What's the point of slug ammunition? What does it do to the human body (with and without body armor)?
What's the point of slug ammunition? What does it do to the human body (with and without body armor)?
What's the point of slug ammunition? What does it do to the human body (with and without body armor)?
slugs will frick ya mudda
shooting
Shooting one (1) big piece of lead instead of a lot of small pieces
It's for fudds who are still subscribed to 19th century ballistics theories
Found one
>What's the point of slug ammunition
Hunting larger and more dangerous game with the same gun that you use on fowl and hares.
>What does it do to the human body
Depends on the slug. Slugs are pretty much a world in itself. So many types are known and used, or forgotten and outdated.
A proper lead slug would deform in the man's body and deal heavy wounds, or it would break the ribs or at least leave a bruise if the guy wears a fitting body armour.
There are proper slugs made of steel, meant for various tasks like taking down car engine blocks (Blondeau slug).
You've never shot a slug any better than a Foster, haven't you?
>Books have a high standard for publication
HAH, no.
>HAH, no.
There's certainly morons that publish books, but they need to pony up their money to pay for the publication, and that greatly limits the moronation.
>You've never shot a slug any better than a Foster, haven't you?
Tell me which slugs you've shot which outperformed rifles.
>but they need to pony up their money to pay for the publication, and that greatly limits the moronation.
True
>Tell me which slugs you've shot which outperformed rifles
I never said that. All I wanted to say is that contemporary slugs are superior to their preWWII analogs and are quite viable. And that I doubt that there's any point in using Foster slugs if you got better alternatives or don't insist on using home-cast slugs. And even so you can find more interesting slug molds than Lee or Foster.
>All I wanted to say is that contemporary slugs are superior to their preWWII analogs
I'd totally agree thats true. Slugs have improved a lot since back in the day. But I still don't think they have anything significant to offer vs. rifle cartridges unless you're talking about silly extremes. There are modern slugs which put up better numbers than old-school Foster slugs, but they're still not offering much of advantage vs a rifle, unless you're talking about legal compliance.
If we consider TKOF formula a viable calculation, I'd say shotgun slugs pack a great punch on short distances, maybe even better than some rifle calibers. Especially when it comes to hunting dangerous game like brown bears. A good Brenneke style slug would be a perfect bear medicine at 50 feet.
TKOF is great, but you do realize it's specifically about elephant hunting, right? the moment we're talking about any game other than elephants that's meaningless.
> A good Brenneke style slug would be a perfect bear medicine at 50 feet.
Adequate? Absolutely. Perfect? I think not, unless price is a major concern.
>There's certainly morons that publish books, but they need to pony up their money to pay for the publication, and that greatly limits the moronation.
All this apologia just so we can all be lazy and "trust duh exparts" who turn out to be lying charlatans or fundamentally misunderstanding some crucial part of their data half the time at least.
I remember when a room full of experts, that is doctors, martial artists, and other geeks told Lucia Rijker that she punched harder than a heavyweight male boxer based on their measurements. They said that, on national television. Meanwhile that poor woman was nearly killed by a no name middleweight who just walked straight through her hardest punches.
>Tell me which slugs you've shot which outperformed rifles.
In terminal ballistics, against an unarmored opponent, a 1oz slug will outperform any 5.56 FMJ. The slug deforms and dumps most of its energy into the target, the FMJ goes through the target.
Where is the data supporting this mental masturbation? Statistically rifles and shotguns perform nearly identical in real-world shootings. And it's been over a hundred years since hunters moved on from "bore gauge" rifles to modern cartridges.
>Statistically rifles and shotguns perform nearly identical in real-world shootings.
Perform how? Under which criteria?
was explicitly talking about terminal ballistics.
I would like to see data from BOTH of you.
>I would like to see data from BOTH of you.
My data comes from Crackpipe et al.
Listen, even I can agree both those buttholes are shitheads but this was like
5s away on Gargle
?t=105
>tl:dw slug uber alles
Warning: these homosexuals are extremely gay, even for PrepHole
umm actually the temporary cavity only counts when I want it to, sweaty. nice try.
>Statistically rifles and shotguns perform nearly identical in real-world shootings
It really depends on what you mean by "perform". Yeah, a rifle is generally a better choice for various reasons (range, accuracy, follow-up shots). However, at 20 yards a slug center mass will put down even the strongest PCP enjoyer. Can you say the same for 5.56?
>19th century ballistics theories
Wait, so bullets are flying differently today than 200 years ago?
yes, bullets got nerfed and now having a huge hole blown in you doesn't matter. people need to read the patch notes.
>How many do you see today?
golly, I wonder if anything happened to make polio less common.
Yes, they're not as deadly thanks to full metal jacket being a thing.
Yep, they weren't shooting minie balls faster than mach 2 and still having them hit their targets at mach 2 back then. That speed is why 5.56 will turn someone's lights off instantly where with a slug there's gonna be a while unless you hit CNS
Cope
Any evidence to back that up? For fun, let's say the PCP enjoyer was wearing hard plates. He probably wouldn't realize he's been hit with a slug where 5.56 will zip right through. Even without plates in the equation 5.56 still mogs slugs
>For fun, let's say the PCP enjoyer was wearing hard plates.
I did say "against an unarmored opponent". Also, do you really think that somebody who does PCP would carry plates?
>Even without plates in the equation 5.56 still mogs slugs
That's where you're wrong kiddo
>5.56 will zip through plates
Uh
>That speed is why 5.56 will turn someone's lights off instantly
Tell that to the durkas that kept on shooting in Afghanistan
>with a slug there's gonna be a while unless you hit CNS
Are you saying the dude is just going to shrug off the gaping hole he'd have in his torso?
>Tell that to the durkas that kept on shooting in Afghanistan
Ah the same standard of evidence that taught us .30 carbine can't penetrate winter jackets.
>That speed is why 5.56 will turn someone's lights off instantly
Tell that to the durkas that kept on shooting in Afghanistan
that was M855 though, which is dogshit. if it were M193 or especially Mk262, Mk318, or M855A1 it would have turned the lights off
>Tell that to the durkas that kept on shooting in Afghanistan
>I saw winter jackets stop .30 carbine !
I can tell you what it does to a pig's head from ~30ft.
Which is not much, actually. It's a great way to kill them for slaughter.
Back in the day you would walk 5 miles to school uphill both ways and then work at the Dairy Queen another 8 hours for 2 cents a shift and when you saved up $20 you head on down to the sears and buy a shotgun and that was your gun forever.
Don't forget your Sears house for $800 and you actually made $4 per shift.
also you don't have air conditioning and might be a polio cripple.
>also you don't have air conditioning
The world was cooler back then
>and might be a polio cripple
How many do you see today?
And you'd keep more, because there was no IRS (Federal income tax) and no NFA.
Truly a glorious time; they just didn't know it.
i am jealous that my great grandfather could walk into a hardware store and buy a full-auto gun and a crate of dynamite and nobody would bat an eye. But he would be jealous of the AC and medical science.
My grandmother is 98, and she still gets incredibly nervous when anyone has a fever because such infections killed several apparently healthy family members when she was in her teens and early twenties, general antibiotics (ie penicillin) not reaching her rural town until the early 50s
was sears uphill too?
>What's the point of slug ammunition?
When you really need a rifle but all you have is a shotgun.
>What does it do to the human body
The same thing as a black powder musket firing a Mine ball. Same velocity, same mass. It's certainly lethal, but not to the degree of a modern rifle firing much faster bullets.
moron
It rapes III plates.
No it doesnt lol. Slugs still have trouble with soft armor.
doubt. Slugs are terrible for armor penetration. Slow + large diameter = disadvantageous.
maybe with subcaliber sabot slugs and a bunch of other bullshit but your 1 oz S&B slugs you got at the range for 1.50 a pop aren't
Vid?
noguns
it leave a hole
To put 0.70, 0.61, and 0.41 inch holes in things
Slugs are for when you're hunting somewhere that doesn't allow you to hunt with a rifle. For any tactical situation, as soon as you're out of the effective range of buckshot, you'd want a rifle. Oh wait, even in the effective range of buckshot you still want a rifle. Nevermind, shotguns are gay.
>.t too poor for a nice Italian shotgun.
Speaking of nice, how hard it is to frick up a shotgun? Especially SxS
Two words: Barrel regulation.
I'm talking about M4/A300/1301
I understand, I just want to add something to the discussion
>he doesn't grasp the tactical and strategic advantage of the tschk-tschk
>gee a question about terminal ballistics
>I wonder if it'll be full of morons.
yup.
learn, you numbskulls.
>>I wonder if it'll be full of morons.
Posts a memevideo instead of a book
yup.
>is a stupid moron
yup.
>it's just uses an MD that did extensive live animal ballistics research
cope, recoilets..
>things are only true if they're on "old" formats
>it cant be wrong if its in a book
Video vs. book wasn't the problem.
"meme" is the problem. Books have a high standard for publication: if noting else, a bullshit artist has to put up money to have his bullshit published. there is no such standard to internet bullshit, any moron can write whatever they want.
The bigger deal is that videos are for holding the attention of ADHD morons (e.g. conscripts and children) and are usually made as entertainment, while books are meant for conveying information to an motivated audience. Books also convey information about ten times faster than educational videos, and forty times faster than a youtube video. Both of these factors means that anybody recommending a video is likely to be a moron (both because they are the intended audience and because they expect posters to watch a 80 minute long video of questionable veracity containing 8 minutes of actual information at best), and the video itself is likely to be a low quality source of information.
>t. too ADD zoombrained to pay attention for 80 minutes
I suspect I'm older than you. The difference is that I don't need 80 minutes to make my point.
Hey man don't pretend to be me, that post just simply wasn't worth responding to.
>gets into arguments online
>doesn't have time to learn anything
you could be old as dirt but you have the soul and mind of a zoomoid.
man, that's crazy how he didn't post any verifiable scientific information or testing pertinent to any of the terminal ballistics factors he believes in.
>Books also convey information about ten times faster than educational videos, and forty times faster than a youtube video.
You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Cite the study that supports your claims and I'll show you a study that ignores the different ways people learn. Some learn best from books, some from a classroom environment, some are visual or audio learners (or both so youtube videos are great for them). It also ignores the VAST differences in quality of videos (both old school VHS "educational" videos and Internet/youtube videos). Videos can be a fantastic medium through which to convey information, especially when that information is something like how moving parts work together, or to make historic information more engaging by presenting it as a "day in the life of" sort of thing.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE books. But dismissing a video because it's a video or a youtube video is so egregiously biased that it makes you look like the laughably ignorant fool that you are.
I think he refers mostly to those bullshit tutorial videos that need ten minutes (including intro, begging and like and subscribte) to explain something you could exhaustively explain in two sentences.
However, depending on the quality of illustrations, books *can* indeed convey information on moving parts in a plastic manner, and the historical argument is bullshit because books can do that too.
I agree on different people - different learning styles, which is the prime valid argument of your post.
>people learn differently
Vanishes when you account for IQ
Cite the study/research/etc that backs you up.
Otherwise, just like
you're just talking out your ass.
K, here’s the list from the main article that was used in my BoE presentation several years ago, you can look into your self
While I’m talking about it, we also know for a fact that whole word literacy is a crock of horseshit and phonics significantly outperforms it, but that caught on really hard too because most boards of education don’t have anyone literate on them and they just bought whatever marketing they thought would make their districts blacks perform like their whites
Do you guys even know where you are right now?
Your pic doesn't appear to invalidate the idea that different people can learn differently or learn better in different ways; only that when attempting to match teaching style to learning style that there is apparently no benefit.
There are MANY reasons this might be the case: teachers could suck at teaching in a style they are not used to teaching in; poor/incorrect identification of best learning method (self identified prefferred method has SO MANY failure points in this regard), disruptive environments (doesn't matter how you're teaching if the environment is shit to start with and nobody is learning anything anyway), and I'm sure there's more but this is just what I'm picking off the top of my head here. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm actually interested in this, especially after there was a big report that "students learn better in a classroom with pen and paper" and "Where does this leave learn at home on the computer?" kind of thing. Which seems obvious that people would learn better w/pen and paper because using pen and paper is going to engage more areas of the brain (motor function, language, etc) than just reading/clicking/typing; and therefore create more pathway associations and stronger memories.
I may also be biased, as personal experience seems to indicate (to me) that different people do in fact learn differently. This would of course be anectodal and doesn't really qualify as real evidence without broader investigation to back it up. But my personal experience sways my personal opinion.
Yeah i don’t want to sit here and summarize the literature in depth but suffice to say it really just does not matter as far as the traditional audio visual etc breakdown goes, and what matters for increasing learning success is things like scaffolding, proper spacing, etc. that increases attention span and utilizes working memory far more efficiently.
Just look up the source I screen shotted vy googling a phrase in it, it’s got a really good bibliography which is why I initially based my presentations on it, as I said
Are you moronic? You can read ten times faster than someone speaks. Actually, wait, don't answer that first question, we already know the answer.
All this fricking cope lmao.
Followed by more cope about why multiple attempts to put it this theory into practice didn't show results lmao.
I know it's a popular myth because it means you think you're not moronic, but give it up, everybody knows it's cope for low IQ toddlers, and randomly bringing it up and then screeching about it on the internet about it isn't going to convince anybody. At the end of the day saying someone is a "visual learner" is a polite way of saying they learn slower and require more resources to teach, at best.
>if it's in a video it's wrong
this is your brain on the peak of Mount stupid.
Nowhere in my post did I say that, but since you're clearly a "visual learner" I forgive you. I know basic reading comprehension can be so hard for you folks.
There is only one standard for publication and that is exactly how many copies of this book can the publisher sell. The publishing staff rarely know enough about the book topic to critique its merit and instead relies on paid reviewers for that. Of course, the reviewers will almost always come back with positive feedback whether because they want to continue getting review gigs, or they know the author(s) personally. And I'm not sure where some of you got the impression authors always pay to have their books published. The only time that happens is precisely when you don't have a publisher who wants to sell your book.
This has to be bait.
>Books have a high standard for publication
this can't be real
My girl is a librarian, she says:
>those books are the bane of my existence
>no one fricking reads them
>and there's so MANY
oh jesus they're common?
>super
>there was a whole slew of them a couple years ago and I just cannot get rid of them
>like, they did similar style fiction books in the late 2000s/early 2010s based off of email and texts but these are what, 2014-2020 maybe?
>terrible
>like I get it, Shakespeare isn't the easiest thing to read, but for the love of frick just use cliffnotes.
>Shakespeare isn't the easiest thing to read
>I care not, a man can die but once; we owe God a death
I dunno, seems pretty frickin crystal clear to me
Who the frick reads Shakespeare?
It has to be watched to be appreciated.
I remember reading 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' and comparing it to the original. It's surprisingly faithful, though I really wish they didn't try shoe-horning in tired old kung-fu bullshit when contemporary European martial arts were more than sufficient.
I don't care to watch all of this, care to explain how this applies to this thread?
sure, an MD military doctor (Dr. Martin Fackler) and dude that had to treat tons of gunshot wounds decided to expand his knowledge of terminal ballistics by conducting extensive ballistics testing on anesthetized pigs. what he found was that most organs (not all) and muscle tissues are not significantly affected by temporary stretch cavities. he did extensive research into medical literature and found numerous examples of other people coming to the same conclusion. presenters final argument is that (shot placement, firstly) penetration and projectile frontal area are the only meaningfully reliable contributors to rapid incapacitation. The presenter was thoughtful enough that, though hollow points were still of dubious reliability at his time, he added that future hollow points may be the best option if they become reliable (which I think most people agree that now you can get reliable hollow points).
still TLDR: big bullets kill gooder
my argument: shotgun slugs are big bullets (and become yet larger when they hit someone) and therefore kill good.
Fackler's work didn't adequately consider fragmentation and multiple hits. We've come a long way since Fackler and now have a much better understanding of causal factors for remote wounding. More relevant to this conversation, there are also possible factors that we don't understand that are properly controversial, like hydrostatic shock causing prompt CNS failure via aneurism, or hydroelastic shock causing temporary CNS failure by temporarily decoupling neurons, axions and myelin due to their different densities. There's some evidence for these things, but they're mostly anecdotal and not well studied. If you wanted a reasonable hypothesis for slugs reliably causing incapacitation too quickly for exsanguination and when not apparently touching the CNS, that's where I'd start looking, due to their huge energy and insane meplat surface area.
ok, post books that show scientific evidence of any of that.
Try Kneubuehl's Wundballistik
Springer is truly a gemerald in the otherwise coal saturated basedence textbook market.
Literally haven't loaded this thread since I posted, and you are both deliberately ignorant turboBlack folk. I was polite about Fackler before, because he made actual contributions, but I'll be blunt now: He was extremely wrong about way more things that he was right about and his popularity with layman is undeserved and not replicated amonst either clinicians or other serious ballistics researchers.
The place to start is https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0581-1 because of its many good references. Radiology case studies are also very instructive, because they cut opinion out of the observations eg: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2402050972 https://doi.org/10.1097/paf.0b013e31822a62d1
Fackler chose hi hill to die on and died on it. As late as 1996 he was engaging in bizarre cope to try to hold up his "no remote wounding" hypothesis, for example still trying to discredit the Suneson conclusion that pressure waves from thigh shots caused neural damage in pigs by saying that obviously it was the TSC or the pig being moved by the shot that caused the damage to the brain - while totally ignoring that remote damage to the brain had occurred either way, and then being disproven in this bullshit fuddery when multiple unrelated researchers directly measured shockwaves in the cranium of pigs and dogs from gunshots to the torso and established a causal link between those waves and the observed microscopic damage and established a causal link between the observed microscopic damage and pathologies.
For some unknown reason, everyone in the firearms community sucks Fackler's dick despite the fact that all his core thesis (no remote wounding, no remote necrosis, wounding patterns not directly related to velocity) have been empirically proven wrong by dozens of studies and are shat on by actual trauma surgeons and forensic pathologists who, these days, are hands on with more gunshot wounds in humans in an average week than Fackler observed in his whole life.
Look. No one wants to do any actual work in any field. We just want someone to weasel their way past the "credential gate" and get all the rubber stamps and seals in their possession so that they can "canonize" our opinions beyond challenge or contestation, and we can just smugly point to the officiality of our claims when asked to prove them.
The first link is broken for some reason. The title and authors are:
Wound ballistics 101: the mechanisms of soft tissue wounding by bullets P. K. Stefanopoulos · D. E. Pinialidis · G. F. Hadjigeorgiou · K. N. Filippakis
I can't remember how much of this was stated in that video but in this article by Fackler I read the other day he says that fragmentation and the temporary wound cavity are both very important to the terminal effect. Temporary wound cavity can be devastating, specifically to the liver (I think he also said the brain in other articles) and sometimes other organs. But maybe more importantly it can work in combination with fragmentation to create a devastating wound (seems like common sense to me, you're pulling tissue apart with the shockwave as you're slicing into it with bullet fragments).
So Fackler believed in remote wounding, but also that it was less important than making a wide, deep permanent cavity. IIRC he was involved in the FBI adoption of "barrier blind" 5.56 loads that continue to be the gold standard. The only reason fragmentation continues to receive so much attention is that the military can't use expanding bullets, so it's the next best thing.
http://kjg-munition.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
1/2
Instead of second guessing what he believed, you could just read his papers and understand his exact claims in context instead of out of context. This is key.
Firstly, Fackler died on his hill: He believed that TSC could cause minor wounding in most tissues and severe wounding in the brain and liver, but he believed that these wounding effects were local, not remote - he didn't believe that anything outside the TSC was damaged - which is totally wrong. His conclusions about the wounding potential of the TSC were also very wrong and grossly underestimated them, for reasons other than his gross bias that will become clear.
Secondly, all of Fackler's research, including his direct experimental papers are from a surgical perspective and exhibit gigantic survivorship bias. Even if Fackler's surgical conclusions were right (they aren't), his research generally only seriously considers cases of non-fatal gunshot wound where surgical intervention to preserve life is occurring. He then encourages everyone to use this biased sample to draw conclusions about small arms lethality. At some point he knows he's bullshitting because of the stacked up levels of misdirection and cope about the ability of primary and secondary pressure waves to temporarily or permanently incapacitate which could only have been intentional by him but he probably really believed his conclusions at least initially.
>So Fackler believed in remote wounding, but also that it was less important than making a wide, deep permanent cavity.
To be super clear: Fackler was writing about surgical intervention and then using that credibility to grift terminal ballistics kudos and gibs from the lucrative and gullible world of firearms. In other words, Fackler's conclusions are passable as right in a shock trauma surgical setting (they're wrong, but the general gist is close enough to be taken for right by someone who isn't a surgeon), but neurosurgeons would just laugh at him and they're extremely wrong in a gunfight.
People and animals are often almost instantly incapacitated by shots that, according to Fackler, should pose only risks of injury to tissues that are not necessary for immediate survival. This is because Fackler deliberately ignored loads of wounding mechanisms to win the late 80s to early 90s equivalent of an internet argument. People may not die from someone using a good enough pressure wave to push the reset button on their nervous system, but they do lose voluntary control of their body which is incompatible with sustaining life in a gunfight.
We are priveliged to be able to see this all the fricking time right now thanks to drones and Snowmalia: VatBlack folk hit by shrapnel at a distance often continue to function normally despite sustaining Fackler-approved fatal wounds, but those affected by blast or rifle fire frequently instantly crumple and only very slowly regain coordination and the use of their body (if at all) whether the wounds ultimately prove to be Fackler-approved lethal or not.
This is exactly what the results of everyone that Fackler desperately wanted ignored predicted. Gunshots can frick up structures of the peripheral and CN systems that are nowhere near the bullet or TSC. When this happens it won't be the cause of death, but causing it is the highest object of terminal ballistics in a gunfight and will make death almost inevitable.
that was 2/2
>People and animals are often almost instantly incapacitated by shots that, according to Fackler, should pose only risks of injury to tissues that are not necessary for immediate survival.
it's fun how you post this nonsense, then when pressured link to articles that say nothing of the sort. typical brainlet moron behavior.
>studies conclusively proving pressure waves as a cause of traumatic brain injury.
man that's crazy, how many of them teleport from extremities into the brainpan?
you are a fricking moron with the technical attitude of a Facebook horoscope enjoyer.
>oh em gee, that guy was so Gemini that the remote pressure waves from that cancer made his brain explode!!
Genuinely kys for wasting so much of my time spoon feeding you. Here are the links just for the remote nerve damage, including CNS damage specifically from limb and torso shots:
Wehner, H.D. and Sellier, K., 1982. Compound action potentials in the peripheral nerve induced by shock-waves. Acta chirurgica Scandinavica. Supplementum, 508, pp.179-184.
Suneson, A., Hansson, H.A. and Seeman, T., 1988. Central and peripheral nervous damage following high-energy missile wounds in the thigh. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 28(1), pp.S197-S203.
Suneson, A., Hansson, H.A. and Seeman, T., 1990. Pressure wave injuries to the nervous system caused by high-energy missile extremity impact: Part II. Distant effects on the central nervous system—a light and electron microscopic study on pigs. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 30(3), pp.295-306.
Cooper, G.J. ed., 1997. Scientific foundations of trauma. CRC Press.
Wang, Q., Wang, Z., Zhu, P. and Jiang, J., 2004. Alterations of myelin basic protein and ultrastructure in the limbic system at the early stage of trauma-related stress disorder in dogs. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 56(3), pp.604-610.
Courtney, A. and Courtney, M., 2007. Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury, 21(7), pp.657-662.
Kato, K., Fujimura, M., Nakagawa, A., Saito, A., Ohki, T., Takayama, K. and Tominaga, T., 2007. Pressure-dependent effect of shock waves on rat brain: induction of neuronal apoptosis mediated by a caspase-dependent pathway. Journal of neurosurgery, 106(4), pp.667-676
Your move wienersleeve.
Post the retractions for those or failed replications. Fackler had many years to repeat Suneson's experiments and publish proof that they were wrong, but he never did. Funny that anyone who ever did bother to get a microscope out and actually check nerves found that Suneson was right and Fackler was something very close to a fraud.
why would your hacks retract their untested theories? I told you that I actually read the patch notes and blowing a 1.5" diameter hole through someone does 60% less HP damage ever since nitrocellulose propellants were invented.
>Alterations of myelin basic protein and ultrastructure...
>8 hour time frame
whoa, thank God my bullets will take a 3rd of a day for effect
>Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.
did you fricking read your sources? they only hypothesize about prompt incapacitation in passing or for outlier cases.
>experiments showed NO GROSS DAMAGE OR HEMORRHAGES IN LARGE PERIPHERAL NERVES OR BRAIN
I wonder why these aren't important terminal ballistics factors for shooters, but are for surgeons?
if you had the scientific capacity of anything more than a highschool dropout grocery clerk you'd realize that the importance of this discussion is promptness of injurious effects. not:
>well this guy will be disposed to seizures in 20 years.
you blibbering simpleton moron.
>how many of them teleport from extremities into the brainpan?
You would be safe from traumatic brain injury caused by pressure waves transmitted from the body. Unlike most people, your brain is not connected to anything at all.
Literally works cited above you dumb c**t, and Fackler only shat out one paper in 1996, so you can work the citation out for that one yourself.
Maybe you could even do an academic search for "pressure waves neural damage" and find literally hundreds of studies conclusively proving pressure waves as a cause of traumatic brain injury.
Literally kys for sucking Fackler's dick so hard that the tears in your eyes prevent you from using a search engine to see how comically wrong he was.
Are you talking about the US military? If so, why do you think the US military can’t use expanding ammo? They can and do.
It's complicated. The US kinda can use hollow points (as in, expanding, OTM isn't really the same) but to adopt one for their service rifles would damage their reputation worldwide. They're supposed to be the "good guys" after all. Didn't stop them from adopting a 9mm JHP because it's "only for self defence" or whatever. It's all political BS really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
web.archive.org/web/20131209005345/http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/1899/7/002423.html
https://sofrep.com/gear/u-s-army-adopts-hollow-point-ammo/
They can adopt whatever they want. It just can't be hollowpoint for the purpose of expansion. It can be hollowpoint for the purpose of improving accuracy, even if it also expands (see OTM).
Nobody contradicted any of that or even approached the topic at all at that point in time, so I guess you were just shilling this video?
well most ranges don't allow shot so theres that
Really? I've shot them at an indoor range. I didn't even think they might not be allowed.
seemingly the only range i can shoot shot at in IL is a state run skeet range which is just a field off of 57 and river road
>frick you, turkey
>frick you, hog
>frick you, intruder
Hunting deer where a rifle round would travel too far.
Hogs, more like
turns a shotgun into a cope rifle good to about 100 yards
very good terminal effect on target without much risk of over penetration
Penetrative crushing wound.
slugs are great for shooting steel plates at 100 yards
also, no range will let you shoot anything buy slugs
>no range will let you shoot anything buy slugs
I've been at Patriot Park shooting range near Moscow and my shotgun ammo choice was unrestricted.
Anyway slugs are more fun
it reaches out and touches you.
About half of a civil war Minie Ball rifled musket energy.
At shotgun rages, about the same wound ballistics, but with a harder lead alloy,
So after all that bullshit, which is more viable for home defense, slugs or buckshot?
Spare me any additional math that won't be relevant to the shooter and target.
Why do you want buckshot, when you can have... Birdshot?
Because I'm breaking bucks, not birds
Number 4 buck is the worlds most keyed self defense round, which police figured out fifty and sixty years ago by shooting crackheads on the south side of Chicago
Wound ballistics are fine, but I don’t really care why shotguns kill people deader than all but the most powerful rifles, what I care about is it’s been observed for over a century to be true
>fifty and sixty years ago
>crackheads
choose one
Sorry you’re right, I should have said between forty and fifty years ago, crack replacing cocaine in 80 or 81 depending on the source you ask
Ive used it for hunting so if you hit the deer , there is a greater chance of it going down due to shock. I dont know anything about self defense with a slug round but I would imagine it would knock someone on their ass
>I would imagine it would knock someone on their ass
Depending on where you hit them, they might not have an ass to be knocked on
Can you autistic homosexuals frick off? I want a comfy thread on terminal ballistics.
>have only one gun
>it’s a shotgun
>still want to shoot something far away
>use slug
>big boolet goes farther than shot and doesn’t spread all over the place
>What's the point of slug ammunition?
Allows a shotgun to perform some of the utilities of a rifle without surrendering shotgun utilities.
>what does it do to the human body
Severe tissue trauma, breaks or shatters bone, tends to wander around because the slug deforms in the meat. You don't shoot armor with them, they aren't for that. Just shoot hypothetical smart-asses with plate carrier in the pelvic girdle, thigh, or face. They will not be pleased.
>You don't shoot armor with them, they aren't for that.
Well, except soft armor.
I wouldn't rely on it. No one's ever been killed by it, and more than one person's walked it off. Those are bad odds for an incapacitation when you're expecting return fire.
Our Lord and Savior The Harell has spoken
?t=71
>I'm what you call a professional
12 gauge Slugs are about as popular as .45-70 or .375 H&H for bear defense in Alaska and the Yukon.
Also, reaching out to 100-ish yards with decent accuracy with a frick-off payload is a nice capability for w shotgun.
nothing turns a watermelon into a cloud quite like a 12 gauge slug. I figure it would probably do a similar thing to your chest
If you're lucky enough to hit a man in the face with it, it ejects the brain clean out, well, it makes quite a fricking mess in the process.
>my daddy says that my preferred ammo is 3% deadlier than yours
>oh yeah? I'll ruin a whole thread about it
Nobody gives a frick about all this moronic nerd shit, wake me when the math says a motherfricker can take a deer slug to the chest and walk away. Until then absolutely none of this matters outside of an ammo company's R&D department and you're all just arguing over which scientist's wiener and balls taste better because you don't shoot.
Let's just discuss the slugs of choice
I'm open to suggestions for a slug while camping in Montana and Idaho. I'm looking for something that won't make me flinch too hard. I can handle 3" magnum buckshot and 2 3/4" foster slugs no problem but I don't know how hard something like the Brenneke black magic magnum recoils. Remington 870 with 20" barrel.
honestly just the standard 1oz is probably enough. Do you get large bears in that area?
Not large like Alaskan brown, but there's enough grizzlies to worry me. I don't care much about the black bears, I've had so many encounters with them that I'm (too) comfortable around them. I wouldn't shoot a bear of any flavor with a foster slug though because I've done enough penetration tests to know they blow up easily. I like bears and don't want to frick with them but griz are unpredictable.
While a foster slug isn't ideal, the mythology of bears eating people after taking a hit to the head or torso is largely just that, mythology.
It makes a big fricking hole, and importantly, since slugs are flat and not spire pointed, all of that tissue in the way of the projectile is crushed and permanently destroyed. At approximately 3/4 inch diameter we're getting to the territory of no man surviving for very long with such a hole through their body regardless of where it appears.
It does fun stuff to car batteries. Don't get too close to the acid vapor cloud but they're rewarding to shoot.
And then you can take the battery lead and cast new slugs
a slug will frick you up
Does this board even shoot? Slugs are terrifying, you don't even want to get skimmed by one, let alone a proper center of mass/headshot. People who cope about muh 30rds of 556 are homosexuals, slugs are ideal home defense so long as you dont have neighbors right next door.
Lol, lmao even
very nice, now show what slugs do to home invaders
I don't have the photos anymore they are on an old misplaced phone, but I put a 12 gauge sabot slug through a deer's neck at around 10 yards so a decent proxy for a home invader. I could put my fist through the entrance and exit. Deer was running underneath me from a tree stand and looked like it was struck by lightning. Stopped immediately and never moved again. Slugs are very effective against non armored soft tissue.
No ones saying shotgun slugs are ineffective, I'm pointing out it's stupid to call 5.56 ineffective.
Slugs are good for armor pen, maximum hollow point expansion, and turing your shotgun into a rifle. If you want actual range at that point, you might as well get an actual hunting or tactical rifle; not a meme assault rifle. You can’t go wrong with an Ak-47 or any shotgun class for battle, home defense, or bug out. They are also very anti semitic.
?si=RPzotBRLJfsn_MA5
It was created by the french to hunt slugs, hence the name
a 1oz slug is like a flying mini lead brick
but when it hits it will punch a big hole through something
or tumble and rip and tear
or expand and make a gnarly T-1000 looking crater wound
Ow
Tis but a flesh wound
Buck shots are for close range and do massive damage.
Is there any benefit to buck and ball loads outside of line warfare?
I don't think so. Those pellets are mostly symbolic.
total hog death
I wonder how would you react to THREE slugs in one shell
Domed coins fly more or less straight, though they tumble unproductively in a target or stay fixed together.
I wonder if you could just perfectly split the difference between "thin slug" and "thick coin" so that they punched five or six full caliber holes into what you were aiming at.
>Domed coins fly more or less straight, though they tumble unproductively in a target or stay fixed together.
And around 20 years ago in my country they used to sell shells loaded with three huge ball pellets in one sabot. It was advertised as the nice boar round, fricking bullshit. Those pellets never used to fly straight.
Devil's in the details, two shotgun loads that seem identical can perform totally different because of some tiny change in powder or wadding or anything.
Those things were never good on any load.
>410
might aswell use a blank
Anon it was a fricking example of a projectile shape.
Anon I said Wadding or anything, not just powder charge. Tiny manufacturing details on that sabot that are impossible to see could make miles of difference.
buck and ball was the patrician load back in the blackpowder musket days; some of the first commercial cartridges made with paper wrapped buck and ball, and the US military used it until rifles took over by the Civil War.
Many hunting reports of the day also tell of game dropping dead in its tracks, no running away on a clean shot, just instant lights out unlike today's idiots that go hunting elk with .223 and then act surprised when it runs away
Buck and ball makes sense on a 50 cal smoothbore muzzle loader, but why do they exist for 12 gauge? What does it do that a bigger rifled slug or regular buckshot doesn't do better?
feel like any purpose it would serve can easily be substituted much better with just a buckshot and a slug shell back to back, and that would work in just about any shotgun other than single-shot.
>unlike today's idiots that go hunting elk with .223 and then act surprised when it runs away
Pathetic
>duplex 12ga slugs
Pathetic. Try Duplex .50 BMG (next to 460 Weatherby Mag)
It's for door breaching and lock busting. And it's handy for longer range hunting. One gun with two or three different ammo types is easier to lug around than two guns. I would routinely carry buckshot, slugs, and bird shot out hunting. Pretty much covers everything whitetail or smaller.
I use it for target competition.
What it does to the human body? If you're wearing a t-shirt, shooting them may give you a sore shoulder
>What does it do to the human body (with and without body armor
Honestly surprised no one's posted the video yet.
?si=mUxMiJEjgMEiWzmL&t=1104
Those gel torsos full of rubber organs and plastic bones dont represent flesh at all.
The internal cavities and bones actually create shear points on the gel, causing it to split and tear in ways no human tissue does.
It's the closest approximation that we can get without going back to shooting inmates or pig carcasses.
Pig carcasses would be cheaper check the price.
In my state, there's just a few legal options for hunting deer.
1. Shotgun with slugs
2. Muzzleloader
3. Crossbow
4. handgun (AR pistol in 300BLK being the most common option in this category)
5. Compound Bow
Crossbow seems like the best option right now. Thick woods so range is limited no matter what, good stopping power, and can be used in archery and firearm seasons. But it was only legalized as an option only a couple years ago, before that shotgun slugs were the popular choice.