223763 Bullies, 3672 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 40
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Cassius is offline
    Cassius's Avatar

    Moderator

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,978

    Posted On:
    1/09/2014 7:49pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Machette View Post
    Different thing. "Dum dums" are a slang term for unjacketed bullets, also known as "wad cutters". Their expansion is due to the soft nature of lead. Good mushroom, shite penetration.

    The "expanding bullet" taboo includes semi jacketed and hollow point bullets. These rules only apply to national militaries, thus police forces and individuals can use frangible and expanding ammo to their hearts content.

    The army on the other hand is restricted to Full Metal Jacket, AKA "Ball" ammunition in an "anti personnel" capacity.

    Now you know how that Geneva thing works (and why it doesn't apply to you, should you decide to purchase this latest whiz-bang wundershiesse for your home or office).
    It's actually the Hague Conventions, and there are a number of JAG findings arguing expanding bullets are not covered by Hague, only dum dums. At any rate, the whole thing only applies to uniform on uniform wars, not COIN or CT.

    Regardless, these rounds are of definite interest to me. They may or may not be a gimmick, but they certainly look fun.
    "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal
  2. wetware is online now

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,129

    Posted On:
    1/09/2014 8:22pm


     Style: BJJ/MT

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Certainly very interesting. I do, however, wonder about penetration in flesh. I like that they essentially function as a jacketed sabot as well, which may somewhat mitigate the bolo projectiles' comparatively small mass with speed, depending on how it works.
    It might be time to whip up some ballistic gel.
  3. Mr. Machette is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,673

    Posted On:
    1/09/2014 9:14pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: FMA, Ego Warrior

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by wetware View Post
    Certainly very interesting. I do, however, wonder about penetration in flesh. I like that they essentially function as a jacketed sabot as well, which may somewhat mitigate the bolo projectiles' comparatively small mass with speed, depending on how it works.
    It might be time to whip up some ballistic gel.
    I'm definitely curious to see these get the ol' Box of Truth evaluation.
  4. Devil is online now
    Devil's Avatar

    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,632

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 10:01am

    supporting member
     

    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by wetware View Post
    Certainly very interesting. I do, however, wonder about penetration in flesh. I like that they essentially function as a jacketed sabot as well, which may somewhat mitigate the bolo projectiles' comparatively small mass with speed, depending on how it works.
    It might be time to whip up some ballistic gel.
    I was thinking about this last night and I arrived at the same concern about penetration.

    I think there are some issues with the design. In fact, I think the design of these projectiles could potentially end up saving the lives of some of the people who got shot with them. It looks impressive when you shoot a piece of paper or a canned ham with it but shooting a human body could likely yield some very different results.

    So, the first concern - penetration of multiple smaller projectiles vs. one larger projectile. Force = Mass x Acceleration. You're reducing the mass of each projectile and gaining no speed so you're going to have much less force with each projectile and likely a significant reduction in penetration. And that's before you even consider the other factors I'm about to address. Now, we all know multiple shot are used in shotgun shells with great success, but you could really run into some issues when you're trying to make this happen in a much smaller pistol sized cartridge.

    The way I see it, the wires connecting the projectiles together probably add nothing to the design and may actually decrease penetration much further. The wires are going to spread the force of the impact over a wider area and reduce penetration on all three projectiles.

    What's going to happen when it hits bone? Think about it. If you shoot someone from the side with a .45 and it hits their upper arm, it's just going to slam right through the arm and into the torso. Same thing if they happen to be in a fighting stance and the bullet has to pass through the forearm or whatever.

    But I really don't think you're going to be so lucky when you take something pistol sized, divide it by three and connect it with wires. My guess is that if someone were in a fighting stance and you hit them in the forearm it would **** up their arm but the arm would stop the projectiles. I don't see something in a pistol sized package cutting someone's arm completely off and still hitting the body with enough force to do real damage. I have my doubts even in a shotgun sized configuration when you consider the possibility of an attacker in a heavy coat or something, but I'm REALLY doubtful about the pistol configuration.

    Anyway, my guess is that you're better off with traditional buckshot that don't have three wires spreading the impact and serving as a brake. And in a pistol configuration you're going to give up WAY too much penetration. You'd be better off with three unconnected projectiles than three connected projectiles.

    In a pistol, choosing this over a .45 would be a huge mistake in my opinion. How much separation are you going to get at normal self defense range anyway? Not much. The whole argument for this ammo is that you don't have to shoot as precisely but that's a false assumption, especially at close range. People overestimate shot spread with shotguns all the time. They think they'll pull the trigger and everything in their zip code drops dead. It's just not true.

    This is just me thinking out loud. I'm interested in what you guys think about it as well.
  5. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,602

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 11:03am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    I was thinking about this last night and I arrived at the same concern about penetration.
    ...
    This is just me thinking out loud. I'm interested in what you guys think about it as well.
    In the "guaranteed kill," line, it does stretch the imagination that an accidental COM with 1/3 of a .45 would be statistically deadlier than a well-placed first shot using a more traditional JHP or even ball ammo. Especially since that 1/3 will not be adhering to the "normal," physics of bullet travel.

    I'm interested to see how/if the tether results in significant side or rear entry wounds when only one or two of the fragments hit true. I don't think the tether itself will be able to penetrate more than a thick layer of clothing, causing a wound similar to seatbelt rash from a high-speed automobile collision. But, the wrap-around effect may prove to be useful.

    Either way, I don't ever want to be hit by one of these things.
  6. Scrapper is offline
    Scrapper's Avatar

    Fear and bullets.

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Dayville, Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    4,286

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 11:23am

    staff
     Style: MMA

    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Devil took away all my engineering/science fun.

    Two things make bullets lethal: Penetration and wound cavity. The bullet has to go deep enough and create a lot of trauma along the wound channel to be useful. By reducing the mass of any given projectile AND adding drag (tether) you have reduced both the mass and the speed (through both air and tissue) of the projectile. This reduces impulse (change in momentum) and kinetic energy transfer.

    The result? Wound cavity geometry, tissue damage, and penetration are going to be shite. Tether will add a lot of drag, and seriously alter the vector component of acceleration (drastically altering the soft tissue/hard tissue damage). I predict grisly, yet less-lethal, woulds.
    And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

    --Scrolls of Bujutsu: Chapter 5 vs 10-14.
  7. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 12:14pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    I was thinking about this last night and I arrived at the same concern about penetration.

    I think there are some issues with the design. In fact, I think the design of these projectiles could potentially end up saving the lives of some of the people who got shot with them. It looks impressive when you shoot a piece of paper or a canned ham with it but shooting a human body could likely yield some very different results.

    So, the first concern - penetration of multiple smaller projectiles vs. one larger projectile. Force = Mass x Acceleration. You're reducing the mass of each projectile and gaining no speed so you're going to have much less force with each projectile and likely a significant reduction in penetration. And that's before you even consider the other factors I'm about to address. Now, we all know multiple shot are used in shotgun shells with great success, but you could really run into some issues when you're trying to make this happen in a much smaller pistol sized cartridge.

    The way I see it, the wires connecting the projectiles together probably add nothing to the design and may actually decrease penetration much further. The wires are going to spread the force of the impact over a wider area and reduce penetration on all three projectiles.

    What's going to happen when it hits bone? Think about it. If you shoot someone from the side with a .45 and it hits their upper arm, it's just going to slam right through the arm and into the torso. Same thing if they happen to be in a fighting stance and the bullet has to pass through the forearm or whatever.

    But I really don't think you're going to be so lucky when you take something pistol sized, divide it by three and connect it with wires. My guess is that if someone were in a fighting stance and you hit them in the forearm it would **** up their arm but the arm would stop the projectiles. I don't see something in a pistol sized package cutting someone's arm completely off and still hitting the body with enough force to do real damage. I have my doubts even in a shotgun sized configuration when you consider the possibility of an attacker in a heavy coat or something, but I'm REALLY doubtful about the pistol configuration.

    Anyway, my guess is that you're better off with traditional buckshot that don't have three wires spreading the impact and serving as a brake. And in a pistol configuration you're going to give up WAY too much penetration. You'd be better off with three unconnected projectiles than three connected projectiles.

    In a pistol, choosing this over a .45 would be a huge mistake in my opinion. How much separation are you going to get at normal self defense range anyway? Not much. The whole argument for this ammo is that you don't have to shoot as precisely but that's a false assumption, especially at close range. People overestimate shot spread with shotguns all the time. They think they'll pull the trigger and everything in their zip code drops dead. It's just not true.

    This is just me thinking out loud. I'm interested in what you guys think about it as well.
    You said you'd come across this type of "bolo round" before in shotgun ammo. What was the intended use and were they effective?

    There's mixed reviews on the net. Here one guy who claims he "was able to slice through two 600-page phone books like a hot knife through butter."

    http://www.rem870.com/2013/01/09/exo...review-part-1/

    I know little about comparative ballistics, but I figure this type of round in pistol caliber could be useful either because it increases stopping power at short range (assuming it does), or conversely because it decreases penetration in home defense situations. Plus you don't have to aim it that carefully -- if one fragment hits they all hit, even if its with a wraparound effect.

    Might also be good for taking out zombies. And for hostage situations, depending on who the hostages are.
    A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools. ― Thucydides
  8. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 12:24pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapper View Post
    The result? Wound cavity geometry, tissue damage, and penetration are going to be shite. Tether will add a lot of drag, and seriously alter the vector component of acceleration (drastically altering the soft tissue/hard tissue damage). I predict grisly, yet less-lethal, woulds.
    Ok, but my question is does less lethal wounds necessarily mean less stopping power? I'm not arguing this, just asking the question. Glaser rounds had little penetration but decent stopping power, or am I wrong about that?
    A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools. ― Thucydides
  9. Hertzyscowicz is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tampere, Finland
    Posts
    199

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 2:41pm


     Style: MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I have to wonder just how deep that wire would cut, and would it give more stopping power (due to more muscle fibres getting severed) or less (due to the body going even deeper into shock from having three foot-long slashes in your flesh).
  10. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,226

    Posted On:
    1/10/2014 3:31pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Ok, but my question is does less lethal wounds necessarily mean less stopping power? I'm not arguing this, just asking the question. Glaser rounds had little penetration but decent stopping power, or am I wrong about that?
    All other things equal (they never are of course), more drag on impact increases impulse.
    A bullet stopping on a plate of armor has the greatest change in momentum.
    The other extreme being a "through and through".

    I'm curious what testing with various types of clothing will reveal, and what happens when say only one projectile hits.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.