 Fashionably Bullet Proof |
  |
 Aug 20 2006, 06:48 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 984 Joined: 15-June 06 Member No.: 8,717  |
Oh please. If you really need this crap then go all out. Buy an actual armor vest. Or more.
|
 |
 
|
|
Aug 20 2006, 11:50 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 944 Joined: 19-February 03 Member No.: 4,128 |
If I need IIIa protection to get to my white-collar job, I need a different job.
If I remember correctly, IIIa is the "subgun and magnum" class of armor. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 20 2006, 02:32 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
NIJ level II absolutely does stop .45 ACP FMJs. Hell, II-A does that admirably well -- the 0101.03 version of the Selection and Application Guide to Police Body Armor says "[Level II-A armor] also provides protection against such threats as .45 Auto., .38 Special +P, and some other factory loads in caliber .357 Magnum and 9mm, as well as the Type I threats." They just stopped mentioning .45 ACP in 0101.04 (the latest) and the related SAG. You can get the full 0101.04 (Revision A) here (largeish PDF). Again, those vests mentioned in the article are most likely III-A, which is by far the most selling level of flexible body armor today, which means it will stop anything up to and including .355" 124gr FMJs at 1400fps (long barrel 9x19mm or .357 Magnum equivalent) and .429" 240gr JHPs at 1400fps (a hefty .44 Magnum load) with little backface deformation, ie. minimal blunt trauma. It will stop loads significantly hotter than that, but those generally cause more than a 1.73" deformation in the backing clay. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 20 2006, 03:03 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 451 Joined: 8-May 06 Member No.: 8,533 |
Austere, thus the problem: When I did the research, it didn't mention anything about any level being able to stop a .45, but it was easy to see that level III-A does.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2006, 05:36 AM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
ZOMG 500 magnum revolver KE KE KE KE oh those jokers at smith and wesson... In the same search I got some random related fear mongering: http://www.vpc.org/press/0406vest.htm Here is your moment of Zen, from the above link:
Yeah, it's gotta be super concealable because now it has a holster. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 08:59 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 313 Joined: 5-March 04 From: UK Member No.: 6,125 |
Well +2 conceal if you choose the concealable ones... To be fair, I am just a Brit, so I am not going to get started on US gun laws. As to this gun, it does look a bit like overkill. I mean, what do you want to shoot with it? Like the review said, it is going to appeal to people just because it is new and bigger but people will have to think up a good reason for it later. In-game, I suppose this is another one of those examples of hand-guns designed for taking down a troll. I mean, it just screams anti-troll... A handgun with a rifle's damage-code. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 21 2006, 09:33 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
I'm not sure I see the big deal about that .500 S&W. It may be big, but it is still a slow bullet. It shouldn't even come near the performance of a rifle bullet. Sure it may carry lots of kinetic energy, but AFAIK kinetic energy is a very poor measure of stopping power.
It also only holds 6 bullets, is hard to conceal, and probably has massive recoil. You could easily make a case that glock 19 9mm semiautomatics are a much larger threat than a .500 revolver. They're easier to conceal, hold 18 bullets so they can shoot more times and potentially kill many more people, and with lower recoil allowing for faster and more precise follow-up shots. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2006, 09:53 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Big, tough, dangerous game. Lions, buffalos, hippos, elephants, rhinos. And paper targets, obviously.
Well that's just it. Kinetic energy doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how well something kills you. The .500 S&W, on the face of it, is much better designed for killing people than many rifle rounds: it's massive, by both size and weight, and thus capable of causing extremely wide wounds as deep as you could ever hope for. It just so happens you can easily get 2500ft-lbs of KE at the muzzle out of a .500 S&W (440 grainer at 1600fps), and that's in .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO territory -- and we all know how insanely nasty those can be against people. Of course, much depends on exactly what you meant by performance, here. It certainly hasn't got the armor penetration potential, the range or the accuracy.
Absolutely. Hence the stupidity of people going on about Barrett M82s, Desert Eagles, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 10:10 AM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 313 Joined: 5-March 04 From: UK Member No.: 6,125 |
Hunting a rhino or a hippo with a handgun? That is going to take some real balls... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 10:13 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
I meant that I don't think it'll penetrate armor anything like a rifle. The only thing it has going for it seems to be large kinetic energy, and the question is will this cause enough blunt trauma to pose a serious risk? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 10:17 AM
Post
#36
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
You don't have to be hunting to shoot those. It could be self defense. Hippos are by far the largest man-killer in africa (if you don't count disease-bearing bugs ofc) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 10:35 AM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
AFAIK, the Big Five have all been bagged with the .500 S&W, most of them several times I imagine. Handgun big game hunting isn't a huge sport, but some people do take it rather seriously. In any case, the only thing that makes the .500 S&W less than optimal for hunting these is the fact that it's a revolver and not a rifle. The cartridge itself is as good for big game as anything.
Yep, it won't. With 440gr @ 1600fps I imagine it would be able to bash through most level III-A, but with blunt trauma alone it would certainly be a far poorer weapon for engaging armored opponents than, say, the Taurus 30C (.308" 110gr FMJ at 1800fps = ouch). [Edit]The Raging Hornet and Bee might be better examples, with .22"-ish 45/46-grainers in the 2500fps-range. I seriously doubt III-A will have what it takes to stop that.[/Edit] This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Aug 21 2006, 10:46 AM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 12:27 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,011 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
You are familiar with the equation for kinetic energy, right? How big it is is nearly irrelevant. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 21 2006, 01:16 PM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
Yes, I'm aware of the equation. This bullet apparently carries more kinetic energy than a 7.62mm NATO rifle round, which is why I wrote it. Btw, are you aware that bullet mass is proportional to the square of the caliber? This makes diameter just as "relevant" as velocity regarding kinetic energy. If we assume that bullet length also increases with caliber, caliber even becomes more important than velocity for increasing kinetic energy. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 01:42 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 27-January 06 Member No.: 8,205 |
Does that fashionable armor come in shoking pink???
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 21 2006, 02:32 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Yeah, about 45-50 ft-lbs more at the muzzle than the US standard M80 Ball 7.62x51mm round. :) To be fair, that's comparing the hottest commercially available .500 S&W load to one of the weaker 7.62x51mm loads -- generally speaking, the former is a tad behind the latter in KE. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 21 2006, 02:49 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Yes. Assuming that the bullet is a perfect cylinder (which is never true but we can assume) the mass of the bullet would be equal to length*pi(radius)^2*average density. Since calibur is a measure of diameter, increasing the caliber would increase the mass, assuming that nothing else is altered. However, it is not true that nothing else is altered. It is unlikely that there will be a demand for armor piercing .500 slugs, meaning no tungsten or depleted uranium rounds in that caliber. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 02:53 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Rather. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 21 2006, 02:54 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,011 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Yep! But when you increase the mass without changing the propellant, you decrease the velocity for a net reduction in kinetic energy. If you add propellant, you generally could have gotten more kinetic energy by just doing that in the first place without adding mass. There are reasons for adding mass, but kinetic energy gains are very rarely among them. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 21 2006, 03:26 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
Look mate, you replied this to me:
As pointed out, that bullet carries more KE than some 7.62mm NATO loads. So you got some facts about the weapon at hand wrong and implied I didn't know basic physics. Why you're retorting with all this about "there's no reason to add massa" I don't know. No one said that. No one thinks KE is that important. It's more like derived property of other factors that are important for wound ballistics and penetration. It's like evaluating sprinters and then talking about how hard they punch. Sure some of the stuff that makes them run fast also makes them able to punch hard, but really who cares. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 10:17 PM
Post
#46
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Exactly. Not only is big game hunting with large revolvers a hobby but sometimes people who go camping in areas that have dangerous animals, such as bears, might carry a large caliber revolver with them in case they need to defend themselves from the wildlife. Should you need to shoot a bear or a boar you're going to want a very damaging round because if you don't stop that animal quickly it would be really awful. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 21 2006, 11:33 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I was watching a news program recently (something on ABC or NBC) which featured a guy who was really into bear conservation. He'd go up to this national park in Alaska to spend time with the bears and he'd video tape the whole thing. He never brought any weapons with him, not even peper spray. He and his girlfriend just happened to be eaten by a bear one day. They left their camera on during the incident but the lens cap was on. So, there was audio of them being eaten but no video. While he was still alive he was screaming for his girlfriend to hit the bear with a frying pan. She did, but it obviously didn't work.
Really, if you have a reason to atack a bear .500 S&W is going to seem like a pea shooter. Quite frankly, a M3 MAAWS would seem a bit underpowered in that situation. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 22 2006, 07:02 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 31-July 06 From: Denmark Member No.: 8,995 |
Ehm, that's what laymen would call a rocket launcher (that's what we used it for in the army, to launch 84mm rockets, though you can get other rounds for it AFAIK). http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl10-e.htm. Having carried that thing, and the ammo for it, on several occasions, I would consider it too unwieldy for your average hiking trip. Reloading is also a bit cumbersome. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 22 2006, 07:11 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
There's no need for something as specialized, expensive, expensive to shoot, cumbersome, and unwieldy as a .50 handgun. I figure my 9mm Glock 19 will work just fine for a bear-defense carry piece, if we ever end up hiking in areas where that sort of attack is common...
...not because I think it'll stop a bear, make no mistake. I plan on shooting my wife in the knee with it, and running. Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 23 2006, 02:15 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Maybe you two shouldn't come up here after all... ;)
And Timothy Treadwell (the guy hyzmarca mentioned) was a full-on nutcase (witness Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man). Don't hug the grizzly bears. They are not your friends. But if you do end up around one that's pissed off, a 440 grain hard cast lead bullet upside the head is likely to change its mind about whatever it was planning on doing. Anything short of that is kind of sketchy. A few years ago, a hunter up near Dupuyer (about 90ish miles from here) ran across a grizzly sow with three cubs. She charged, so he smacked her right in the noggin with a .270 Winchester at about 10-15 yards. She took a little nap and acted pretty strange for a while after that (according to the FWP biologists), but she and the cubs lived through it. With some help from the Montana FWP, that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd June 2025 - 09:09 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.