Bullets - Shells - Ammo - Reloading

[Sassy]

Well, MtnDon, if they just outright banned guns there'd be immediate uprisings...  this way they just slowly turn up the fire so that when people finally realize what's happening, it will be too late.

Look at all the hidden stuff in the bailout...  they tried to make it seem like there would be oversite...  look at the outrage when congress was 1st entertaining the idea of a $700 billion bailout - now it is up to $7.7 trillion - that is TRILLION!!!  and people are hardly making a peep!  The money is going to other countries.  There's hidden in the bill that the IRS can use trickery (oh, not the IRS...   ) - they used to be able to do it, but it was supposedly a short term, now it was made permanent.  The bailout bill ended up being over 400 pages - do you think all our congress critters read the bill?  Or even understood all the legalese?  I doubt it... 

There were protests around the country last weekend against the Federal Reserve...  did anyone see that on the news?  Ron Paul spoke at a rally in Houston, Texas...  you can see his speech on YouTube  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qsJjTaekA8

So, when there are things in a bill like Sec 6 - you gotta wonder what they're up to... 

[glenn kangiser]

Confusing the issues makes it easier to slip it in on us before we make a major scene against it.  

They pay people to write things that way.  I'm against any tampering with our rights.  

We already have laws against unlawful killing and murder - we don't need any of our guns taken away to make murder illegal. 

[MountainDon]

HR 6257 is also an old bill, introduced June 12, 2008, and nothing has happened on it yet. It's in committee. It will expire MTL and have to be reintroduced in the next congress. There's lots of time for that unfortunately.

It bears watching, bears telling your rep what you think, but not panic at this point. IMO.

[glenn kangiser]

Note that a gun can be made by a criminal out of a piece of pipe.  This confiscation will not stop a criminal.  I could make a functional gun in about 5 minutes.  Do they then confiscate my brain?

[MountainDon]

I believe in Australia some of the criminal elements don't have to go to the trouble of making guns... they purchase smuggled, imported ones.

[apaknad]

that's why gun orgs. and owners are so dead set against giving ANY ground in the right to bear arms. all of these so called common sense proposals brought up by well intentioned, niave anti gun liberals are fought against w/tooth and nail because there is only one real agenda. TO CONFISCATE/BAN ALL GUN OWNERSHIP PERIOD!!!!!

[Whitlock]

making your own gunpowder has anyone tryed this


http://www.instructables.com/id/Gunpowder/


http://www.gunpowderworks.co.uk/pdf/TG5_Gunpowder_manufacture.pdf

[glenn kangiser]

Haven't tried it but maybe I need to.

[Sonoran]

I also had a question concerning ammo choice for all of you gun experts:

I don't know much about ammo.  I do know that .22 is very small on the scale (possibly smallest caliber?) but is it really that important concerning self-defense? Or I should say, I know that their is a huge difference in power between .22 and larger rounds, but if someone were shot with a .22 would it not take them out?  And even if it doesn't kill them in one shot, would they still be able to function and attack you? 

What about shooting someone at 30-40 yards with a .22? It sounds like it wouldn't get good penetration...but does it have to? 

I imagine a shooting scenario. A person with the .22 get's the first shot and hits their enemy. It is not in the head or the heart, but I figure that would take their mind off of you for long enough to get another one or two shots on them.

Okay, making this short.  I'm just addressing the idea that people discriminate against ammo based on the whole one shot one kill mentality.

[MountainDon]

Depends. (you'll see that used a lot around here especially when it comes to building questions.)

Depends on where you get hit with that 22 caliber round. The funny thing with wounds is that sometimes it just doesn't hurt all that much right when it happens, and sometimes only for an instant. So unless the 22 hits something major it may simply anger the person shot.

In self defense the distance would most likely be less than 20 feet, maybe less than 10 feet. Even at that close range an attacker will have adrenalin rushing through his bloodstream, maybe assorted drugs as well. A small caliber bullet may have little effect. I would prefer something with a larger bullet (my personal preference is a 45 Colt revolver or a shotgun). Of course if the only gun available was a 22 that may be better than nothing at all.

I've never been shot so I can't say how that feels, but I've been knifed and at the moment it happened it was only briefly painful. Saying it made me angry is an understatement. That initial pain quickly dissipated; it wasn't until a while after the event that the pain set in to any noticeable degree.

[apaknad]

.22 ammo is for dispatching small game. it does not work well for self defense. it is possible to kill someone w/22 ammo(mafia uses it for close head shots)but not likely. yes, you can break someones attention span by shooting them w/anything. most self defense ammos engineering is designed to penetrate and expend the energy in the body, not go straight through(exceptions for military weapons for the most part).
you will most likely not have to shoot someone at 30-40 yds. if you do it will be an unusual situation and you will use a higher powered rifle or even a shotgun(in that order). there are side arms that shoot that far accuratly but you have to be proficient for that to happen.
people discriminate against certain types of  ammo depending on what the news stories tell them(shock value, ak-47/assault weapon, what type of ammo does that use?, we should ban that.) a high powered deer rifle is much more powerful than the ammunition in an ak-47 or alot of so called assault weapons. here's a good assault weapon...a hammer upside your head. should we ban all hammers because some idiot killed someone with a hammer?
everything don said is true. most gun fights on the street happen w/in a few feet in a panic situation and is over quickly for one reason or another. for carrying i like a revolver, double action. point and shoot, don't have to think, scares the sh-- out of bad guys and you usually don't even have to hit them, just start pulling the trigger. that's enough. you guys should not let me post when i get up at 3:30 am.

[John_C]

During the Philippine - American war in the late 1800's American soldiers found the .38 long colt service round severely lacking in stopping power.  It took several, sometimes many hits to "discourage" a Moro aggressor.

After a long period of development looking for a better service sidearm the 45 auto and 1911 pistol were adopted.  It's service record since that time has been outstanding.  Today grunts get 9 mm, but to my knowledge SEALS & Delta force get 45 pistols.......  kinda makes you go hmmmmm.

Military and police around the world have tried just about any other caliber you can think of, but in terms of stopping an aggressor ASAP the 45 auto  and 357 mag  have the best combination of power and controllability.  More powerful rounds are difficult for most folks to shoot well and generally are chambered in larger heavier handguns than most want to carry.  Lesser rounds often don't incapacitate a assailant very quickly.

Keep in mind that the military and police have other factors as well.  To the military brass a wounded enemy is as good as a dead enemy.  It takes several other soldiers out of combat to deal with the wounded comrade.  The soldier on the ground has a different opinion.

Police have to consider possible bystanders and many other things not usually a factor in home defense.

A .22 is better than nothing, but the maxim Don't go into battle with a handgun whose caliber starts with a number less than 4  still has merit.

[apaknad]

good post john c. and i absolutely concur.

[peternap]

First, Gunpowder. I have made it. Homemade blackpowder wise, there are two types. The first is dry mixed and in the old days it was called Serpentine powder. The components tend to settle in layers and it causes ignition problems.

The second is wet mixed. I used alcohol and mixed all three components into a slurry. Let it dry into a cake and use a screen to break it into proper sized grains. That works well but not as well as storebought powder.

I wouldn't think of making smokeless powder.

22's for self defense....

I never feel poorly armed with a 22. It certainly isn't my first choice (45 Long Colt is first and 44 Mag or spl second and 45 auto third unless in auto then it is first choice)

A 22 will kill someone as dead as anything. It is quieter and you can store tens of thousands of rounds easily and cheaply.

Shot placement is EVERYTHING!
I have never been shot with a 22 but I have been shot with a 45 auto and a 9mm. Both were bad shots the auto hit me in the hand and angled up my arm. Completely destroyed a knuckle and a lot of connective tissue. I have limited use of that hand.

The 9mm hit me square in my bicep and broke my arm.

I was NOT stopped by either and really had to look before I was sure I was hit. It was painful later but at the time all it did was pi$$ me off.

Shot placement is the difference.

If you choose a 22, practice multiple shots. More in the center area is better and actually replicates a shotgun blast.

There are two famous phrases that I live by.

The best gun for self defense, is the one you have with you........

and

Shoot them with the biggest damn gun you have!

[John_C]

One of my favorite phrases

When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

[NM_Shooter]

http://bluestarchronicles.com/greenberet.html

[John_C]

 

[harry51]

An interesting aside about the Philippine occupation after the War of 1898 is that the U.S. contracted for a limited production run of Colt model 1878 double action revolvers chambered for .45 long colt. They were built with an enlarged trigger guard and a much longer trigger, so the small-handed Philippine constables could use two fingers to cycle the double action. These are known as the 1903 variant of the 1878 model Colt. This was the immediate response to the lack of knockdown power of the issue .38 revolvers that John mentioned.

[NM_Shooter]

Here's an interesting link.  Note the paragraph that indicates even .223 rounds do not provide good stopping power.

http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/45acp.htm

-f-

[Bishopknight]

I think a nice 12 guage buckshot round will stop someone. I wish adrenaline luck on that one

[harry51]

Mediocre stopping power has been the knock on the .223 since VietNam. The other side of the coin is that rifles chambered for it are much easier to shoot effectively than the previous generation of battle rifles chambered for .308 or 30'06.

There has been some work done recently on developing a 6.8mm round for the M16 platform that would develop significantly more energy than the 5.56mm, but still be relatively easy to shoot well. When or if such a round will be adopted remains to be seen, but it seems like a good compromise.

[MountainDon]

Here's an interesting link.  Note the paragraph that indicates even .223 rounds do not provide good stopping power

I guess that's why I've been a believer in the "bigger bullets make bigger holes" school of thought when selecting a firearm.

In a similar vein does anyone have any experience shooting 454 Casull's (or hi performance 45 Colt's in a rifle? I have a lead on a Puma Carbine chambered for the 454 (will shoot my favorite 45 Colt's as well). And along with that question how about any experience with the Puma brand? It looks nice.    Like this except it's a 16"



http://www.legacysports.com/products/puma/specs/specs_carbines.html

[harry51]

Don, I have no experience with .45 Colt or .454 Casull in a carbine, but I have shot a Winchester M1894 carbine in .44 mag. It was one of the more uncomfortable guns to shoot I have ever used. It seems to me that the felt recoil was comparable to a Marlin Guide Gun in 45/70 with fullhouse factory loads that I shot recently, which was also a major handful. I'd rather have a 30-30 for the flatter trajectory (especially with the new plastic tipped spitzer style bullets now available, I think called Leverloution from one of the major bullet mfgs) and comparable energy.

See a comparison at:


http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it=38-1175202879%7c95-1160615386%7c144-02001260

I used the highest muzzle energy loads for 30-30, .454 Casull, and 45/70 Gov't. It would be interesting to compare the downrange energy numbers to get a better handle on overall usability of the three calibers. I didn't get to choose a barrel length for the .454, so the numbers are likely skewed by the assumption of a shorter barrel than we are talking about. I'll run a comparison on RCBS Load this evening and report back.

The heavy bullets in the handgun calibers are what lead to the severe recoil in the light carbine, combined with less than perfect stock fit, at least for me, 6', 185lbs.

500 grain 45/70 bullets driven at near .458 Win. Mag. velocity kick hard no matter what, but I really didn't feel a lot of difference for practical purposes between the .44 and the 45/70 as far as discomfort, but there is a big difference in the energy developed and delivered.

Addendum: I checked the trajectory difference between a 300 grain Barnes bullet for the .454 launched at 2000fps, which is likely about what you could expect from a pretty hot load in a 16" barrel, against the standard 30-30 load with 170 grain bullet at 2200fps. If you zero at 100yds, the 30-30 will drop about 8" at 200yds, the .454 a bit over 10". However the .454 will retain about 200lbs/ft more energy at 200 yards, around 1000 vs 1200.

So it appears on that basis they're pretty comparable. These numbers reflect the old round nose bullet in the 30-30. I suspect the new pointed bullets would make a significant difference. Either way,  the deer or the hog is dead if the bullet is placed well!

[John_C]

Not too long ago I read an article about the logistics that favor the .223 as a military round.

According to the article it seems nearly half the soldiers in combat don't fire their weapon at all.  Of those who do fire many are not aiming, and only some of those who actually fire their rifle towards the enemy hit someone.  Ergo we need to provide them with a LOT of ammo.  The .223 being much lighter than the 7.62 NATO (.308) round that it replaced, it was easier on the supply lines and the individual soldier could carry more ammo.

Now IMO this was the argument of a bean counter. Not someone trying to dissuade an aggressor.

I'm also amused by the development of the new round.  In typical government fashion we are spending big bucks testing and developing what looks like will be nearly a clone of the old, and now obsolete, .250 Savage.  Actually I've thought about buying a rifle chambered for the 6.8mm Remington, one of the rounds under consideration.  It would make a fine east coast rifle.

[harry51]

They love to reinvent the wheel, don't they? The old 6.5mm Mauser is another well-proven cartridge in the same energy category. They may be trying to take advantage of the new powders to keep the overall length of the round about the same as the .223 so the rifle doesn't have to be altered, though. That's about the only reason I can think of to develop another cartridge.