Monday, September 24, 2012
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Myth: Hollow Point Bullets are Overkill
I was in Atlantic City, NJ for business when there was a shooting in an adjacent hotel on the strip. In the news reports that followed, it was reported that the assailant "used illegal hollow-point ammunition" in the shooting. I thought that they must have assumed hollow points are illegal and reported incorrectly (like that never happens?!), so I looked it up. To my surprise I discovered that hollow point ammo is in fact illegal in New Jersey!
Hollow point ammunition is engineered to be more lethal than standard Ball ammo or Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds. They are designed to expand upon entering the body in order to disrupt more tissue as it travels through it. Because of this "extra" lethality, anti-gun people think that shooting someone with hollow point ammunition is "overkill" and that the ammo should be illegal. In the great state of New Jersey it IS illegal to possess hollow-point ammunition for this exact reasoning. The legislature decided that banning hollow point ammo would make the state more safe. However, this is another example of how many things about firearms are counter-intuitive for anti-gun thinkers who then over-react with legislation before they understand all of the facts.
Every gun owner who carries a firearm for self defense will tell you that it is irresponsible to carry any ammo other than hollow points! Why? Because hollow point bullets prevent "Over Penetration". Regular ball or FMJ ammo does NOT expand and deform as it passes through the body, therefore it is inefficient at transferring its kinetic energy into the body. The result is that the regular bullet maintains enough energy to pass completely through the body. Once the bullet leaves the body it is free to hit another person; either directly or by ricochet! This is called "Over Penetration". By contrast, the fact that the hollow point bullet expands means that it transfers its energy very efficiently into the body; not only to damage more tissue, but also to come to a STOP inside the body to prevent harm to others not intended for the bullet. Even in the event that a hollow point does pass through the bad guy, its velocity will usually be decreased so much that it will no longer be lethal to any innocent person it might hit. So, hollow point bullets may be more deadly to the intended target, but they are safer for bystanders. In fact, this is why most police departments REQUIRE their officers to carry hollow point ammo in their guns!
The goal in shooting a person in self defense is to stop the attack, not kill the attacker. But, since hollow point bullets prevent over-penetration, they should always be carried in a self defense firearm. Preventing over-penetration makes self-defense guns safer. Laws restricting hollow point ammo are irresponsible and put the community at unnecessary risk.
Hollow point ammunition is engineered to be more lethal than standard Ball ammo or Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds. They are designed to expand upon entering the body in order to disrupt more tissue as it travels through it. Because of this "extra" lethality, anti-gun people think that shooting someone with hollow point ammunition is "overkill" and that the ammo should be illegal. In the great state of New Jersey it IS illegal to possess hollow-point ammunition for this exact reasoning. The legislature decided that banning hollow point ammo would make the state more safe. However, this is another example of how many things about firearms are counter-intuitive for anti-gun thinkers who then over-react with legislation before they understand all of the facts.
Every gun owner who carries a firearm for self defense will tell you that it is irresponsible to carry any ammo other than hollow points! Why? Because hollow point bullets prevent "Over Penetration". Regular ball or FMJ ammo does NOT expand and deform as it passes through the body, therefore it is inefficient at transferring its kinetic energy into the body. The result is that the regular bullet maintains enough energy to pass completely through the body. Once the bullet leaves the body it is free to hit another person; either directly or by ricochet! This is called "Over Penetration". By contrast, the fact that the hollow point bullet expands means that it transfers its energy very efficiently into the body; not only to damage more tissue, but also to come to a STOP inside the body to prevent harm to others not intended for the bullet. Even in the event that a hollow point does pass through the bad guy, its velocity will usually be decreased so much that it will no longer be lethal to any innocent person it might hit. So, hollow point bullets may be more deadly to the intended target, but they are safer for bystanders. In fact, this is why most police departments REQUIRE their officers to carry hollow point ammo in their guns!
The goal in shooting a person in self defense is to stop the attack, not kill the attacker. But, since hollow point bullets prevent over-penetration, they should always be carried in a self defense firearm. Preventing over-penetration makes self-defense guns safer. Laws restricting hollow point ammo are irresponsible and put the community at unnecessary risk.
"Gun Stuff" can be counter-intuitive
I believe that part of the reason that anti-gun folks think pro-gun people are "crazy" is because what anti-gun people see as common sense we pro-gunners see as non-sense. Part of the problem might be that a lot of ideas that pertain to guns may be a little counter intuitive at the surface; especially to those people that have already made-up their minds that guns are evil. I will try to show how things can be counter-intuitive by addressing individual counter-intuitive subjects in separate blog posts. Here is a list of subjects that I will add to over time:
1. Only cops should have guns
2. Hollow-point bullets are overkill
3. A Gun Ban would make America safer
4. Whats the big deal about a "waiting period" for gun purchases?
5. More people with guns increases crime
1. Only cops should have guns
2. Hollow-point bullets are overkill
3. A Gun Ban would make America safer
4. Whats the big deal about a "waiting period" for gun purchases?
5. More people with guns increases crime
Is the Second Amendment obsolete?
Many anti gun people are saying that the Second Amendment IS obsolete and should be abolished. They see the Second Amendment as a relic guarantee for ancient Americans of the 1700's to maintain the ability to take up arms against their new fledgling government if it were to breakdown and become tyrannical. But now, in the age of tanks and fighter aircraft, taking up arms against the government is impossible. They would also argue that in this day and age there would never be a need to take up arms against the government anyway.
Would the founding fathers think that we have achieved a civilization threshold where the citizens no long "need" to retain the right to bear arms? Would they think that the Second Amendment has served its purpose and was now a right that does more harm than good? Would they believe that since we no longer live in fear of a tyrannical government we should abolish the right to bear arms?
I doubt it. Our forefathers had forethought. They did not think in JUST the present. Sure, we don't have to fear a dictatorship, but just because we elect our officials and therefore can wage revolutionary war via the ballot box does not mean that our government can’t be tyrannical. We have traded our 1 tyrant dictatorship under the rule of King George of England in 1776 for a 537 member elected republic that we live in today. But it is not impossible for that to turn into a government of 537 tyrants. Maybe its impossible to happen overnight, but not over time.
Just because we live in a America with lots of freedoms NOW does NOT mean that will be true in the future. It SEEMS impossible that America could be anything but free. But what if, over time, our liberties are eroded bit by bit, year by year, so minutely that we don't even notice it? What if our liberties are slowly eroded over GENERATIONS of time? What if we allow freedoms that we may not think are necessary now to be taken away by the government and those freedoms become VITAL in the future? We should not be so hasty to throw away freedoms we have no matter how we feel about them now because once we give up a freedom, it’s gone forever. A freedom perceived as unnecessary and given up today could be a VITAL freedom STOLEN from our generations' children of the future.
Besides all this, the anti-gun people are wrong to assume that the right to bear arms was solely to take up arms against the government. Sure, it was A reason, but not the ONLY reason. Self protection was also a concern for the drafters of the Constitution. The forefathers knew that the people of this nation cannot rely on the government to protect them from the criminal element. So, in this respect alone the Second Amendment is definitely NOT obsolete.
Would the founding fathers think that we have achieved a civilization threshold where the citizens no long "need" to retain the right to bear arms? Would they think that the Second Amendment has served its purpose and was now a right that does more harm than good? Would they believe that since we no longer live in fear of a tyrannical government we should abolish the right to bear arms?
I doubt it. Our forefathers had forethought. They did not think in JUST the present. Sure, we don't have to fear a dictatorship, but just because we elect our officials and therefore can wage revolutionary war via the ballot box does not mean that our government can’t be tyrannical. We have traded our 1 tyrant dictatorship under the rule of King George of England in 1776 for a 537 member elected republic that we live in today. But it is not impossible for that to turn into a government of 537 tyrants. Maybe its impossible to happen overnight, but not over time.
Just because we live in a America with lots of freedoms NOW does NOT mean that will be true in the future. It SEEMS impossible that America could be anything but free. But what if, over time, our liberties are eroded bit by bit, year by year, so minutely that we don't even notice it? What if our liberties are slowly eroded over GENERATIONS of time? What if we allow freedoms that we may not think are necessary now to be taken away by the government and those freedoms become VITAL in the future? We should not be so hasty to throw away freedoms we have no matter how we feel about them now because once we give up a freedom, it’s gone forever. A freedom perceived as unnecessary and given up today could be a VITAL freedom STOLEN from our generations' children of the future.
Besides all this, the anti-gun people are wrong to assume that the right to bear arms was solely to take up arms against the government. Sure, it was A reason, but not the ONLY reason. Self protection was also a concern for the drafters of the Constitution. The forefathers knew that the people of this nation cannot rely on the government to protect them from the criminal element. So, in this respect alone the Second Amendment is definitely NOT obsolete.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
How many guns do you need!?
How many guns do I need?
So far?....NONE.
When talking about guns to someone that has none, a lot of times I am asked "How many guns do you have?" Ever since the answer to that question has been a number greater than two, I have usually been asked the follow-up question:"How many guns do you need!?". The question annoys me because the tone of the question usually implies that the person asking does not think I need more than one gun....and they are right! I have not ever needed more than one gun. In fact, so far I have not needed even one gun....yet; and I hope I never will. The problem with the question is that it is the wrong question. The question reveals that the person asking thinks that I have a belief that I need every gun that I own. If they knew I don't believe that I need every gun I have (just as they do) then maybe they would ask the right question which may be: "How many guns do you want?" Problem is, I don't know the answer to that question!
PHOTO: got from the net HERE
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Should a safety class be required to get a gun license?
A post I made on northeastshooters.com (NES) on 21APLRIL2010
TO THOSE THAT THINK A SAFETY COURSE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE MANDATORY:
I GET IT. I completely understand the way you feel. I used to think it was reasonable too. I was not against a safety course requirement because I don’t want to be accidentally SHOT by some noob diddling with his firearm while walking by my house or at the range. It seemed so reasonable a requirement to me that I did not give it much thought and I even believed that every responsible gun owner felt the same way. Then, a few years ago I joined NES. Soon thereafter, I read NESers saying that it was NOT reasonable. This surprised me and caused me to re-evaluate my reasoning. I thought, these people are down to earth, reasonable, responsible people…..why would they advocate for NO SAFETY requirements to obtain a firearm even for first time buyers? It was at this point, the point where I actually took time to think about it, that I realized something even MORE fundamental than safety: FEAR. I realized I was afraid of ignorant gun owners. It was this fear that was motivating me to rely on the government to protect me by requiring a safety course before buying a gun. I thought WOW! This is EXACTLY what I accuse anti-gun people of doing when they say they want restrictions and bans on firearms! I realized that while I was telling the antis “You either believe in the Constitution OR you don't! You cant have it both ways!” at the same time I believed that safety course requirements were reasonable even though the constitution says “… the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. I WAS WRONG. I was a hypocrite. Once I connected all the dots and realized all this I changed my mind for good. I had already believed that there were trade-offs to living in a FREE society, I now realize that noobs with guns walking by my house or standing next to me at the range is one of the trade-offs. I believe in freedom, so I must accept the trade-offs of freedom.
I do believe that all gun owners should voluntarily seek professional instruction for firearm safety. I also believe that things can be done to nudge new gun owners in the right direction in a “course not required” world. Maybe a “Firearms Safety Education Campaign” sponsored by the NRA where literature is provided to firearms dealers that can be passed on to customers (when the dealer realizes that the customer is buying their first gun). Maybe the gun culture will adopt peer-pressure as a motivational tool to get noobs to train. There is probably a bunch of effective ways to get new gun owners to voluntarily seek training. But the WRONG way is to give-up freedom and ask the government to simply require training. We must get away from the government being in the habit of protecting us from ourselves.
/John
TO THOSE THAT THINK A SAFETY COURSE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE MANDATORY:
I GET IT. I completely understand the way you feel. I used to think it was reasonable too. I was not against a safety course requirement because I don’t want to be accidentally SHOT by some noob diddling with his firearm while walking by my house or at the range. It seemed so reasonable a requirement to me that I did not give it much thought and I even believed that every responsible gun owner felt the same way. Then, a few years ago I joined NES. Soon thereafter, I read NESers saying that it was NOT reasonable. This surprised me and caused me to re-evaluate my reasoning. I thought, these people are down to earth, reasonable, responsible people…..why would they advocate for NO SAFETY requirements to obtain a firearm even for first time buyers? It was at this point, the point where I actually took time to think about it, that I realized something even MORE fundamental than safety: FEAR. I realized I was afraid of ignorant gun owners. It was this fear that was motivating me to rely on the government to protect me by requiring a safety course before buying a gun. I thought WOW! This is EXACTLY what I accuse anti-gun people of doing when they say they want restrictions and bans on firearms! I realized that while I was telling the antis “You either believe in the Constitution OR you don't! You cant have it both ways!” at the same time I believed that safety course requirements were reasonable even though the constitution says “… the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. I WAS WRONG. I was a hypocrite. Once I connected all the dots and realized all this I changed my mind for good. I had already believed that there were trade-offs to living in a FREE society, I now realize that noobs with guns walking by my house or standing next to me at the range is one of the trade-offs. I believe in freedom, so I must accept the trade-offs of freedom.
I do believe that all gun owners should voluntarily seek professional instruction for firearm safety. I also believe that things can be done to nudge new gun owners in the right direction in a “course not required” world. Maybe a “Firearms Safety Education Campaign” sponsored by the NRA where literature is provided to firearms dealers that can be passed on to customers (when the dealer realizes that the customer is buying their first gun). Maybe the gun culture will adopt peer-pressure as a motivational tool to get noobs to train. There is probably a bunch of effective ways to get new gun owners to voluntarily seek training. But the WRONG way is to give-up freedom and ask the government to simply require training. We must get away from the government being in the habit of protecting us from ourselves.
/John
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Pro-Gun / Anti-Gun: We are all on the same side!
I recently participated in a public hearing at the Massachusetts State House in regards to some proposed new gun laws. There were pro-gun people and anti-gun people there to testify before the Joint Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. The anti-gun protesters that came were mostly people who lost family to gun violence. They want to basically ban guns. They believe that if guns were banned before the time their family member was murdered, that the incident would not have happened. So they are trying to prevent the same thing from happening to other families. Those same anti-gun people look at us pro-gun people as if we are the very evil that provided the means for their loved one(s) to be taken from them. But we pro-gun citizens HATE the same MURDERERS that the anti-gun citizens HATE; and in that way we are ALL on the same side. We ALL want to take the advantage AWAY from the MURDERERS. But pro-gun people see the means to that end on a different path than the anti-gun people do.
We pro-gunners believe that carrying a firearm may help us prevent becoming a murdered family member ourselves. We believe that carrying a firearm may help prevent one of OUR loved ones from being taken away from us. We don't want to have to cower under a table when a murderer starts shooting, we want to fight back! We don’t want to be victims like those anti-gun folks that came to the Massachusetts State House that day to tell their tragic stories. We believe that if we were there when the POS murderer started shooting, we might have been able to prevent the lost family member of these same anti-gun mourners from being taken from them in the first place.
Banning and restricting certain firearms will be just as ineffective as our laws that ban or restrict certain drugs in this county. The murderers can always get their guns from the same illegal means that druggies get their drugs....from illegal unlicensed dealers. We pro-gun citizens believe that gun bans and restrictions only disarm the lawful citizen willing to counter the EVIL gun toting murderers roaming the streets because these murderers obtain their guns through illegal means where bans and restrictions do not apply. Pro-gun people DO NOT want guns in the hands of thugs and murderers, but restrictions on what firearms can be bought legally by law abiding permit holders prevent us from out-gunning the murderers we want to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our fellow citizens from. We pro-gun citizens believe that bans and restrictions only make it harder for law abiding citizen to be equipped well enough to counter an evil shooter.
Legal gun owners in our populous make it more likely there will be someone to STOP a murderer BEFORE he kills. Trustworthy, lawful people who legally obtain a firearm can STOP a murderer in his tracks to protect themselves and others around them as soon as the murderer shows his gun. Conversely, police respond to a shooting AFTER it happens and arrest the evil doer only AFTER he has killed everyone he set out to kill.
So I say to all the mourning anti-gun citizens out there: We are on the same side! We are not your enemy. We are willing to carry a gun to protect us ALL even if you do not want to carry a gun yourself. Do not fight us, help us be better equipped so we can fight the murderers.
We pro-gunners believe that carrying a firearm may help us prevent becoming a murdered family member ourselves. We believe that carrying a firearm may help prevent one of OUR loved ones from being taken away from us. We don't want to have to cower under a table when a murderer starts shooting, we want to fight back! We don’t want to be victims like those anti-gun folks that came to the Massachusetts State House that day to tell their tragic stories. We believe that if we were there when the POS murderer started shooting, we might have been able to prevent the lost family member of these same anti-gun mourners from being taken from them in the first place.
Banning and restricting certain firearms will be just as ineffective as our laws that ban or restrict certain drugs in this county. The murderers can always get their guns from the same illegal means that druggies get their drugs....from illegal unlicensed dealers. We pro-gun citizens believe that gun bans and restrictions only disarm the lawful citizen willing to counter the EVIL gun toting murderers roaming the streets because these murderers obtain their guns through illegal means where bans and restrictions do not apply. Pro-gun people DO NOT want guns in the hands of thugs and murderers, but restrictions on what firearms can be bought legally by law abiding permit holders prevent us from out-gunning the murderers we want to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our fellow citizens from. We pro-gun citizens believe that bans and restrictions only make it harder for law abiding citizen to be equipped well enough to counter an evil shooter.
Legal gun owners in our populous make it more likely there will be someone to STOP a murderer BEFORE he kills. Trustworthy, lawful people who legally obtain a firearm can STOP a murderer in his tracks to protect themselves and others around them as soon as the murderer shows his gun. Conversely, police respond to a shooting AFTER it happens and arrest the evil doer only AFTER he has killed everyone he set out to kill.
So I say to all the mourning anti-gun citizens out there: We are on the same side! We are not your enemy. We are willing to carry a gun to protect us ALL even if you do not want to carry a gun yourself. Do not fight us, help us be better equipped so we can fight the murderers.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Northeastshooters.com
There are a huge number of firearms forums out there. My favorite is northeastshooters.com. Whether you live in the North East USA or not, you should visit and register a screen name. There is no fee to become a registered (non-paying) user and participate in the forum threads. There is a wealth of information and the membership participation is great. If you decide to become a PAID member like me ($20 per year) you are concidered a "Green" member and get access to the paid members area where you can participate in group buys (to get gear at pretty decent discounts) and official NES (northeastshooters) shoots. I have benefited from a few group buys where I saved well over the $20 membership fee, so membership can MORE THAN pay for itself! I have also been to several NES shoots including some pumkin shoots where you bring as many pumpkins to the range as you want to shoot. There has also been a few car shoots where someone donates a vehilce for sacrafice at the range. Pretty neat stuff, these shoots are great social events. The best part about NES are the friends that I have made. There are alot of really great people that I have met through the forum and at member events that have become great shooting friends. So check out northeastshooters.com today.
If you do sign up to register, put me down as a referrer (I DO NOT get any special benefit from it), my screen name there is SQUELCH.
/John
Monday, December 7, 2009
Get the most from iron sights on an AR15 M4gery style carbine.
I like the look of the M4 with the short hand-guard/quad-rail and the traditional A-style front sight. However, I opted to build my M4gery with a full length hand guard and eliminated the traditional A-style front sight.
Why would you want to put a full length quad rail on a carbine length AR rifle? Two words: Sight Radius. Sight radius is the distance between the front and rear sights. A longer sight radius aids accuracy because it magnifies (at your eye) error in your sight picture allowing for better error correction. A significant portion in accuracy loss of a carbine vs. a full length rifle is due to a loss of sight radius, not just the length of the barrel alone.
I decided to build my AR M4gery with a longer sight picture than a traditional M4. Since the traditional A-style front sight is part of the gas block assembly, the sight cannot be moved. So the traditional front sight had to be eliminated by installing a low profile gas block that does not have in integrated front sight. For an already built rifle, you could replace this assembly or cut the sight off of the gas block with a Dremel. Either way, this allows you to install a long quad rail that extends past the gas block. You can then mount a front sight at the end of the quad rail beyond the gas block. The sight radius of a traditional M4 is about 15 inches. Because of the long quad rail on my AR15M4, my rail mounted front sight is a full 19 inches from the rear sight. This means that I have achieved a 4in longer sight radius over a M4 with the traditional A-style front sight that would have been just forward of the gas block.
While I like the side profile look of the old A-style AR front sight, I really don’t like it when using it to actually aim the rifle. The open front sight does not really compliment the rear peep sight. What I mean is that the “dog ears” on either side of the front sight post open away from the post and do nothing to aid in sight alignment. However, the “ears” on the HK style front sight close around the front post forming a front aperture which can be aligned with the rear aperture (at the rear sight) which amounts to basically aligning circles. And the human brain is real good at aligning circles. So a HK style front sight compliments a rear peep sight very well and aids in fast sight alignment. I use an HK style front sight on my AR15M4 and I love it. I opted for folding BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights) in case I decide to add optics to my rifle. The BUIS (Front and rear) on my AR15M4 are made by Troy Industries as is the full length quad rail.
IN SUMMERY:
PROS:
1. Longer site radius means better aiming with iron sites = better accuracy.
2. Can choose a front site (like an HK style) that works better with the rear peep site than the standard AR front site.
3. Can choose to co-witness the front site with an optic or fold-down the front site when using an optic.
CONS:
So, what are the tradeoffs?
1. Even though the full length quad rail does not add allot of weight; what weight is added is on the far end of the rifle and when aimed the weight is effectively at the far end of a lever making the weapon feel front heavy. This is made even more apparent if you take advantage of the quad rail by adding accessories like lights and lasers.
2. If your primary means of aiming the weapon is going to be a optic of some kind, the benefit of a longer site radius is not so important because the iron sites will be seldom used.
Why would you want to put a full length quad rail on a carbine length AR rifle? Two words: Sight Radius. Sight radius is the distance between the front and rear sights. A longer sight radius aids accuracy because it magnifies (at your eye) error in your sight picture allowing for better error correction. A significant portion in accuracy loss of a carbine vs. a full length rifle is due to a loss of sight radius, not just the length of the barrel alone.
I decided to build my AR M4gery with a longer sight picture than a traditional M4. Since the traditional A-style front sight is part of the gas block assembly, the sight cannot be moved. So the traditional front sight had to be eliminated by installing a low profile gas block that does not have in integrated front sight. For an already built rifle, you could replace this assembly or cut the sight off of the gas block with a Dremel. Either way, this allows you to install a long quad rail that extends past the gas block. You can then mount a front sight at the end of the quad rail beyond the gas block. The sight radius of a traditional M4 is about 15 inches. Because of the long quad rail on my AR15M4, my rail mounted front sight is a full 19 inches from the rear sight. This means that I have achieved a 4in longer sight radius over a M4 with the traditional A-style front sight that would have been just forward of the gas block.
While I like the side profile look of the old A-style AR front sight, I really don’t like it when using it to actually aim the rifle. The open front sight does not really compliment the rear peep sight. What I mean is that the “dog ears” on either side of the front sight post open away from the post and do nothing to aid in sight alignment. However, the “ears” on the HK style front sight close around the front post forming a front aperture which can be aligned with the rear aperture (at the rear sight) which amounts to basically aligning circles. And the human brain is real good at aligning circles. So a HK style front sight compliments a rear peep sight very well and aids in fast sight alignment. I use an HK style front sight on my AR15M4 and I love it. I opted for folding BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights) in case I decide to add optics to my rifle. The BUIS (Front and rear) on my AR15M4 are made by Troy Industries as is the full length quad rail.
IN SUMMERY:
PROS:
1. Longer site radius means better aiming with iron sites = better accuracy.
2. Can choose a front site (like an HK style) that works better with the rear peep site than the standard AR front site.
3. Can choose to co-witness the front site with an optic or fold-down the front site when using an optic.
CONS:
So, what are the tradeoffs?
1. Even though the full length quad rail does not add allot of weight; what weight is added is on the far end of the rifle and when aimed the weight is effectively at the far end of a lever making the weapon feel front heavy. This is made even more apparent if you take advantage of the quad rail by adding accessories like lights and lasers.
2. If your primary means of aiming the weapon is going to be a optic of some kind, the benefit of a longer site radius is not so important because the iron sites will be seldom used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
