Booner:
yes frangile is nice, but it lacks certian needs. liek the ablity to penetrate heavy layers to get to vital organs and or armor which has been prevelent in many home invasions
I thought that frangible may not be the best type of ammo choice. But I assume it able to disperse shock energy well, non-the-less. I do think that the Glasers, being compressed shot, should penetrate clothing quite easily at 1500ft-lbs. After all, it shouldn't have become far separated yet by clothing, but rather a somewhat solid mass at the clothing layer. For standard clothing to disperse that kind of energy, it would have to be spread over a very large surface area.
I have personally seen a low-velocity bullet that hit a steel plate return and go through a heavy nylon coat, a sweatshirt, a t-shirt, and then through a pair of thick Carhardt overalls, and then finally penetrate the skin about 1/2". It traveled through everything sideways, not straight on, and was mushroomed to about 45 caliber at less than 130grs. Seeing this, I can't agree with your outlook on clothing penetration being hindered whatsoever.
And Booner, isn't body armor only present in about 0.1% of home invasions? I guess I'm a little confused. You just brought up the issue of penetrating body armor, but otherwise argued that the 223 won't over-penetrate a human body. What ammunition type will most likely accomplish these two things successfully?
blackhawk2000:
I suppose this debate will never end, as long as the doubters don't read.
I think by saying that you mean, "as long as someone doesn't agree with my views on the AR15".
And it's wonderful that someone you know is a shooting fanatic. However, that does not actually grant any credibility to issues so far discussed, I'm sorry to say. Most of us are probably just as capable of searching the internet for data.
Isn't it true that the AK has higher clearances built into its design? And wouldn't it be safe to assume that because of these higher clearances, it is a more reliable design by physical nature, along with its gas system? By clearances, I do not mean tolerances. I have heard before that tolerances in the AK are along the lines of what they are in the AR on military rifles. A machinist could clarify this, if this is actually incorrect.
A few manufacturers are also introducing gas-piston AR designs. Can you maybe elaborate on why they are doing this if the original AR platform is already such a reliable design?
I'm not arguing that the AK is a "better" gun. I think that the AR platform is phenominal, which is why I have had one coming together in 300SAUM long before this thread had begun. What I am really asking is why the AR qualifies as the more superior home defense weapon, rather than the more superior weapon of popularity - which are two different issues. With the AR, are you really getting $500 more worth of home defense? Or are you paying for things that would be better utilized on a range, rather than realized in the home defense scenario?
I realize that Booner posted tests which he found describing 223 performance against pistol calibers, which does point out a few interesting things. I enjoyed reading that. However, this specific thread is not based on any pistol calibers, nor does the info compare defense-type 7.62x39 ammunition against any 5.56. With that in mind, its relevance to any of this discussion is negligible.
I feel that these threads are really arguing over a different topic. A message that is not read as "which is more suitable for home defense", but rather a message read as "what do you own and feel has better cosmetic looks". It is no surprise to me in the end that the polls may not reflect a real world vote on the question at hand.
