YAGT

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
A Desert Eagle is ridiculous. There's no situation where I'd prefer a Desert Eagle to a wonder nine or 45. Except maybe hunting large game.

Otherwise, you have 7 shots, and I have 15. If you think a .50 cal will make a person any more dead than a 9mm will, good luck to ya.

The only time I would want a 9mm is when either it is chambered in 9x23mm, OR it has a 33 round magazine and is select fire

My department's SWAT team got to use their MP5s on a suspect a few months ago...needless to say we're getting a shipment of M4s in shortly.

Ehhh, the 5.56mm isnt much of a knockdown king, either. Especially out of the shorter barrel of an M4.

The rounds they use aren't made for penetration, as they use a soft tip. They did a test in an abandoned building and our 165-grain .40 JHP rounds penetrated more than the .223 did, so I would think they'd have some more stopping power that way.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Teliasen
Wow, I wasn't expecting this many replies.

Well, it's been a while since we've had a good gun thread and apparantly a good percentage of the self proclaimed 'gun experts' are out tonight. :roll:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
A Desert Eagle is ridiculous. There's no situation where I'd prefer a Desert Eagle to a wonder nine or 45. Except maybe hunting large game.

Otherwise, you have 7 shots, and I have 15. If you think a .50 cal will make a person any more dead than a 9mm will, good luck to ya.

The only time I would want a 9mm is when either it is chambered in 9x23mm, OR it has a 33 round magazine and is select fire

My department's SWAT team got to use their MP5s on a suspect a few months ago...needless to say we're getting a shipment of M4s in shortly.

Ehhh, the 5.56mm isnt much of a knockdown king, either. Especially out of the shorter barrel of an M4.

The rounds they use aren't made for penetration, as they use a soft tip. They did a test in an abandoned building and our 165-grain .40 JHP rounds penetrated more than the .223 did, so I would think they'd have some more stopping power that way.

Try some .223 55 grain FMJ rounds. They'll be coming out the other side of your training house. Unfortunately those FMJ rounds aren't known for their stopping power. They don't impart much of their power, they just keep on movin' on.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Nebor
If I were SWAT, I would definitely prefer an M4 to an MP5 for just about all situations. Do you know how pissed I would be if I opened up on someone with an MP5 and they didn't go down because they had on body armor? That could very easily be the end of your life. Remember that bank robbery in LA (or was it Miami?) The police shot the sh!t out of those guys, but their pistols couldn't scratch them... That would be a bad spot to be in.

Assuming that they are using FMJ ammo, which if you are concerned about body armor you would have loaded, if the bullet strikes an unarmored person at under 2600fps, it will not reliably fragment, meaning it will do only slightly more damage than a 22LR. If you are shooting JHP or JSP, your armor penetration goes to crap. If you are shooting a mix of them, you could choose something better.

I'd prefer an MP5/10, MP5/40, or UMP over a M4. AFAIK, all HK SMGs are rated to handle +P rounds, and I'd prefer a +P 10mm, +P 40 S&W, or +P 45 ACP over a 5.56 NATO. But that is JMO.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
If I were SWAT, I would definitely prefer an M4 to an MP5 for just about all situations. Do you know how pissed I would be if I opened up on someone with an MP5 and they didn't go down because they had on body armor? That could very easily be the end of your life. Remember that bank robbery in LA (or was it Miami?) The police shot the sh!t out of those guys, but their pistols couldn't scratch them... That would be a bad spot to be in.

Assuming that they are using FMJ ammo, which if you are concerned about body armor you would have loaded, if the bullet strikes an unarmored person at under 2600fps, it will not reliably fragment, meaning it will do only slightly more damage than a 22LR. If you are shooting JHP or JSP, your armor penetration goes to crap. If you are shooting a mix of them, you could choose something better.

I'd prefer an MP5/10, MP5/40, or UMP over a M4. AFAIK, all HK SMGs are rated to handle +P rounds, and I'd prefer a +P 10mm, +P 40 S&W, or +P 45 ACP over a 5.56 NATO. But that is JMO.

While I'm no expert on shooting people. I'm nearly positive a 223 JHP would have no problem piercing body armor. Whereas even +P FMJ pistol round has virtually no chance.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I voted "impractical" (or, as spelled here, "inpractical"), but in all fairness the S&W .50 is quite practical for big-game hunting. I am at a loss to see what application the Desert Eagle is suited to (except for impressing non-shooters). With the exception of hunting, I think the old-fashioned 9mm and .45 ACP are the most practical handgun calibers for 99% of shooters.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
I promise you a 9mm between the eyes is every bit as lethal as a .50 cal between the eyes.
People get this "bigger is better" attitude going... it's just not true.

A head shot is nice, but not always practical. The default shot is for center mass. And the 9mm doesnt perform very well at that compared to other options out there.

Bigger is better in the one category that matters more than any other: terminal ballistics. A bigger wound cavity is better. Of course, this does need to be tempered with other considerations of recoil, weight, size, magazine capacity, etc.

When it comes to it, a wonder 9 offers you more stopping power per oz of gun you're carrying (for concealed carry.) I'm not gonna run up the numbers but I'm pretty sure that 15, or in my case, 14 rounds of 9mm pack more punch than 7 or 8 rounds of .50 AE. Couple in accuracy in a gunfight, and the 9mm is just far far more practical. I would agree that the .45 ACP strikes a happy medium though.

Assuming you are getting 450 ft-lbs out of a 9mm +P and have 15 rounds, that is 6,750 per magazine.

The only revolver I have seen chambered for 500 S&W hold 5 rounds. However, each round nets you ~2500ft-lbs, making for ~12,500 per cylinder.

A Desert Eagle in 50 AE makes about 1500ft-lbs at the muzzle (I googled it), for a total of 10,500 per magazine.

Personally, I'd prefer either a 10mm (~575 * 15 [15 rounds per mag in a glock 20] = 8625 per magazine) or a 45 ACP +P, generating ~550ft-lbs and either a 8 or 13 round magazine, making for either 4400 or 7150 per magazine, depending on whether it is a single or double stack magazine.

*The numbers for ft-lbs per round should be fairly accurate, most of them are off the top of my head, some are from the Corbon website, with the except of the 50 AE. The numbers should be roughly accurate.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
If I were SWAT, I would definitely prefer an M4 to an MP5 for just about all situations. Do you know how pissed I would be if I opened up on someone with an MP5 and they didn't go down because they had on body armor? That could very easily be the end of your life. Remember that bank robbery in LA (or was it Miami?) The police shot the sh!t out of those guys, but their pistols couldn't scratch them... That would be a bad spot to be in.

Assuming that they are using FMJ ammo, which if you are concerned about body armor you would have loaded, if the bullet strikes an unarmored person at under 2600fps, it will not reliably fragment, meaning it will do only slightly more damage than a 22LR. If you are shooting JHP or JSP, your armor penetration goes to crap. If you are shooting a mix of them, you could choose something better.

I'd prefer an MP5/10, MP5/40, or UMP over a M4. AFAIK, all HK SMGs are rated to handle +P rounds, and I'd prefer a +P 10mm, +P 40 S&W, or +P 45 ACP over a 5.56 NATO. But that is JMO.

While I'm no expert on shooting people. I'm nearly positive a 223 JHP would have no problem piercing body armor. Whereas even +P FMJ pistol round has virtually no chance.

You're right about the .223, it will go through the body armour that's commonly used.

I'm looking @ a Glock 10mm, my cop buddies are lobbying pretty hard against it, but I grew up shooting a .44 single shot Thompson Contender, and I'm really tempted to go for the 10mm Glock.

My current favorite caliber is the 357 Sig I have a drop in barrel for my Glock 22C, & once I dropped it in, it just hasn't come out

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
If I were SWAT, I would definitely prefer an M4 to an MP5 for just about all situations. Do you know how pissed I would be if I opened up on someone with an MP5 and they didn't go down because they had on body armor? That could very easily be the end of your life. Remember that bank robbery in LA (or was it Miami?) The police shot the sh!t out of those guys, but their pistols couldn't scratch them... That would be a bad spot to be in.

Assuming that they are using FMJ ammo, which if you are concerned about body armor you would have loaded, if the bullet strikes an unarmored person at under 2600fps, it will not reliably fragment, meaning it will do only slightly more damage than a 22LR. If you are shooting JHP or JSP, your armor penetration goes to crap. If you are shooting a mix of them, you could choose something better.

I'd prefer an MP5/10, MP5/40, or UMP over a M4. AFAIK, all HK SMGs are rated to handle +P rounds, and I'd prefer a +P 10mm, +P 40 S&W, or +P 45 ACP over a 5.56 NATO. But that is JMO.

While I'm no expert on shooting people. I'm nearly positive a 223 JHP would have no problem piercing body armor. Whereas even +P FMJ pistol round has virtually no chance.

Type III will stop 5.56 FMJ rounds, as well as 10mm/40S&W/45ACP. IIRC, Type III-A does not reliably stop 10mm or 40 S&W.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I'm looking @ a Glock 10mm, my cop buddies are lobbying pretty hard against it, but I grew up shooting a .44 single shot Thompson Contender, and I'm really tempted to go for the 10mm Glock.

My current favorite caliber is the 357 Sig I have a drop in barrel for my Glock 22C, & once I dropped it in, it just hasn't come out

Meh to 10mm. Unless you use "full house" loads, the caliber has nothing much to offer over .45 ACP, except much costlier ammo. Full house loads are a pain to shoot, and I still see no real-world advantage over .45, except for hunting (and I CAN see the merits of a G22 with extended barrel for hunting or self-defense against animals). I guess I just don't get it (and apparently the market doesn't either - 10mm has never exactly taken off in popularity). On the bright side, if I were going to get a 10mm pistol, it would definitely be a G22 - the Glock design is so rugged that it will hold up to the abuse of the caliber better than anything else.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I'm looking @ a Glock 10mm, my cop buddies are lobbying pretty hard against it, but I grew up shooting a .44 single shot Thompson Contender, and I'm really tempted to go for the 10mm Glock.

My current favorite caliber is the 357 Sig I have a drop in barrel for my Glock 22C, & once I dropped it in, it just hasn't come out

Meh to 10mm. Unless you use "full house" loads, the caliber has nothing much to offer over .45 ACP, except much costlier ammo. Full house loads are a pain to shoot, and I still see no real-world advantage over .45, except for hunting (and I CAN see the merits of a G22 with extended barrel for hunting or self-defense against animals). I guess I just don't get it (and apparently the market doesn't either - 10mm has never exactly taken off in popularity). On the bright side, if I were going to get a 10mm pistol, it would definitely be a G22 - the Glock design is so rugged that it will hold up to the abuse of the caliber better than anything else.

I know what you're saying, but the G22 is a full-size .40 cal. The full-size 10mm model is the G20.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Nebor
If I were SWAT, I would definitely prefer an M4 to an MP5 for just about all situations. Do you know how pissed I would be if I opened up on someone with an MP5 and they didn't go down because they had on body armor? That could very easily be the end of your life. Remember that bank robbery in LA (or was it Miami?) The police shot the sh!t out of those guys, but their pistols couldn't scratch them... That would be a bad spot to be in.

Assuming that they are using FMJ ammo, which if you are concerned about body armor you would have loaded, if the bullet strikes an unarmored person at under 2600fps, it will not reliably fragment, meaning it will do only slightly more damage than a 22LR. If you are shooting JHP or JSP, your armor penetration goes to crap. If you are shooting a mix of them, you could choose something better.

I'd prefer an MP5/10, MP5/40, or UMP over a M4. AFAIK, all HK SMGs are rated to handle +P rounds, and I'd prefer a +P 10mm, +P 40 S&W, or +P 45 ACP over a 5.56 NATO. But that is JMO.

While I'm no expert on shooting people. I'm nearly positive a 223 JHP would have no problem piercing body armor. Whereas even +P FMJ pistol round has virtually no chance.

You're right about the .223, it will go through the body armour that's commonly used.

I'm looking @ a Glock 10mm, my cop buddies are lobbying pretty hard against it, but I grew up shooting a .44 single shot Thompson Contender, and I'm really tempted to go for the 10mm Glock.

My current favorite caliber is the 357 Sig I have a drop in barrel for my Glock 22C, & once I dropped it in, it just hasn't come out

Again, Type III body armor will stop a 5.56 NATO FMJ fired from an M-16. Which means you are SOL unless they are wearing III-A or lower. And even then, most tests of body armor using the 5.56mm are using an M-16 length barrel firing a FMJ round, not an M4 firing a hollowpoint. An M4 gives you a significantly lower velocity (due to the shorter barrel) which translates into less penetration. Will a 5.56mm JHP round out of an M4 penetrate Level III-A armor? Probably, but maybe not. I wouldnt want to be the test dummy for a test of that. OTOH, I wouldnt like to stake my life on it penetrating with enough velocity left over to stop the target. However, in general, I'd rather be packing a SMG chambered in 40 S&W, 10mm, or 45 ACP, because most of the time they will NOT be wearing armor, and the pistol cartridges I listed (especially in +P) will incapacitate a target faster than an M4.

The reality is that any cartridge is a trade off. It'd be nice to carry a gun that would reliably penetrate a Level IV vest, and put the target on his @ss first time, every time. But anything that fires the 50 BMG is a little heavy to walk around with all the time . So you have to make trade offs. It is just my opinion, but the 5.56 NATO is not a good choice when your primary application is shooting people. "Shooting people" isnt the PC way to say it, but cops do not carry guns to shoot rats with, they carry them because on infrequent occasions they need to shoot someone. If I want to shoot someone, I'm not looking to wound them, I want them incapacitated as quickly as possible, and often that translates into "dead as quickly as possible" in a real world scenario. If you are going to shoot at something, you had better make sure you are OK with the repercussions of killing it, because guns are designed to kill, not wound (rubber bullets not included, but OTOH the guns in discussion were not designed around rubber bullets). On a military logistical scale the "wounding, not killing" aspect of the 5.56mm might make sense. When you are the guy pulling the trigger however... well, no one likes to have to shoot someone 5 times to get them to stay down. Which is something many of our troops have had to do, especially when engaging a target at range with an M4.

 

[K1052]

Oh good lord, another .50 thread.


Personally, I would take a para FNFAL with a 16 inch barrel. If you don't hit them at least they will be blinded from the flash.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Again, Type III body armor will stop a 5.56 NATO FMJ fired from an M-16. Which means you are SOL unless they are wearing III-A or lower. And even then, most tests of body armor using the 5.56mm are using an M-16 length barrel firing a FMJ round, not an M4 firing a hollowpoint. An M4 gives you a significantly lower velocity (due to the shorter barrel) which translates into less penetration. Will a 5.56mm JHP round out of an M4 penetrate Level III-A armor? Probably, but maybe not. I wouldnt want to be the test dummy for a test of that. OTOH, I wouldnt like to stake my life on it penetrating with enough velocity left over to stop the target. However, in general, I'd rather be packing a SMG chambered in 40 S&W, 10mm, or 45 ACP, because most of the time they will NOT be wearing armor, and the pistol cartridges I listed (especially in +P) will incapacitate a target faster than an M4.

The reality is that any cartridge is a trade off. It'd be nice to carry a gun that would reliably penetrate a Level IV vest, and put the target on his @ss first time, every time. But anything that fires the 50 BMG is a little heavy to walk around with all the time . So you have to make trade offs. It is just my opinion, but the 5.56 NATO is not a good choice when your primary application is shooting people. "Shooting people" isnt the PC way to say it, but cops do not carry guns to shoot rats with, they carry them because on infrequent occasions they need to shoot someone. If I want to shoot someone, I'm not looking to wound them, I want them incapacitated as quickly as possible, and often that translates into "dead as quickly as possible" in a real world scenario. If you are going to shoot at something, you had better make sure you are OK with the repercussions of killing it, because guns are designed to kill, not wound (rubber bullets not included, but OTOH the guns in discussion were not designed around rubber bullets). On a military logistical scale the "wounding, not killing" aspect of the 5.56mm might make sense. When you are the guy pulling the trigger however... well, no one likes to have to shoot someone 5 times to get them to stay down. Which is something many of our troops have had to do, especially when engaging a target at range with an M4.

In short, we're trained to kill--not to wound. Two to the chest + one to the head, if possible.

 

[kaizersose]

there is an easy solution to the problem: grenade launchers

what? body armor?

 

[RS3RS]

Yet Another Girl Thread? Trying to decide which gun to use to kill her with?

My vote is for it doesn't matter... They'll both leave a pretty big hole in her, and if it doesn't kill her the first time, just pull the trigger again...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: RS3RS
Yet Another Girl Thread? Trying to decide which gun to use to kill her with?

My vote is for it doesn't matter... They'll both leave a pretty big hole in her, and if it doesn't kill her the first time, just pull the trigger again...

The gun you use to try to kill a girl with is the one indicated in FMJ:
"This is my rifle,
this is my gun,
..."

If the first time you shoot her doesnt work, keep trying