University of North Dakota Forensic Class - Ballistics

tsod275 · 07-08-2007, 23:45

Deleted

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 08:42

http://www.brokawarms.com/library/ba...iarization.pps

Interesting.

Couple of points.

I would remove the adolescent accidental deaths from the firearm stats, or at least show the ages involved. A sixteen year old, who can operate a motor vehicle is not really an adolescent IMHO, for the purposes of this discussion.

The bullet types abbreviations list also included a list of trade names. I hope that you explained that none of them actually explode, have additional power, are extremely terminal, etc.

Second, revolvers and autoloading pistols are both handguns, but a revolver is not a pistol, in American technical usage. The word "pistol" refers to autoloading handguns. The term "Revolver Pistol Diagram" and "Pistol Pistol Diagram" are technically (and redundantly) incorrect.

What the heck is a "Shotgun Pistol Diagram"?

Differentiating between tactical and hunting versions of firearms is semantics, as the functional differences are nonexistent. The same shotgun, like the Rem 870 becomes tactical by the use of parkerizing, black furniture, a different stock and a mag extension. This leads back to the "assault weapons" debate, where people think that can ban an entire class of firearms based on the appearance and characteristics. The same with the Rem 700. I would avoid the entire labeling process, or explain the point that it is merely cosmetics.

Your wounding ballistics statements are only valid for a solid projectile. Heavier bullets may, or may not penetrate deeper, depending on the construction. A Barnes solid may be lighter and less dense than a hollow-point in the same caliber, for example.

At least three of the pistol bullets you listed are supersonic in MV in the normal factory loadings in violation of your definition. A .22LR is supersonic for a short while, but I consider it to be a low velocity round. At the same time, it is small and lightweight. What about the common street crime .22s, .25s, .32s, etc. with small, lightweight bullets?

Some handgun rounds are very poor penetrators, and most rifle rounds are better penetrators due to multiple factors. On average, a rifle round that fragments creates a much larger permanent cavity than a pistol round.

Temporary cavitation does not "explode" anything. IIRC, it compresses or stretches non-elastic tissue, like certain organs, and damages them.

When a rifle bullet fragments, the secondary projectiles have destruction and wound tracks of their own than add to the permanent wound cavities. Some bullets cannot withstand the forces when they begin to yaw, and at that point, the jacket ruptures and they fragment. That helps explain some of the greater wounds.

Your Temporary Cavitation slide generalizing about the 5.56 is wrong. Dead wrong. It appears to be based on rumors and anecdotal stories. If you are hit by a military 5.56 round traveling above the frag velocity (2500-2700 fps), and it remains in tissue till the first yaw, you are going to have a lot of permanent tissue destruction wherever it hits.

Again, a .heavy 45 ACP round may be a poor penetrator, if the construction and impact velocity allow it to expand. A faster 9x19 bullet may be a better penetrator, if it is a non-expanding round. This generalization is great for a military audience limited to issue FMJ rounds. If non-standard ammo, like hollow points are used, the point could be completly incorrect.

Affect is what something does. Effect is what is done to something.

Good presentation overall, but needs tightening up on some of the details.

Thanks for putting it together.

TR

tsod275 · 07-09-2007, 18:16

Deleting duplicate

tsod275 · 07-09-2007, 18:37

Deleted

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsod275

thanks

However, thought I would go ahead and correct you on at least one of your comments.

This is probably one of the most important things that was needed for this class. This was a very needed part in determining the difference between types of firearms. You are also incorrect in your statement that there are not clear distinctions between "assault style rifles" and regular long guns. For several states, the law specifically states the differentiation of the two. For some states, this is important, because there are additional requirements depending upon the type of firearm. In Minnesota for example, you are required to have a "Permit to Purchase" if you are going to purchase a handgun or an "military-style rifle". For that state,......

"Subd. 7. Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. "Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon" means:
(1) any of the following firearms:
(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-47) semiautomatic rifle type;
(ii) Beretta AR-70 and BM-59 semiautomatic rifle types;
(iii) Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle type;
(iv) Daewoo Max-1 and Max-2 semiautomatic rifle types;
(v) Famas MAS semiautomatic rifle type;
(vi) Fabrique Nationale FN-LAR and FN-FNC semiautomatic rifle types;
(vii) Galil semiautomatic rifle type;94 semiautomatic rifle types;
(ix) Ingram MAC-10 and MAC-11 semiautomatic pistol and carbine types;
(x) Intratec TEC-9 semiautomatic pistol type;
(xi) Sigarms SIG 550SP and SIG 551SP semiautomatic rifle types;
(xii) SKS with detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle type;
(xiii) Steyr AUG semiautomatic rifle type;
(xiv) Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolvingcylinder shotgun types;
(xv) USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun type;
(xvi) Uzi semiautomatic pistol and carbine types; or
(xvii) Valmet M76 and M78 semiautomatic rifle types;

(2) any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the firearms listed in clause (1), and has the same action
design as one of the listed firearms, and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed in clause (1), or has a
slight modification or enhancement, including but not limited to a folding or retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed
shooters; shorter barrel; wooden, plastic, or metal stock; larger clip size; different caliber; or a bayonet mount; and

(3) any firearm that has been manufactured or sold by another company under a licensing agreement with a manufacturer of one of the
firearms listed in clause (1) entered into after the effective date of Laws 1993, chapter 326, to manufacture or sell firearms that are identical or nearly identical to those listed in clause (1), or described in clause (2), regardless of the company of production or country of origin.

For forensic students and law enforcement, this is more than "semantics". By law, there are definite distinctions between many firearms. The Minnesota state laws which I have listed are only one state.

I take it that the rest of my comments were not worth your attention?

You may say whatever you wish, but functionally, there is no real difference between the operation (and military effectiveness) of a BM-59 and an M1A; an SKS with a ten round mag or an SKS with a 30 round mag; a field model Benelli M1 Super 90 versus one with a mag extension and pistol gripped stock, etc., and to say that there is plays into the hands of anti-gun advocates nationwide.

I am no less effective with a neutered AR-15 without a bayonet lug, a flash hider, a collapsible stock, or a carrying handle. BTW, have you seen a lot of civilians bayoneted lately? Trouble picking up a shooter because of his flash suppressor?

The functions and features listed are nothing but a laundry list of features that the bill's authors copied from the expired AWB, and have little, if any effect on the effectiveness of the weapon.

Frankly, I would rather that the bad guys had a MAC-10 than an M-1 Garand. The latter is more effective and more dangerous in the hands of a criminal.

If you are teaching people that possession of a weapon with minor cosmetic differences from another model creates a criminal, then I shudder to think what is happening to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution there.

In that case, I am sorry to have provided you with any additional information, and hope that you ignore all of my comments and proceed teaching whatever you think should be the real deal on firearms and ammunition.

When someone is arrested or killed by a person you trained for possession of a weapon essentially no different from a model not on the list but for a few minor bits and pieces, I hope that you feel real satisfaction in the role you played as an expert in helping them bring down ruthless firearms owners whose weapons had features that drove them to theoretically be able to commit violence against others. The Constitution obviously is nothing but another old piece of paper to you.

Congratulations. In another 30 or 40 years, we might be able to get all guns out of the hands of honest citizens nationwide.

Great work. Drive on.

TR

HOLLiS · 07-09-2007, 20:06

Looks are very deceiving, TR says it much better than I. To be a little flippant, there are guys who look much better than most women dressed as women. Bottom line they are are not women.

**Ambush Master** · 07-09-2007, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsod275

thanks
However, thought I would go ahead and correct you on at least one of your comments.

I note with interest that you claim to be a Ranger. Are you also 18 Qualified....if so please give us your Q dates via PM!!

Rangers do not have a clue as to what TR is referring, whereas 18Bs or, as in my case 11B/C4S, are trained in the True Basic Differences between arms that the civillian populus can not comprehend (nor Rangers!!).

Take a hint here bud......DROP IT!!!

Have a very SF Day!!!

tsod275 · 07-09-2007, 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

I note with interest that you claim to be a Ranger. Are you also 18 Qualified....if so please give us your Q dates via PM!!

Rangers do not have a clue as to what TR is referring, whereas 18Bs or, as in my case 11B/C4S, are trained in the True Basic Differences between arms that the civillian populus can not comprehend (nor Rangers!!).

Take a hint here bud......DROP IT!!!

Have a very SF Day!!!

Mmmmmm.....I don't know you and don't feel like justifying myself to you.

Well, I'll stay over in the SOCNET TR and APO....later. Don't worry...it isn't a loss.

**The Reaper** · 07-09-2007, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsod275

Mmmmmm.....I don't know you and don't feel like justifying myself to you.

Well, I'll stay over in the SOCNET TR and APO....later. Don't worry...it isn't a loss.

Now that is cowboying up and explaining your position like an adult after receiving some constructive criticism.

The real problem, in addition to putting out flawed info, is that you are potentially giving aid and comfort to the gun ban crowd.

As a former soldier and current gun owner, can you not see the long-term threat and downside to this?

Professing to be an expert while providing flawed, incorrect, and skewed information is not productive. I hope that you at least fix the technical errors in your presentation before using it again.

Well done, Ranger. I am sure that this will be discussed passionately further at another internet site.

TR

**Ambush Master** · 07-09-2007, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsod275

Mmmmmm.....I don't know you and don't feel like justifying myself to you.

Well, I'll stay over in the SOCNET TR and APO....later. Don't worry...it isn't a loss.

We used to be over there!! I am known there as MACVSOG CCC RTNY!!

I've done more Shit than you could ever DREAM of!!!

One thing that I can say with some authority......most can not hold their own in a debate with this group!!

As was told in the Command Level Briefing that was given to the attendees of the MACV SOG Presidental Unit Citation in April of 2001:
When all of the other SOF Options have failed and when we need things broken up and people killed, we send in the Rangers!!

That kinda sums it up!!

BTW, you failed to answer me as to your "Q" status.......did you attend?!?!?!

Again, have a very SF DAY!!!

Edited to add, NO you are not a loss to US!!!
Martin

**Team Sergeant** · 07-10-2007, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsod275

Mmmmmm.....I don't know you and don't feel like justifying myself to you.

Well, I'll stay over in the SOCNET TR and APO....later. Don't worry...it isn't a loss.

tsod275 was never a Special Forces soldier.

I'm guessing he just wanted to be cool by association or ride the coat-tails of SF soldiers.

tsod275, you will not be able to delete anything else, FYI.

Team Sergeant