[HN Gopher] Bullets: Sizes, Calibers, and Types (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
Bullets: Sizes, Calibers, and Types (2020)
Author : poundofshrimp
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-10-24 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pewpewtactical.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pewpewtactical.com)
| ur-whale wrote:
| From an engineering perspective, I've always found fascinating
| how complicated ammo taxonomy is and how weird the various units
| used are.
|
| I get the historical aspect that led to this giant mess, but ...
| at the end of the day, there's not that many parameters to define
| what a bullet is and does.
|
| In particular, wrt physical dimensions, my - probably naive -
| take is that (radius x length) seems to go quite a long way in
| describing a bullet.
|
| Anyone more knowledgeable care to explain why things are so
| complicated and haven't been normalized / simplified over time?
| colechristensen wrote:
| I was once called an expert in external ballistics, this may
| have been an overstatement but I did spend quite a lot of time
| writing simulations for the ballistics of various bullets.
|
| There are three phases that are important for bullets: what
| happens inside the barrel, what happens outside the barrel, and
| what happens when it strikes the target.
|
| There are a lot of parameters effecting that characteristics of
| all three. (not just 2 dimensions of size)
|
| Shape, muzzle velocity, reliability, ease of manufacture, etc
| etc. are all quite important.
|
| There is also long history, a gun is a thing that can be around
| for decades; you can't so easily throw away the past and start
| over. There is also a strong consideration for the design
| process. Fulfilling a set of requirements can conflict with the
| desire for standardization. Also when standardization is an
| idea, using an existing standard rather than making a new one
| has been the pragmatic response.
|
| NATO though has done quite a lot in standardizing American
| rounds. There are many almost-equivalent NATO standard rounds
| with things like metric measurements instead of the more
| historical American measurements.
|
| But also, things are just complicated. When talking about an
| airplane you might as well say that length and wingspan might
| "go quite a long way" in describing it. I mean, in some sense
| sure, but a very long way from fully describing one.
|
| There's a book "American Rifle" which goes through quite a bit
| of the history of the development of guns in the US.
| akerl_ wrote:
| What would the upside be in "simplifying" it? At present,
| there's a known set of standard ammo sizes in use, and millions
| of guns in existence that use them.
|
| Sure, the nomenclature is weird, with a mix of imperial,
| metric, and just plain weirdness, but it doesn't seem to be
| negatively impacting anything.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| > there's not that many parameters to define what a bullet is
| and does
|
| There's a surprising amount of parameters that define what a
| bullet is and does. Consider this article, which describes the
| difference between secant and tangent ogives.
|
| From an engineering perspective, long range shooting is
| FASCINATING!
|
| http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/03/tangent-vs-secan...
| sigstoat wrote:
| > In particular, wrt physical dimensions, my - probably naive -
| take is that (radius x length) seems to go quite a long way in
| describing a bullet.
|
| that doesn't describe much of a bullet, and nearly nothing
| about a caliber.
|
| you can take a look at the SAAMI specs and get a sense of what
| goes into such things.
|
| https://saami.org/technical-information/cartridge-chamber-dr...
|
| the popular name of a caliber is exactly that, a name, and
| describes the caliber about as well as "John" describes a human
| being.
| paisawalla wrote:
| I think this is yet another area where large budgets and low
| accountability creates "innovation" primarily in how to spend
| public money. Large police and military budgets create
| incentives for manufacturers to innovate away from the standard
| and introduce "high performance" proprietary form factors.
|
| In some cases a new round size/weight does actually produce
| better performance for the desired application. In many cases,
| IMO, those advantages are academic and achieved in highly
| controlled environments, _i.e._ they are nullified by the high
| variability of other factors, in real world situations. I am
| just an enthusiast and not any kind of professional though.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > Large police and military budgets create incentives for
| manufacturers to innovate away from the standard and
| introduce "high performance" proprietary form factors.
|
| extremely few of the calibers out there have ever seen
| military/LE use, and fewer of them started out with
| military/LE use.
| 0x7E3 wrote:
| For the bullets themselves, in addition to the diameter and
| length you've got mass, material and shape (round nose, hollow
| point, ballistic tipped, etc.).
|
| For the cartridge as a whole you're also going to be concerned
| with powder capacity, shape (necked?, rimmed?), and to a lesser
| extent material.
|
| These are just a few examples and all are significant.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Because there's a ton of organic growth over more than a
| century and a shitton of holdovers. Think of it like really old
| legacy systems in computing.
|
| Like look just at naming: old stuff was often named based on
| caliber and the number of grains of powder back in black powder
| days. Like the .45-70 is a .45 bullet and had 70 grains of
| black powder in a standard load. But then this carried over
| when they named the .30-06, which had a .30 bullet and 6 grains
| smokeless. Some handgun rounds are "ACP" because they were
| developed for new (at the time) auto-loaders instead of
| revolvers. Now cartridges are mostly named by caliber.
|
| Then there's stuff where cartridges were slightly tweaked, like
| for NATO. .223 is mostly the same as 5.56 and .308 is mostly
| the same as 7.62, but the latter are both NATO rounds re-named
| and changed a bit from their predecessors. Oh and by the way,
| .308 rifles can typically fire .308 or 7.62, it's not safe to
| fire .308 from a 7.62 rifle though. Oh but for .223/5.56 it's
| the other way: You can fire .223 from a 5.56 chamber but not
| vice versa.
|
| Every country developed its own rounds for a long time, just
| look at the number of 9mm cartridges there are. Different
| bullets, different nomenclature, etc.
|
| There's a ton of variety in how you make a bullet, even beyond
| "broad" varieties like hollow point vs jacketed vs semi-
| jacketed vs wadcutter vs semi-wadcutter... or the actual metal
| composition of the bullet, jacket, etc.
|
| Different rounds are also loaded differently, you can have some
| under-pressured for subsonic if you're running suppressed,
| there's usually some variation in what's "standard" and bodies
| like SAAMI and CIP are voluntary and typically define max
| pressure only. Plus there are overpressure (+p) and over-
| overpressure (+p+) rounds...
|
| Lots of complexity from over 100 years of a lot of people
| developing their own ideas than merging them only sort of.
| nataz wrote:
| You have to go one layer deeper and think beyond the projectile
| (bullet) and include the cartridge (bullet, accelerant, primer,
| case).
|
| Basically how fast some thing shoots (how much accelerant) is
| just as important as what you are shooting (bullet
| characteristics).
|
| Each of those variables also have weight and dimension
| penalties which determine how much you can reasonably carry.
|
| An interesting relatively recent example is the development of
| small caliber armor piercing rounds. NATO needed something to
| deal with the rise of body armor. Same requirements, two
| different solutions to get there in the fn 5.7 and hk 4.6x30
| (simplifying enormously here). Basically these are engineering
| and manufacturing challenges.
| collegeburner wrote:
| For anybody who hasn't heard of them and wants a rough
| overview of the differences, the 5.7 and 4.6 mostly work on
| being smaller-caliber at higher velocity. 9mm parabellum
| usually has muzzle velocity anywhere between 1000 and 1500
| ft/s where 4.6 is closer to 2300 ft/s. The 5.7 is closer to
| 2800. They're also usually steel core.
| ggreer wrote:
| I'm pretty sure all the steel core 5.7x28mm is considered
| armor piercing handgun ammo and is therefore limited to law
| enforcement.[1] I've never seen steel core versions of it
| sold at any gun store.
|
| 1. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/national-
| jan20...
| collegeburner wrote:
| Sadly yeah, it's one in a massive list of stupid laws but
| FOPA states anything that "may be used in a handgun" if
| I'm remembering the wording right. I believe they
| submitted the duty round for the NATO RFP tho and that's
| steel penetrator. If i remember right blacktip .223 is
| similarly banned because of AR pistols, you can basically
| only get AP in full rifle rounds (.30-06) or something
| like .50 BMG.
| neither_color wrote:
| This is a nice overview of common types but I still don't
| understand the "why" of some of their names, such as the
| difference between a .38 and a .380 (It's the same number!)
| ptomato wrote:
| the full name of .38 is .38 Special, and the full name of .380
| is .380 ACP. IIRC, .380 ACP was so named to distinguish it from
| an earlier related design, .38 ACP. In common use, if somebody
| says .38 they're referring to .38 Special as that's by far the
| most common cartridge with .38 in it, and if they say .380
| they're definitely referring to .380 ACP, though it's also
| sometimes referred to as 9mm Browning.
|
| ETA: and in the case of both these rounds, .38" is actually the
| approximate diameter of the _case_ not the bullet; the diameter
| of .380 ACP bullet is 9mm, and the diameter of .38 Special is
| .357".
| collegeburner wrote:
| Because there's a lot more than caliber that matters. If you
| think about it, a .45 ACP is close in caliber to a .50 BMG. But
| there's hella powder behind a .50 and not so much behind a .45.
| The bullets themselves make a big difference also, there are at
| least a half dozen you can read more about here:
| https://gunvault.com/types-of-ammunition/
|
| If you think having 2 cartridges that both have .38" caliber
| bullets is confusing, take a look at all the 9mm ones. Just in
| the ones that are actually called 9mm and not just caliber
| equivalent, there's 9x19, 9x25 mauser, 9x57 mauser, 9x39, 9mm
| winmag, 9x18 makarov, and a ton more I can't remember. Some of
| those are rifle cartridges, some handgun. They have different
| bullets with different characteristics and different bullet
| lengths and different bullet weights. And the shape of the
| cartridges behind them, the guns they fire from, and the amount
| of propellant each one has is all different.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Second pop-up wants an email.
|
| (I've noticed a lot of cheap stuff on Craigslist. I'm pretty sure
| they are placed their to collect emails. There's one in the bay
| area yesterday. It was a mill, and a lathe, for $100. And yes--I
| emailed him. In the back of my mind, maybe they just wanted it
| gone?)
| drewm1980 wrote:
| Guns are like COVID... but cool.
| swayvil wrote:
| "Stopping power". "Wound channels".
|
| Movie frames featuring sainted action heroes, gun out-thrust.
|
| Now don't get me wrong, I own a gun. But still.
|
| Also, I hear that birdshot is actually better for home defense
| because it doesn't go through walls so much.
|
| And can you imagine firing a shotgun inside your house without
| hearing protection? Goodbye ears.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Do you have a problem with those terms? If it makes you feel
| better "stopping power" is at least half a meme these days,
| from all the old fudds talking about "muh stopping power" with
| their .45 1911s. And yeah a bullet makes a wound channel? This
| stuff is just as relevant of you're hunting or similar.
|
| And no, birdshot may not stop a big person. Hurt like hell but
| often won't kill. I personally don't have a shotgun for home
| defense though, 9mm hollow points in a PCC do the job fine.
|
| Anybody who's not an idiot wears ear protection when shooting
| but a few shots won't damage your ears much. But yeah a 9mm
| handgun is significantly less bad for these reasons. Thank the
| feds though, it's damn hard to get suppressors without tons of
| paperwork which would otherwise make this less of a problem.
| rsyring wrote:
| > But yeah a 9mm handgun is significantly less bad for these
| reasons.
|
| 9mm handgun is usually louder than a shotgun:
| https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/
|
| > Thank the feds though, it's damn hard to get suppressors
| without tons of paperwork which would otherwise make this
| less of a problem.
|
| Paperwork isn't that bad and online retailers help a lot.
| It's annoying, expensive, and you have to wait a long time
| after purchase to get it, but it's not really "hard" IMO.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Huh never seemed like that, go figure. Tbh i usually shoot
| 9mm from a PCC so that may have skewed my impression.
|
| I consider a shitload of paperwork, months of waiting, and
| the $200 tax stamp to be pretty bad. More importantly,
| navigating that paperwork is hard for somebody kinda new to
| guns, even though it's better these days esp. with the
| internet.
| nataz wrote:
| And just a quick safety note, a 9mm round can absolutely
| cause long term hearing damage with just one shot,
| especially if fired indoors and unsurprised. Lots of
| variables in play here, but the answer is to always wear
| hearing protection.
| trutannus wrote:
| Former gun owner myself as well back when I lived in the
| sticks. Would carry on walks in my "yard" because of injured,
| hungry, or otherwise dangerous wildlife.
|
| > Movie frames featuring sainted action heroes, gun out-thrust.
|
| This is the sort of thing that gives firearm owners a bad rap.
| Especially those who advocate for self-defense rights. Everyone
| already thinks firearm owners are gung-ho cowboys with itchy
| trigger fingers. The majority are not.
| 0x7E3 wrote:
| > Movie frames featuring sainted action heroes, gun out-
| thrust.
|
| >This is the sort of thing that gives firearm owners a bad
| rap.
|
| You're not wrong, but I do think it's unfair and a little
| odd. After all software engineers are almost exclusively
| depicted as engaging in unethical and outright criminal
| activity in pop culture, regardless of whether they are the
| 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. Many beginning training materials
| focus on things that are implied if not outright trumpeted as
| giving you the ability to commit illegal and immoral acts.
|
| We certainly don't (well someone probably does, but we
| shouldn't) consider that as a reflection on all software
| engineers.
| trutannus wrote:
| > After all software engineers are almost exclusively
| depicted as engaging in unethical and outright criminal
| activity in pop culture
|
| Right, I agree for sure. I think the reason why we don't
| consider this a reflection on software engineers is that no
| politician has thought using freedom to engineer software
| as a wedge issue in a campaign. It's absolutely unfair and
| a little odd. But, after all, I've yet to see a political
| wedge issue arise that _isn 't_ unfair, and viewed as a
| little odd by other cultures.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I mean, it's a bit difficult to compare and contrast various
| bullets without talking about stopping power and wound
| channels.
|
| You could use euphemisms or be more technical, but in the end
| you're comparing a thing made to transfer kinetic force and
| create a hole, on its ability to do those things.
|
| And yes IMHO, a pump action 12ga birdshot reduced-recoil load
| w/ a standard slug at the end of the magazine is hard to argue
| against if we're honestly talking home defense load.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Ok so UK resident here. Oddly able to own a shotgun (not
| pump). what is a standard slug? I presumed birdshot would
| mean the "slug" (big metal thing fired out end of gun) would
| be replaced by the "birdshot" (tiny metal balls designed to
| spread and so make hitting bird (plus lots of other things)
| easier.?
|
| Sidenote: It's unlikely in US as there seems to be a
| political objection to collating gun stats but are there any
| stats on threat models in "home defence"? I presume the main
| one is armed burglary but am interested in how often, where
| gun is kept vs where it was needed etc etc
| alricb wrote:
| Normal shotgun rounds are filled with a number of pellets;
| the smaller the pellet, the more you can fit. Birdshot:
| small pellets in large number, Buckshot: large-ish pellets
| in small number. A slug is a massive (18.5 mm diameter for
| 12 gauge) single projectile used in a shotgun shell.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Every time a firearm is used in a situation involving
| police, such as home defense, the data is recorded. It's
| not always shared, though. Gun use in defensive situations
| seems to happen about a tenth to an eighth as often as
| criminal use. This includes gang related shootings, which
| account for 15% of the total, and there are issues with
| ascribing intent and motive, so the data has a lot of
| confounding factors. It's so bad that it's nigh on
| impossible to make any useful conclusions.
|
| The best bet in self defense is to find a competent
| professional trainer. Someone with long military or law
| enforcement experience that isn't an asshole. If you're
| really into it you can get the same training that Keanu
| Reeves got and turn yourself into John Wick. That's a hell
| of a party trick.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| >>Gun use in defensive situations seems to happen about a
| tenth to an eighth as often as criminal use.
|
| I think you mean instances where a shot is actually
| fired? I believe there are 40-50,000 self-defense uses
| per year in the U.S., a nation of ~330,000,000, though
| that does not necessarily mean a shot was fired [0]
|
| 0: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf p. 12
| ggreer wrote:
| I strongly discourage shotguns for home defense. Shotguns
| have high recoil, making them a poor choice for inexperienced
| shooters. Spread is minimal at typical room distances so you
| need to be just as accurate as with a rifle or handgun. Most
| importantly, people tend to short stroke them in panic
| situations. If you want a long gun for home defense, a semi-
| automatic rifle is a much better choice.
|
| That said, you probably want to be able to aim a gun while
| potentially having a free hand to use a phone, open doors,
| turn on lights, grab loved ones, etc. A handgun allows you to
| do all of those things and have higher magazine capacities
| than a shotgun.
| drewm1980 wrote:
| What's the slug for?
| akerl_ wrote:
| There's a decent cargo cult following for some level of
| magazine/tube-based escalation of force, where you have
| some sort of lower-impact ammunition loaded first, followed
| by higher-impact ammunition. In this case, the pitch is for
| birdshot at the front, followed by a slug.
|
| The issue is that in practice, once you pull out a gun
| you've fundamentally altered the state of the world between
| yourself and your assailant, and they have no way to know
| that you've stacked your magazine/tube like some kind of
| Dragon Ball Z power escalation where you'll take 5 episodes
| to get to your Full Ultimate Potential.
|
| In practice, you're better off just making a choice between
| wanting lower or higher impact projectiles. Increasing
| complexity in a high-stress / fast-paced scenario isn't a
| great plan.
| drewm1980 wrote:
| What scenario are you expecting to happen, and how will
| your specific choice of shotgun rounds factor into that?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Well, the implied assumption is that you probably don't
| want to kill someone breaking into your house. Though
| given the home defense crowd...? :/
|
| Given that a shotgun must cycle through its magazine in
| order (although you could eject unfired rounds), the
| second assumption is that by the time subsequent rounds
| are fired, the situation has escalated.
|
| E.g. If you bury a load of birdshot in a wall or
| someone's skin and they're still threatening you, you
| likely want to escalate (instead of repeating same). And
| from the counter-point, you probably don't want your
| initial choice to be killing someone vs not firing.
|
| As Dick Cheney demonstrated, catching a shotgun shell of
| smaller pellets usually isn't lethal, as they
| individually don't have enough penetration to hit vital
| organs. Or, same, but in sheetrock.
|
| On the other hand, as parent argued, it's adding
| complexity to an already stressful situation and does
| make a lot of assumptions about shooter and attacker
| intent.
| akerl_ wrote:
| I have no intention of prowling my house like Mr Nobody
| chasing down invaders. To meet me and my shotgun, a
| burglar has to have broken into my home and also actively
| entered the room I'm in, after I've called 911 and
| shouted to them that I've done so and am armed. If they
| decide to still try to come see me, I'm not actively
| looking to kill them but I am optimizing for fastest
| incapacitation. I'm only qualified to make this decision
| for myself, but it's about as much respect for life as
| seems possible in the circumstance.
| akerl_ wrote:
| If I'm loading a shotgun for for home defense: somebody
| has broken into my home.
|
| As per my comment above, how I load my shotgun is mostly
| based around my willingness to inflict harm on somebody
| who has broken into my home. If I'm trying to limit
| impact, bird shot is lovely. If not, just load the whole
| tube with buck shot or slug or similar.
|
| But trying to pre-plan an escalation of force via the
| shotgun tube ordering is a fools errand.
|
| Police have an escalation of force via visibly different
| tools. A suspect can see the difference between a stick
| and a taser and a gun. And a cop can choose to draw any
| of these in any order. Stacking the tube locks you into a
| specific sequence that you have to remember and that your
| assailant can't know.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Fucking around like that seems like a great way to kill
| someone when you don't have justification for it when
| you're just trying to scare them. Filling it with
| buckshot seems dramatically clearer as to what its
| purpose is for and under what circumstances it should be
| used.
| akerl_ wrote:
| I think we're agreeing? The entire premise of my comment
| is that trying to get clever with tube stacking injects
| more chaos and risk into an already chaotic and risky
| scenario.
|
| EDIT: To clarify, in general I also agree with the point
| you seem to be making that guns are dangerous and trying
| to make them seem less so by loading so-called "less
| lethal" ammunition makes it easier for the user to forget
| that. But if somebody wants birdshot, they should at
| least just load the whole tube with birdshot and accept
| that their load has different ballistic properties than
| buckshot.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| I couldn't believe what a shotgun _blank_ could do:
|
| https://youtu.be/elpAaZs_U9k?t=200
|
| (TL;DW - blast a hole in a metal plate, explode a pineapple
| from a few feet)
| giantg2 wrote:
| I actually thought this might be about bullets in documents, like
| different styles and fonts.
| kkdaemas wrote:
| Wait, it's not about game development??
| nataz wrote:
| I think hn and tech culture in general is sleeping on the rise of
| popular gun culture.
|
| Even with some significant headwinds on social media, gun culture
| influencers have huge audiences, slick media production, and run
| the gambit from highly technical to meme fueled gif parties.
|
| It's a long way from the old stereotype of an old white Vietnam
| vet waxing poetic about 1911 .45s.
|
| Something else that has been interesting to watch has been how
| much video game culture acts as an on ramp to gun culture. The
| influence that games like modern warfare have on the real life
| gun community is fascinating. It makes sense since there are way
| more call of duty players than actual high speed operators, but
| still...
|
| If you think about it, it makes sense. Unlike a lot of other gear
| orientated technical fields, it's almost impossible for people to
| regularly employ their toys outside of a range setting. Everyone
| and their brother wants short barreled ARs, but how many people
| are actually clearing rooms. Same goes for recce rifles. How many
| folks out there on patrol? It's the equivalent of the guy who
| buys a land cruiser with a roof top tent and hood mounted jack,
| but just drives it to the mall on the weekends (and yet look how
| much the overland community has exploded over the past few
| years).
|
| This is very much an underserved hobby driven by culture and
| entertainment. It's almost entirely disconnected from actual
| military needs/requirements/drivers. I think there is a lot of
| growth in the industry, surprised it doesn't come up more often.
| cronix wrote:
| > Even with some significant headwinds on social media, gun
| culture influencers have huge audiences, slick media
| production, and run the gambit from highly technical to meme
| fueled gif parties.
|
| As I read that, I heard the words and voice "If you've ever
| been ..." bounce around in my head. It's the start of a phrase
| uttered by a very popular YT gun channel on youtube before each
| video.
| nataz wrote:
| For those curious, Garand Thumb.
|
| https://youtu.be/FlHsVQDbyx4
| collegeburner wrote:
| Lmao didn't expect to see flannel daddy here of all places.
|
| Other good channels y'all might enjoy:
|
| Gun Jesus' Forgotten Weapons is very historical:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrfKGpvbEQXcbe68dzXgJuA
|
| Brandon Herrera mostly posts gun memes:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTrSsPMmZavLbc3Ex7VhjDg
|
| Hickock45 is mostly just shooting:
| https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
|
| Military Arms channel is more on the educational side:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ
|
| Larry Vickers is great. The AFT recently raided him and
| took most of his cool stuff, and he's got cancer so
| probably not many new videos, but nice backlog:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0zNoCMMiPEAst0JrwUht0w
|
| Paul Harrell is very informative:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6QH13V2o68zynSa0hZy9uQ
| cronix wrote:
| Demolition Ranch:
| https://www.youtube.com/user/DemolitionRanch
|
| You just never know when the question "how many toilet
| seats would it take to stop a 50 cal round" might pop up
| at a fancy dinner party.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| > I think hn and tech culture in general is sleeping on the
| rise of popular gun culture.
|
| 2020 saw a significant rise in first time gun owners. The NSSF
| estimates 5+ million.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Yeah fudds haven't made up the bulk of the gun scene since the
| 90s really.
|
| I hope that since people in video games can use use a wide
| variety of weapons we get some push back against banning
| specific gun types. Opening the MG registry would be really
| good and maybe this is a way to encourage it, same for removing
| suppressor and SBR regulations.
|
| Btw there is some intersection between the two, a lot of the
| guys behind the 3d-printed gun movement are moving to
| decentralized technologies for chat, video hosting, etc.
| because the gun-grabbers running mainstream platforms don't
| like them.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| _Fudds._ When I hear that I hear "n*-lover" or some other
| term meant to exclude anyone that isn't extremist/fanatical.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Uhh that's not what it means the way I've ever heard it
| used, sorry if you got that tho. How I've heard it and use
| it, it's for 2 groups:
|
| 1. People who don't care about stopping gun-grabbers as
| long as they can keep their .30-30 henry or remington 870
| or whatever, because "nobody needs one of them plastic
| guns, they're for killing people!"
|
| 2. People who are generally ignorant/out-of-date/willfully
| uneducated. The "muh 2 world wars, stopping power, I use a
| .45 cause they don't make a 46" boomer-tier stuff. The "22
| is the deadliest caliber because it tumbles around inside!"
| people.
|
| Edit: yeah, as 'nataz pointed out it's from Elmer Fudd.
| I'll tell you that most of the racist people I've met in
| the gun scene are fudds. The ones you'd call "fanatical"
| don't give a shit who you are as long as you're pro-gun
| and/or anti-govt.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Your #1 is exactly what I am referring to.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Ok then I'll disagree with your implication that anybody
| who cares about more than old hunting arms is
| "extremist/fanatical". I have no problem with having a
| term to refer to people who only care about _their_
| rights to own _their_ arms. Also what did you mean by
| "n*-lover" and how do you think it relates to ppl who
| want more than hunting guns to remain legal? Tbh that
| makes it sound like you're flaim-bating.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| There is a dismissiveness from the extremists toward
| those who own guns but believe in regulating guns. As
| though if you claim to be _one of us_ you can 't also be
| nuanced and believe the "other side" have merit as well.
|
| Bump stocks. I think they should remain illegal. I'm a
| fudd.
|
| Fully automatic, military weapons should probably remain
| heavily regulated. I'm a fudd.
|
| This is what I'm describing.
|
| Dick Metcalf as editor of _Guns and Ammo_ magazine
| suggested in an editorial that maybe some gun regulation
| is a good thing. He was out after that.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Yeah, fair description. Still think your calling us
| "extremists" is comparable or worse tho. It's more that
| "one of us" is more "people who think the government has
| no business regulating guns" than "people who own guns".
|
| I disagree, bump stocks are largely a gimmick and
| automatics are "military weapons" because they've been so
| limited for the populace. I don't see the problem with
| "fudd" to describe people who care only about their guns.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Gun owners that think we should regulate AR-15's,
| probably don't in fact own an AR-15. So "caring only
| about their own guns" doesn't point out any sort of
| hypocrisy.
|
| "Extremists" is not the word I wanted to use, but I
| didn't know a better one.
|
| No regulation on any guns at all. Period.
|
| I don't know a good name for that take on gun ownership.
| collegeburner wrote:
| > Gun owners that think we should regulate AR-15's,
| probably don't in fact own an AR-15. So "caring only
| about their own guns" doesn't point out any sort of
| hypocrisy.
|
| Nahh it's perfectly fair because there are gun owners who
| don't own an AR but think they shouldn't be banned. Same
| as how I don't wanna buy a hooker but still think
| prostitution should be legal. Or same idea as "I don't
| agree with what you're saying but will defend your right
| to say it."
|
| Not sure why you can't just say "gun rights advocate"
| cause that's what it is. Saying it's extreme is just as
| much a value judgement as "fudd". And for somebody who
| fit the stuff I described above, I don't know any good
| name other than "fudd" for that take on gun ownership.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Curious, which gun de-regulation measures were publicly
| supported by gun control advocates?
|
| Or for that matter, what "reasonable" abortion
| restrictions were supported by pro-abortion advocates?
| Somehow all the abortion restrictions turn out to be
| unreasonable, and all the gun control restrictions are
| always reasonable.
|
| I don't follow these debates too closely but put them in
| the "culture war" bucket, rather than the "public policy"
| bucket.
|
| The object is to defeat your enemy, not to make optimal
| public policy. Facts and figures are recruited to make
| the other side look bad and worthy of contempt, not to
| determine which policy is most effective.
| namdnay wrote:
| I think everyone agrees that you shouldn't abort at 8
| months..
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Nope, do you remember the "partial birth abortion
| debate"?
|
| The pro-abortion side basically argues that if you can
| find a doctor that says you need it, you should be able
| to get it even at 9 months. And they also insist that
| psychological harm to the mother is enough of a reason to
| get it, it doesn't need to be risk of physical injury.
| And that you can go to as many doctors as you want until
| you find one that will agree. Many abortion clinics have
| such doctors on staff to meet the legal requirements of
| medical consultation.
|
| Or about the "post-birth" abortion debate, in which an
| abortion is botched and the baby delivered? The pro-
| abortion side wanted to allow the child to be left on a
| table and not provided with life sustaining care (or even
| food/milk) to die in the hospital.
|
| The anti-abortion side insists this is infanticide, which
| gets the other side really angry, since they are not the
| ones killing the child, they are just refusing to provide
| care and letting the infant die on its own.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307
|
| Interestingly, in the ancient world, people would leave
| new borns on the side of the road if they didn't want or
| couldn't care for them. There are lots of stories about
| these castaway infants - Moses being put into a basket
| and sent down the river are an example of this genre.
| Also in Venice (my favorite city) there was a _scaffetta_
| , shaped like a lion's mouth, where you could slip an
| unwanted infant, and it would be raised in one of the
| Catholic orphanages. Vivaldi was a conductor for a girls'
| school in such an orphanage -- the _Four Seasons_ was
| first performed by orphaned and abandoned girls.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ospedale_della_Pieta
|
| Of course the majority of normal people believe in some
| regulation and some rights. They view these issues as
| complex and morally ambiguous. But not activists, and
| certainly not activists in a culture war.
| 0x7E3 wrote:
| His example for comparison was rather distasteful, but
| you did reinforce his point. It's name calling with the
| intent to insult. And while many people present valid
| information and construct good arguments while doing
| that, casually insulting your opponent, or worse
| uninvolved bystanders is bad manners.
|
| You can just say 'racist', or 'person who relies on
| outdated ballistics information'. No need to have one
| derogatory term to lump the two in together and then
| sling in around casually.
|
| People say that 22lr is the 'deadliest caliber' because
| it is the caliber that has ended the most lives in the
| United States, that being because it is by far the most
| common. The original source for that was a study done in
| ~1970 but there have been others to back it up since.
|
| I'm not going to go so far as to say that _no one_ ever
| has said that .22lr is more lethal than any other
| caliber, but it is the exact opposite sentiment of "I use
| a .45 cause they don't make a .46" so it's not likely to
| be a person from that group saying it.
| nataz wrote:
| Whoa there.
|
| I think it comes from the cartoon character Elmer fudd, and
| stands for someone who is part of the traditional
| sporting/hunting culture as opposed to someone approaching
| it from a broader and more modern "self defense", 2A,
| entertainment (video game/movie) influence.
|
| Those cultures do overlap, but there is definitely some
| friction between them at times.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That's not the way I've heard it used. In the contexts
| I've seen it you are a Fudd if you believe, for example,
| that the American public should be allowed to own guns,
| but not AR-15s, AK-47s.
| nataz wrote:
| True, but you have to remember that until relatively
| recently, the idea of owning a 556/223 AR platform was
| pretty far out of the mainstream.
|
| People who liked guns hunted, and or owned things in
| calibers that overlapped between hunting and the military
| (think .308). They had revolvers, or full metal frame
| pocket pistols for self defense.
|
| The standard today would be something like a glock 19
| (plastic frame, 19 rounds of hollow point, small size)
| carried concealed in an appendix holster. Now often with
| a red dot sight and a rail mounted tactical light. There
| are dozens and dozens of AR (using the term very broadly)
| manufacturers out there today, pushing everything from
| systems designed for suppressed cqb (think short barreled
| suppressed .300 blackout) to long range precision
| shooting (ar-10/6.5 cm).
|
| These kind of options, and the hobbies/communities they
| enable, didn't exist at the consumer level even 10 years
| ago.
|
| The inflection point seems to be the sunset of the
| assault weapons ban, but it took quite a bit of time for
| this stuff to become mainstream.
|
| The old guard supported by a base of hunters and sport
| shooters is aging out, and not growing anywhere near as
| fast as this new generation. The needs (and opinions) of
| someone out on regular elk hunts range pretty far from
| someone who wants a firearm for self defense.
| bendbro wrote:
| Lol, I'm going to miss these 2016-2020 outbursts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-24 23:02 UTC)