It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DeusEx
world.guns.ru...
I'd go with 357 Mag, but in an autoloader, prolly 10mm or .40. Most police forces use .40 , and it's pretty quaint. Hardly what you'd call a massive round. .357 Sig is a freakishly overpowered 9mm, and 10mm is a beast. If I could find a gun that coudl adequately handle the 10mm, I'd take it. It's rough on even the 1911 frame, which says something.
DE
Originally posted by DeusEx
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You wont be complaing about the stopping power of the 5.7 x 28 as your 9mms and .45s are being stopped dead by your targets body armour. Those are about as effective as throwing rocks when a enemy is armoured. Actually a rock might be more effective.
Go, rock, GOOOOO!
Query: since when are insurgents wearing body armor? Just wondering, because I'm guessing that 90% of criminals and poor-ass insurgents don't have body armor. Also, while a man in body armor can shrug off (sort of) a hit from a 9mm, the amount of power in the 10mm or .357 will largely reduce the wearer of soft body armor's insides to dog food.
Originally posted by DeusExAlso, while a man in body armor can shrug off (sort of) a hit from a 9mm, the amount of power in the 10mm or .357 will largely reduce the wearer of soft body armor's insides to dog food. The blunt trauma works too, you know.
Originally posted by DeusEx
Take my word on it- .357 Mag wheelgun (686, or maybe a Taurus lightweight) with Winchester Silvertip 128 gr. is probably your best bet for a one-shot stop. It's damn accurate, impossibly reliable, and the round is meaty enough to do serious damage without being a total beast to fire.
DE
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
The specific clause that we are subject to is that we will not use ammunition specifically designed to cause excessive injury which is generally accepted to include expanding ammunition in time of war.
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
"...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."
The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. ... Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 treaty was realised to be too narrow a definition, since it is possible to inflict nasty wounds by mechanisms other than expansion, the addition of poison or explosive material in the tip for example, hence the revised treaty of 1907 which expanded the scope by referring to quote "ammunition designed to cause unnecessary suffering".
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 which the US never ratified and which you described it as ''Narrow'' is infact very specific
That 1899 clause is very clear that you cant use that type of bullet no matter if calculated to cause suffering or increase accuracy. It would make no difference what it was designed to do it would be banned.
The Hague convention agreement we signed on 1907
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
The Hague convention agreement we signed on 1907
It took a while but we got there.
[edit on 26-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
You actually said that the USA never ratified the Hague Convention at all, no mention of which Convention, which suggested that you didn't know there was more than one. Here was where we started:
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.
No just because I hear people all the time say Hollow points are illegal in war because of the ''Geneva convention''. First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it