a bullet from a piercing attack into a blunt trauma one, because it won't pierce the skin, and thus won't cause the same internal damage. A trauma plate is placed over the heart (and I believe there's something in the rest of the vest as well) which keeps the bullet from doing serious damage there. An AP round is anything that can make it's way through kevlar, which consists of a large number of things.


-------
<-------------------------------------->
~Madness as Salvation~
The RandomFactor Project
<-------------------------------------->
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 10:32 PM on September 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Caldave1413 keep saying that everyone is missing his point. The truth is never understood the point in the beginning.
The point is that you either have the right to bear arms or you don't. Guns exist for only one reason, to fire bullets. If those bullets are not capable of being effective against those who would want to take your rights away, you might as well throw the second amendment in the trash.
I thinks caldave1413 is what the one would call a "useful idiot" he says that he is for 2nd amendment rights yet he allows himself to be used by those who would ban all of your guns. This is the guy that antigun groups love to see interviewed on TV to help break up the solidarity of pro-second amendment supporters. This is also the kind of guy that they count in their statistics when they say that most people in this country would support gun control.
Wake up boy! and stop thinking like a naive child.
I also suggest you do some research as one of the other people on this board suggested and maybe open a history book
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:10 PM on November 16, 2003 | IP
Hyperiate

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CainnAbel at 11:01 PM on August 17, 2003 :
 we all have the right to be in a militia (which is what the second amendment also says).  i for one, want a bunch of redneck racist illiterates protecting my home with m16s and grenade launchers.  i would sleep so much better at night.  by the way, for all u gun toting enthusiasts, how many of you are in a milita?  i was just wondering.


"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

-- George Orwell
(1903-1950) British author

All sarcasm aside, I'm glad you appreciate that you are more willing to have other people put their lives in danger on your behalf than you are do do it yourself. As far as I am concerned, I have trouble asking anyone to do anything for me that I'd not be willing to do myself were I able to. To delegate something as important as protecting my life to someone else and not be willing to do it myself is, to me, the height of cowardice.

As for the idea that those who are willing to protect your home, your life, and your rights are a bunch of redneck, racist, illiterates...it scarcely bears response. Does a badge or a rank impart some inherent level of cultural sophistication I'm not aware of?

Finally, if you are an American citizen, you have a duty to your nation to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Every officer in the United States military has acknowledged this duty as it is in the Oath they take upon being comissioned. If the government betrays the constitution or a foreign power invades, how will you carry out your duty?

As for how many people are in a militia? Slightly less than half of the United States population. If you are a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years old you are a member of the United States Militia. Congratulations. Dispense your duty responsibly and proudly.

I'm sorry, do you think this is archaic, a bygone of a forgotten century? I'm afraid you'll have to emmigrate, as it is current United States Law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Still think this law enacted centuries ago is outdated? How about an excerpt from a Supreme Court decision written less than a hundred years ago?

"The signification attributed to the term, Militia, appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time."
--US Supreme Court, US v Miller 1939
Link to decision
(Indidentally this is the link taken from another thread started by GunMyths, which I'll deal with in my next post)

Sorry for ressurecting old threads, but anyone browsing along looking at these should be well informed as to the facts.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:24 PM on November 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a Police Officer.  Any time I can prevent a bady guy from getting his hands on something that would end my life and keep me from going home to see my wife and kids I am all for it.  You bleeding liberals need to walk a mile in my shoes.  You would vomit on a daily basis because you could not handle the reality of life in general.  This society has some sick individuals walking around, but because you don't see or hear of them you get on your soap box and say words like "my right, freedom to keep arms"  you don't have a clue how valuable those rights are.  You never had to fight for those rights.  I fight for them every day, not for me alone but for all your asses too.  I am proud to do this as it is part of my heart felt belief.  I am going home today and kiss my wife and hug my two small children.  Will I be as lucky tomorrow????  I don't know.  Do you??  But if I can make it a little easier for me to go home I will.  Just remember when oyu are sleeping in your bed tonight, there are brave men and women fighting for your right to do just that.  Sleep in peace.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:48 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
citizenx

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This post is directed toward the guy who says he is a cop and is singularly resposible for making us safe from all the bad guys in the world.
First of all I suggest you go to the library and read a book or two about american politics.
You called  the pro gun rights people here "bleeding liberals". Do you have any idea what that means? The majority of Liberals are the ones who want to ban guns and all ammunition. I hope you don't vote because you don't even know what Liberal or Conservative means. By the way the it's "bleeding heart liberal" not "bleeding liberal" you moron.
So you have a problem with people getting on their soapbox and using words like "my right, freedom to keep arms"? You are the reason people want to preserve our bill of rights. You say you are a police officer and you want to disarm the public and tell them that you are sick of them speaking out and getting on their soapbox. What will you support next, banning our right to free speech or  to have legal counsel. You sound more like a Nazi than a cop. How dare you suggest that the people on this forum "don't have a clue how valuble those rights are", or that we have never had to fight for those rights".  Many of us have fought for our country in the military, as political activists, public defenders, judges etc. You think being a cop makes you the defender of all rights? Many times it's the police that wind up violating our rights. That's why we have judges and defense lawyers and internal affairs officers. You are the one that does not have a clue.


 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:49 PM on May 3, 2004 | IP
Arkalius

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The whole armor piercing "cop killer" bullet thing is such a fiasco. Did you know that these special teflon-coated bullets were actually created by law enforcement agencies? They wanted bullets that could penetrate harder surfaces like car windshields etc. These bullets, instead of being made of lead, were made of all steel or some other hard metal, thus making them harder, and allow them to pierce through harder materials. They were coated with teflon in order to reduce the havoc they wreaked on gun barrels. The news media then ran a story on this new bullet technology. The law enforcement community strongly urged them not to run the story because at the time no one really knew about this ammo, and not that many people were aware that cops were starting to wear protective armor. This story blew all that.

These bullets were never going to be sold to the general public, and they are not. There is no federal law against such sales currently, so if you really wanted them you could probably find someone to sell them to you, but you won't find them in your local gun store. Additionally, to this date, no police officer has ever been killed due to a bullet penetrating a ballistic vest of any kind. Laws against such ammo are an answer to a question that nobody asked, and is just the anti-gun community finding things to get all hot and bothered about.

It is also true that any rifle round can easily pierce a ballistic vest. Rifle rounds have much greater energy than handgun ammunition.



-------
-Arkalius<br>
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:04 PM on September 11, 2004 | IP
Alliant2400

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know this post is about a year old but what the heck.

I just want to use my knowledge on armor piercing bullets (AP) to clear up some questions and inconsistencies that have been posted.

Q: Are AP bullets legal to own?

A: Yes, in MOST states AP bullets are totally legal to own. Usually only the projectiles themselves are sold not the loaded cartridge. In order to utilize them they must be loaded into the appropriate charged and primed cartridge case.

Q: What makes them "armor piercing"?

A: Conventional military ball ammo or FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullets have lead cores surrounded by a copper jacket. These standard rounds have good penetrating qualities. Armor piercing rounds have hardened steel cores in the same copper jacket. The purpose of the steel core is so the bullet maintains its integrity when it strikes hard surfaces (i.e. steel armor plate). These rounds are useful in anti-material and for use against lightly-armored vehicles.

Q: Are they more deadly than regular bullets?

A: From a analytical and real world perspective, no. Rifle bullets in general have "armor piercing" qualities. Take for instance an article from Guns&Ammo written awhile ago. In their test they fired a .30 cal rifle(in this case it was a 30-06) loaded with standard softpiont loads(designed to expand in soft tissue) at a 1/2 inch thick steel plate clamped in a vise. The rounds were fired at moderate range (under 50 yards i believe)and fully penetrated the steel. AP rounds are not necessary to defeat soft armored targets (Kevlar vests) and vehicle bodies.

Q: Do AP rounds pose a significant threat to Law Enforcement Personnel?

A: The truth is, that any weapon be it firearm, knife, club, or any object capable of inflicting harm or death is a threat to everybody. Let's face it if LE officers thought that they had a significant chance of being hit with rifle fire AP or not, they would incorporate ceramic strike plates into their body armor. Such plates can be had for as little as $100 but can cost more depending on their durability level of protection.
These hard ceramic plates can stop a number of rifle cartridges from standard to AP to high velocity. High level protection ballistic body armor is readily available to LE personnel. But for standard everyday police work, protection from AP munitions is unnecessary.

Well i hope this has cleared up some of the mystery and misinformation regarding armor piercing ammunition. If you have any questions or concerns that I failed to address please post them. I will review this thread in a couple of weeks or so and reply to new questions.

Thanks for reading and I hope that I was able to help in some way.




(Edited by Alliant2400 5/7/2005 at 12:02 AM).


-------
George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:45 PM on May 6, 2005 | IP
wayneinFL

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the main aversion among the firearms crowd is that banning AP ammo was a foot in the door toward banning other forms of ammunition, then eventually everything.

This seems to be another look at an old thread.... Seems appropriate, considering since we have had a ban on certain types of AP handgun ammunition, Ted Kennedy is calling for a ban on any ammunition that could pierce police vests.

The most common of which is 30-30 not because criminals prefer a 30-30 for "high power" capabilities, but simply because it's a common hunting caliber.

If you can ban AP handgun ammo(1989?), then why not all handgun ammo? If all handgun ammo is banned, then why have handguns- ban those too?  If you can ban automatic rifles(1935), why not semi auto rifles? If you can ban semi-auto rifles because of certain characterisitics(1994), why not ban all semi-autos? If you can ban 50 cal BMG rifles(2005?), semi auto, bolt action, single shot, whatever, why not ban what the VPC calls "intermediate sniper rifles"- .30 cal rifles which covers most of the most popular hunting calibers? The only gun left is a shotgun, which is a very powerful weapon that should be banned, too.  That would pretty much ban every gun in the U.S.- making us England (1776). Back to square one.

What's next?




-------
wayneinFL
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:56 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because banning handguns would make Texas or Florida die. So I conclude-- remove handguns, so that I can see Texas suffer.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:49 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Alliant2400

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pretty disgusting remark Mr. Box of Fox


Long live the Lone Star State
Y'Haw for Texas[b][i]


-------
George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:44 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What gun control advocates fail to mention is, any center fire cartridge will rip through a bullet proof vest like its not there. This includes most handgun rounds, 5.56 NATO, and 7.65 NATO (popular hunting rounds)

Armor piercing merely refers to the fact that the bullet itself is made of steel instead of lead. These rounds are actually far less dangerous than common hollow point rifles, as they do not fragment upon impact, and the impact velocity is generally lower.

Liberals should learn something about firearms before they try to debate the subject,

(Edited by Five Seven 9/10/2005 at 5:15 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:14 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
citizenx

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why a ban on armor piercing ammuniton is a ban on the second ammendment.
I own guns for defence. Although I have been hunting a number of times, hunting is not the reason that the second ammendment was put into the Bill of Rights. It was purposefully placed there to create a roadblock in the path to military dictatorship. Our founding fathers have always considered a potential threat to our freedoms from our own government. While I hope such a threat never appears, it is the responsibility of every citizen to ensure the enforcement of the Bill of Rights by force if necessary. If you are going to ban all ammunition that is capable of penetrating the body armor worn by the military and police, you are negating the purpose of the second amendment and the intent of it's authors.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:37 PM on September 24, 2005 | IP
TNBiologist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

CainnAbel: I do not know where you were educated but you need to review both your early American History and Civil War History. I will not address the the later here, instead if you wish to debate yor opipons on the civil war leadership of the South, find an appropiate forum and let me know where it is. As for you general comments about Militia, in early American/Colonial history ever male between 16 and 35 where considered Militia and older males and females where reserve Militia, this is the context that the Constitution was written in. Before the word Militia was perverted by modern society to mean antigovernment groups.
As for your statements about being defending by "redneck racist illiterates", you would do well to do research before making statements about groups of people. I am from Tennessee so I guess that makes me a redneck, however I am far from being racist, I have several black friends, I work with and like several oriantals and have dated hispanics. Most of the people I grew up with are of the same mindset as myself about that, There are racist everywhere, ever amoung liberals.
Illiterate, Every gun owner I know is Literate, many hold advanced degrees (Masters and PhD's) some ever from institutions that are considered liberal. Please do not consider gun owners "redneck racist illilerates" as many of us are more educated, and apparently more open minded that yourself, I may not like what you say or do but I will not condeem you or your ways for that.
I can think of a lot of things worse than being called a redneck, in fact it makes me proud.
As I said earlier, if you would like to debate the civil war leadership let me know where to find the proper forum.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:06 PM on January 22, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An interesting inquiry in this debate would be how many cops are actually killed with 'armor piercing bullets' each year.  My guess would be that it is less that 1% of the total cops killed each year.  I would further speculate that only a fraction of those instances would have been prevented if it had been a regular bullet, i.e. the bullet hit him in the face or leg artery.

Your average criminal uses what is readily available to him.  FBI crime statistics show that only 7% of criminals that use guns buy their guns retail, 93% use a guns that they can get from friends, family members, or gang members.  Any criminal that goes out and pays 3 times as much for bullets that pierce armor is going to be in a very, very, very small minority.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 11:56 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"From 1992 to 2002, 20 police officers were killed after bullets penetrated their armor vests and entered their upper torso... and not one of those officers was killed with an 'armor piercing' round. They were killed with standard, everyday centerfire rifle ammo."

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:38 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that the ban on "armor piercing" bullets was largely pointless.  I do wonder why someone would want to purchase armor piercing bullets in the first place.  Just how tough are the hinds up in your area?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:05 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
crunker

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think that they should be banned.

They are almost never encountered in the hands of criminals as they are mad expensive and hard to come by.

Besides, they're great fun for gun sports.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 7:14 PM on May 19, 2006 | IP
citizenx

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This issue of banning armor piercing ammo is kind of pointless.
All someone has to do to make ammo that will penetrate a body armor vest is to take an ordinary hollow point bullet and screw a machine screw into the hollow point you will have instant steel core ammo.
Before hardcast big game bullets were developed, reloaders  have been doing the screw trick for better better penetration.

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 03:34 AM on June 11, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 12:01 AM on May 23, 2003 :
Check again.  Half of all machineguns are not owned by the government.  The other half are privately owned.  It is just next to impossible to find a machine gun built after 1994.

The second amendment does not mean you fight a dictator with inferior weapons.  You use the same modern military weapons that a dictator will be using against you.


Dude get the facts strait. Ther are only apx 350,000 transferable MGN's and a good percetage of those are in museums, the Gov. has millions. And MGN's are still made they are called post dealer samples. The MGN's that are in the public hands fall under the 1934 National Firearms act. These guns are not something that anyone can own. Since the act was put in place not 1 fully transferable MGN has been used in a crime not one. These guns are tracked by the fed's and you give up you right to privacy and search and seasure laws to own one and they are expensive. The new reg. of transferable guns was stopped in 1984.  





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 4:02 PM on June 17, 2006 | IP
crunker

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, armor-piercing handgun bullets have already been banned.  If you think I'm wrong, go and try to legally buy 5.7mm AP ammo in the US and see how far you get.

Armor piercing bullets are very necessary to have, as the security of a state and a country requires it's armed force, and therefore the people that the armed force is derived from to be able to use and have easy access to the best technology present.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 4:41 PM on October 31, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't need armor piercing ammo to defeat a vest all you need is a rifle larger than a 22 and you will rip right through a vest.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 6:03 PM on October 31, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why ban armor piercing ammo? If the criminal has a bullet proof vest shouldn't you have the means by which to defeat him, and if you hit him between the eye it doesn't much matter if it was a .38 or a 20mm round, your still very very dead!


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:21 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.