Re: [SG] more ww2

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 12:56, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 11:49 AM -0400 7/15/02, Flak Magnet wrote:
> >
> >I don't like the selection of the 9mmNATO round as a "manstopper".
> >Actually, any FMJ or ball round that goes at supersonic speeds seems
> >like a bad idea to me.  Anything going that fast that isn't designed
to
> >"mushroom" or otherwise tranfer energy to the wound instead of carry
it
> >out the other side of the target is a bad choice IMO.  I'm presuming
> >that's what was fired in the UZI's carried boy our SecretService,
right?
> 
> This is flat out wrong. Any round will mushroom given the right set 
> of circumstances. Those circumstances are the velocity, sectional 
> density, mass of the bullet, target size, target density, etc.

I disagree.  My statement is accurate.	I did not state that FMJ rounds
were somehow impervious to deformation.  I've seen them do exactly that
(admittedly, not in flesh, lucky for me).  9mmNATO rounds DO punch
through unarmored personnel more than one would like.  Armor, (flak
vests, etc.) slow them down considerably, and are much more likely to
completely stop soft-point or hollow-point rounds.  9mmNATO is good for
military use.  Less so for law-enforcement or home defense.

I'm not advocating that _all_ rounds should be subsonic or hollow
point.	I am saying that a 9mm FMJ round is a less-than-optimal round
for dropping someone (unarmored) FAST when trying to aim center-mass. 
Less so when using such a "spray and pray" weapon like an UZI.

> A large heavy slow bullet will deform and mushroom in a big animal. A 
> larger flat nosed bullet takes longer to deform than a smaller 
> lighter hollow point.  But it will deform. It is simply a matter of 
> the design of the bullet being applied to the correct target type.

Agreed... never thought I disputed that.
-- 

--Flak Magnet
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

"...why I'm so sympathetic to the monsters. The answer is simple.