Self defense?

[rabbidrabbit]

Just pointing this out for the uninformed ;

Kyle's rifle is .223 and is smaller than the .45 in a 1911

The key difference between rifle and pistol caliber rounds is the speed of the round not the diameter.  For that matter, rifle caliber rounds tend to run smaller in diameter but longer.  Rifle rounds are in general traveling twice as fast as pistol caliber rounds.

[Vulcan]

Well its a mixture of diameter, mass and speed. And if you hunt you do get into weirdness such as some bullets tend not to impart their energy as well dependent on range. For example I like my 300BLK over my 243 as the 300BLK tends to impart all of it's energy. And even weirder stuff where below some speeds rifle bullets do not expand. So you get into situations where at close range a handgun bullet is likely to do more damage than a rifle bullet because the handgun bullet is bigger, heavier and more likely to expand. (please note this is heavily simplified and I don't pretend to be a ballistics expert)

[Chris79]

Just pointing this out for the uninformed ;

Kyle's rifle is .223 and is smaller than the .45 in a 1911

The .223 has initial muzzle energy of ~1754 Jules with a 62 grain bullet
The .45acp has initial muzzle energy of ~510 Jules with a 230 grain bullet

[Oldman731]

The key difference between rifle and pistol caliber rounds is the speed of the round not the diameter.  For that matter, rifle caliber rounds tend to run smaller in diameter but longer.  Rifle rounds are in general traveling twice as fast as pistol caliber rounds.

At the ranges involved in this discussion, the big difference is that it is much easier to hit a target with a rifle than it is with a pistol.  Whether .45ACP, 5.56, really doesn't matter much at six feet in terms of impact.  But you do have to hit the target.

- oldman

[Vulcan]

I would've thought a 223 at 6 feet would go straight through. Any idea what kind of ammo he was using?

[Chris79]

I would've thought a 223 at 6 feet would go straight through. Any idea what kind of ammo he was using?

Standard FMJ rounds I believe

[guncrasher]

Seriously Semp, do some research. I can and will post link after link (if necessary) that contradicts your statement.

Here’s some reading material -

https://newyorkcityguns.com/the-anti-gun-list-do-not-support-them-they-hate-you/

I know you’re already going to go for the well it come from the NRA…are they biased, of course, but who would know their enemies better, the NRA or you?

one more thing to add, my wife was a nurse for many years, know many doctor's, nurses, people in the medical profession that cant wait to go hunt or target shooting whatever they feel like doing.  they own guns, treat people with gunshots coming into er.  they believe in the second amendment.  just because their group donates for gun control doesnt mean you dont believe in the second amendment.  what gun control is, I dont know, they dont know. perhaps they wish they didnt have to treat people with gunshots, then again, they also wish nobody would come in and see them die.

semp

[zack1234]

I guess as an outside (non-US) looking in I do wonder why the obsession with him having a rifle. I mean if he had a pistol would the end result have been all that different?

As a non-US you have sold out your right to self defence for the price of a Chinese made iPhone and the ability to choose if you want to be a women on Wednesday and a box of candles on a Friday.

You agree with bending the knee when instructed to by your betters.

The US may be full of fat people who can just about read but at least they have a country and a culture.

China and Russia despise the European and you can see why

[Eagler]

What is different here is the weapon was used in self defense and not creating a crime..what the 2nd is all about

Most legally owned guns are not used in gun crimes..most are illegal which means more gun control would do squat for reducing criminal gun violence

Pretty sure we just need to evolve past guns but by the looks of things that is no time soon...

Eagler

[Shuffler]

i agree.  It meets all of the requirements for a self defense 'defense' in Georgia, but I think there's a level of irresponsibility involved in this case.  Taking a rifle of that type to a politically charged atmosphere is almost criminal negligence.  As an investigator, my question would have been "If you thought it was so dangerous that you needed a gun, then why did you go?"

In another forum, not a gaming forum, mind you, I made the comment that quite often when people want 'justice' what they want is 'revenge' enacted by the government.  I also said that, no matter the verdict, half the people were going to be mad about it, it just depended on which half.  I can tell you this, though, if he'd been found guilty, the possibility of riots would be practically zero.

Politically charged?  Evidently, but more of a societal issue than a political one, imho.

The difference between criminals backing criminals and the law abiding backing the law abiding.

[decoy]

I would've thought a 223 at 6 feet would go straight through. Any idea what kind of ammo he was using?

No idea of the ammo, but the .223 commonly fires a 55 grain bullet.  It also has a very high rotational velocity so it fragments when it hits just about anything.  Before gel blocks came along, we used to do ballistic tests with wet newspaper, which allegedly simulated 'solid meat.'  A 55 grain .223 would penetrate about three inches, If I recall correctly, but that was the lead core, not the copper jacket.

[Guppy35]

Stepping back in with a question.   I've tried to make it clear that what has me angry was that a 17 year old kid was walking the streets with an AR at all. 

Basically what I'm seeing from folks is they are OK with a kid walking around with an AR under those circumstances. 

Now I'm an old white guy and my oldest son was white.  Are you saying that had similar circumstances existed when my oldest was 17, that I should have been OK with him taking one of my ARs and going out on the street to a volatile situation on his own to try and 'help"?

If so, would that also apply to my youngest son, the fighter pilot in my avatar, who happens to be black, when he turns 17 and a similar instance arises?  I should lend him my AR and send him on his way to 'help".  And if so, and he runs into a situation where someone seeing him with an AR walking the streets in a volatile and unsafe setting, tries to come for his AR, it would be OK for him to pull the trigger to defend himself?   

And if so do you think, as a young black man he'd be praised as a hero by folks on the far right? Would Tucker Carlson would do a documentary on his experience in support of my youngest?

Does a parent's responsibility for their kids disappear when they are 17?

Just curious as to what you folks think.

No intention of debating it, just curious as to what folks think.  Stepping back out now.

[Shuffler]

Stepping back in with a question.   I've tried to make it clear that what has me angry was that a 17 year old kid was walking the streets with an AR at all. 

Basically what I'm seeing from folks is they are OK with a kid walking around with an AR under those circumstances. 

Now I'm an old white guy and my oldest son was white.  Are you saying that had similar circumstances existed when my oldest was 17, that I should have been OK with him taking one of my ARs and going out on the street to a volatile situation on his own to try and 'help"?

If so, would that also apply to my youngest son, the fighter pilot in my avatar, who happens to be black, when he turns 17 and a similar instance arises?  I should lend him my AR and send him on his way to 'help".  And if so, and he runs into a situation where someone seeing him with an AR walking the streets in a volatile and unsafe setting, tries to come for his AR, it would be OK for him to pull the trigger to defend himself?   

And if so do you think, as a young black man he'd be praised as a hero by folks on the far right? Would Tucker Carlson would do a documentary on his experience in support of my youngest?

Does a parent's responsibility for their kids disappear when they are 17?

Just curious as to what you folks think.

No intention of debating it, just curious as to what folks think.  Stepping back out now.

There is another story where a man and his daughter, who is younger than the 17 year old you are talking about, took to the streets carrying their rifles to protect a group of about 75 people that were protesting. No one had a problem with them doing that and they are black.

My kid would not be walking around all those criminals breaking the law. Folks who let their kids go and destroy property need to understand that there are also folks who will let their kids go and protect it. The safest bet is to not break the law. Don't destroy other people's property.

I think the whole issue is when folks try to make everything about color instead of people. All three folks shot by the 17 year old were not people of color. They were just people who decided to chase the kid down and attack him. Questionable behavior for any intelligent individual.... more so when they all knew he was armed. Of course these are the same folks destroying public property and other people's personal property... they were obviously not too bright to start with.

Just my 2 cents.

[guncrasher]

Shuffler one of the dumbest posts I saw on fox after the verdict went something along these lines

so did we white people riot after the verdict because 3 white men got killed?

so 3 white men were rioting and got killed, good portion of people they were not of color.

but the scary thought is mention blm and good portion think all black. not many races included.


semp

[Vulcan]

No idea of the ammo, but the .223 commonly fires a 55 grain bullet.  It also has a very high rotational velocity so it fragments when it hits just about anything.  Before gel blocks came along, we used to do ballistic tests with wet newspaper, which allegedly simulated 'solid meat.'  A 55 grain .223 would penetrate about three inches, If I recall correctly, but that was the lead core, not the copper jacket.

Oh I know what a 223 does, I hunted with one for a few years. Then I went to 243, then to a 300BLK. I like the 300 as it does significantly less broad meat damage (hydrostatic damage) than the 243. For me a 223 would penetrate more than 3 inches at typical shooting ranges (100-200 yards)