Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@oralloy,

That little gun has a muzzle velocity of around 3,000 fps. Now imagine a titanium round going through his 1/4" steel plate. Yes it can be done.
Your understanding of powders is backwards, if you have a fast burning fuel you lose a lot of muzzle energy, where as with a slow burn powder it will build greater pressure and muzzle velocity.
As for Seal team 6 you can speculate all day long on what they used,
My money would be on an HK MP7 chambered in 6.8 Spc or maybe an M4 sqb chambered in subsonic. 300 Whisper
As I said before pure speculation

1 Reply

@Emmasis,

Emmasis wrote:

That little gun has a muzzle velocity of around 3,000 fps.

Out of that short a barrel? That's very unlikely.

Emmasis wrote:

Your understanding of powders is backwards, if you have a fast burning fuel you lose a lot of muzzle energy, where as with a slow burn powder it will build greater pressure and muzzle velocity.

Only if you have a long barrel.

If you use slow-burning powder in a short barrel, a lot of the energy is released after the bullet leaves the barrel. That's good if you want lots and lots of muzzle flash. But it's not so good if you want high velocity.

Emmasis wrote:

As for Seal team 6 you can speculate all day long on what they used,
My money would be on an HK MP7 chambered in 6.8 Spc or maybe an M4 sqb chambered in subsonic. 300 Whisper
As I said before pure speculation

No speculation is necessary. The guy who shot Osama bin Laden used a HK 416.

"What round was in the chamber" might involve speculation in theory. But the odds that it was anything other than 5.56MM Brown Tip are extremely low.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The HK416 looks like a beast.
Someday when I buy, I'm gonna opt for a Steyr Aug A3 with 1.5X optics. I shot it at a gun range once, and loved the accuracy. It has made me a real fan of bull pups.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

The HK416 looks like a beast.

It's really just an M-16 with a traditional gas-driven piston instead of having the action directly cycled by the gas itself.

Having the gas directly cycle the action without driving a piston is an innovative idea, but it can lead to residue jamming the action, so the old fashioned way is possibly more durable.

(Though you'll find ardent proponents of either way of doing it.)

2 Replies

@oralloy,

aspvenom wrote:

The HK416 looks like a beast.

oralloy wrote:

It's really just an M-16 with a traditional gas-driven piston
instead of having the action directly cycled by the gas itself.

Having the gas directly cycle the action without driving a piston
is an innovative idea, but it can lead to residue jamming the action,
so the old fashioned way is possibly more durable.

(Though you'll find ardent proponents of either way of doing it.)

The M-14 is more effective.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

aspvenom wrote:
The HK416 looks like a beast.

It's really just an M-16 with a traditional gas-driven piston instead of having the action directly cycled by the gas itself.

Having the gas directly cycle the action without driving a piston is an innovative idea, but it can lead to residue jamming the action, so the old fashioned way is possibly more durable.

(Though you'll find ardent proponents of either way of doing it.)

Exactly what is it that you heros are shooting AT with your M-16s and M-14s?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

oralloy wrote:
aspvenom wrote:
The HK416 looks like a beast.

It's really just an M-16 with a traditional gas-driven piston instead of having the action directly cycled by the gas itself.

Having the gas directly cycle the action without driving a piston is an innovative idea, but it can lead to residue jamming the action, so the old fashioned way is possibly more durable.

(Though you'll find ardent proponents of either way of doing it.)

Exactly what is it that you heros are shooting AT with your M-16s and M-14s?

I do not have either type of gun. If I did have one of them, I'd probably shoot at tin cans with it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

snood wrote:

oralloy wrote:
aspvenom wrote:
The HK416 looks like a beast.

It's really just an M-16 with a traditional gas-driven piston instead of having the action directly cycled by the gas itself.

Having the gas directly cycle the action without driving a piston is an innovative idea, but it can lead to residue jamming the action, so the old fashioned way is possibly more durable.

(Though you'll find ardent proponents of either way of doing it.)

Exactly what is it that you heros are shooting AT with your M-16s and M-14s?

oralloy wrote:

I do not have either type of gun. If I did have one of them, I'd probably shoot at tin cans with it.

Me too. I don't care for the M-16, or its variants.
I like the mini-14, but I have neither of those guns.

My gun collection consists mostly of handguns,
revolvers and a few pistols.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

My gun collection consists mostly of handguns,
revolvers and a few pistols.

Same with a few shotguns thrown in.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

If you lot want guns for self defence why do you want more than one?

It can only be the pleasure in fondling them to justify having a bunch of them.

And one is sufficient to hold up the 2nd amendment. One is enough for both of the main planks of your arguments. A collection is a fetish unless they are all carried around at the ready for any particular form of attack upon your person for which only one is efficient.

2 Replies

@spendius,

A lot of guns and only for self defense?

First a few hand guns and a a few shotguns is not most people idea, at least in the US, of a lot of guns.

Been in any numbers of homes where there was my idea of a lot of guns as in large gun cabinets jam with high power rifles along with other firearms.

I guess living in a nation that does not trust or allow it citizens to own firearms and even control air rifles more then one gun is an odd idea indeed.

First however I am a target shooter and enjoy firing more then one type of handgun at the range.

Second my 22 woodman pistol for example is a lot cheaper to fire a thousand rounds downrange then even firing reload 357 or 45 rounds and is almost as enjoyable.

Let see one 357 S&W, one model A 1911 45, one 38 little two shots, one 22 target pistol and a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun.

My wife one 38 revolter , one 32 semi auto and one very nice pump short barrel riot shotgun who make is not coming into my mind at the moment.

If anything we are far shorter in firepower then most guns owning American households as we do not even own one rifle.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Me too. I don't care for the M-16, or its variants.
I like the mini-14, but I have neither of those guns.

The .308 would be a good launcher of armor-piercing ammo, if we could get the AP ammo law struck down.

But I think I'd prefer the old cold-war-era German guns, before HK switched over to being just another gas operated gun (the ones where they had a unique delayed blowback mechanism), if I ever got a .308.

(Of course, the ultimate counter to body armor is a shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket. No amount of body armor will ever be able to counter that.)

The .223 guns aren't all that bad if you use them the right way. They punch through any amount of Kevlar, have low recoil, and the bullets explode nicely once they're inside flesh.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

If you lot want guns for self defence why do you want more than one?

Sometimes a gun malfunctions and you want backup. Also, different situations call for different weapons. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles all have different strengths and weaknesses.

And sometime people get guns for different reasons than self-defense. Like hunting, or target shooting. Or they just like a particular gun, perhaps because it's an antique.

spendius wrote:

It can only be the pleasure in fondling them to justify having a bunch of them.

And one is sufficient to hold up the 2nd amendment. One is enough for both of the main planks of your arguments. A collection is a fetish unless they are all carried around at the ready for any particular form of attack upon your person for which only one is efficient.

The bigotry is tiresome.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The bigotry is tiresome

Give him a break as he live in a nation where you need government permission to own an air rifle so I can just see his eyes getting very big at finding a gun cabinet in the corner of an American living room jam with high power firearms.

England may be the mother country of the US and at one time known worldwide for their fine gun makers but they had gone far down a path very foreign to ours.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Sometimes a gun malfunctions and you want backup.

So now you need carry two guns for self-defence. Just to be on the safe side. But you don't need more than one to hold up the 2nd.

Quote:

Also, different situations call for different weapons. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Do you think we don't all know that? I said so in my post.

Quote:

The bigotry is tiresome.

There was no bigotry in my post. Declaring there to be is not even an argument. Why are you so coy about getting pleasure from handling and talking about guns? Gloating over bullets that explode in the flesh is pretty wholesome family entertainment. What's there to be ashamed of?

2 Replies

@spendius,

In Oralboy's upside down world, a bigot is anyone who doesn't want to exterminate the Palestinians or drop a nuke on Rome.

Why do you bother talking to him? He's the densest, most bigotted person on A2K, by a long chalk.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
Also, different situations call for different weapons. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Do you think we don't all know that? I said so in my post.

No, you said the opposite, that one gun was enough.

And in addition to people using handguns and shotguns and rifles for self defense against other people, people might also get multiple rifles, each in a different caliber suited for defense against people.

Note that my own self defense goals involve concern about black bears. And a gun for defending against bears would involve entirely different calibers than guns for defending against people.

Someone who really wanted to could easily dedicate a dozen different guns to the task of self defense, each on standby in case the situation calls for that specific kind of weapon.

And that doesn't include guns for hunting and target shooting. Different kinds of game, and different kinds of target shooting, all require different kinds of guns.

spendius wrote:

There was no bigotry in my post.

Yes there was. And your posts would be much improved without the bigotry.

spendius wrote:

Why are you so coy about getting pleasure from handling and talking about guns?

Your bigotry is disgusting. As I said, your posts would be much improved without it.

spendius wrote:

Gloating over bullets that explode in the flesh is pretty wholesome family entertainment. What's there to be ashamed of?

Gloating???

Denunciation of offensive bigotry is not a sign of shame.

Bigoted stereotypes are invariably false. And as they are not true to begin with, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

When people denounce bigotry, what they are denouncing are the offensive falsehoods.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

scroll, scroll, scroll.....

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:

Why are you so coy about getting pleasure from handling and talking about guns?

I really think you've hit on something very substantive there, spendius.
The group of people who collect and study and obsess over weaponry are loathe to talk about what their feelings about their guns really are.

They are (sorry, but its just true)mostly white men with inordinate fear of people who take comfort in the potential destructiveness of their firepower and the amounts of it they can gather to themselves. Their guns make them feel powerful and in control in ways that they can't really get anywhere else. That's why they kneejerk to hysterical and outlandish defensive words and behaviors at the very thought of any regulation of ownership - they feel mortally threatened.

Does anyone need any more proof of the irrationality of the gun nuts than oralloy's accusations of "bigotry"?

And so the rest of us just have to grin and bear their rabid defense of anyone and anything that has to do with firearms, and their childlike intransigence in any discussion that follows another atrocity involving guns.

3 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

And so the rest of us just have to grin and bear their rabid defense of anyone and anything that has to do with firearms, and their childlike intransigence in any discussion that follows another atrocity involving guns.

This thread has denigrated into people discussing their collections, and to hell with the victims of violence.

Oralboy's assertion that automatic weapons could be used to control riots shows that his sympathies lie with the shooter, not the victims/"rioters" sitting calmly in the cinema.

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know