/k/ - Weapons

Cue the picture of that dirtpoor midwest entry team with the hipoint carbine and PTR-91P pistol.

Retarded. Massive muzzle flash and kick, missing a lot of that 308 performance with that kinda barrel, its a damned high power rifle cartridge, not a sawed off carbine cartridge. Some high tier special forces might have them around for anti armor in certain emergency situations, but its a shit choice for everyday work.

Also, why a shit AR-10? Ultra short barrel guns are better off in delayed roller lock H&K because they work just as good at any barrel length without adjustments, if you are going to have a problem with a gas system its going to be in odd barrel choices, especially the shorter ones. If people want to argue FN FAL vs G3 in the regular rifle lengths, that's fine, but when it comes to the ultra short barrels the H&K wins every day, all the time.

Cashin in on that AR mania going round in the United States. No more, no less.

You will get the same performance out of a pistol carbine at that length for much less wasted powder and a larger caliber alongside nearly no muzzle flash. People rip on PCCs and then immediately drool over absurdly short rifle carbines as the hot new thing without a hint of irony.

>>589903

Buy a shotgun.

>>589905

Anyone have this pic? I'm curious.

>>589905

need that pic aswell tbh

>>589903

answr me these questions three

er the answer to your conundrum ye see

1. do you want to go deaf?

2. do you want your family to go deaf?

3. do you want to set your house on fire?

if yes then yes, you should use a 308 SBR for home defense

Just use a Saiga or a Vepr-12 with slugs faggot. No reason for buying overpriced literally who guns.

>>592495

>Just use a Saiga or a Vepr-12

Are these even legal here?

>>592500

You only need a simple hunting license. By some absolute miracle the commie government considers them the same as the average double-barreled hunting shotgun with a 3 round capacity.

You can even get 10 or even 20 round mags for them legally without any paperwork. And getting a hunting license is piss-easy compared to getting a handgun one.

The downsides are the price. You'll spend roughly 1500 or 1900 euros for either of them, and that's without ammunition or extra mags.

>>592501

So commies got ensnared to their own bureaucratic-technicalities trap and Saigas are legal because they are shotguns?

>>592504

Fugg, while typing I was simultaneously thinking of the law on the limit of how many shells you can have in a shotgun. If you get caught with more than 3 shells in your shotgun while hunting you will pay a jewish-tier fine and even go to jail if the court feels like it.

>>592503

Yes, they are smoothbore semi-auto shotguns therefore perfectly legal. But god forbig you stick a red dot on it because you'll be treated like a potential child-eating terrorist with a mass-destruction assault machine shotgun using high-tech war grade scoping equipment.

>>590319

> 4. do you want to blow the brains out of the kid next door?

I feel that over-penetration is an issue here as well

>>592617

The hair should have given it away.

>>592617

His last name is Syzlak so it would be kinda appropriate.

>>589949

>shot gun home defense meme

retards like Joe Biden regurgitate this shit

how is a shotgun more effective than an AR or an AK? It's not. You can still miss with a shotgun, it has far more recoil, meaning it's harder to get back on target, and you have less capacity. Yeah, it will be fun scooping up meat off the floor after you hit the nigger, but still.

>>589903

btw, that's a terrible idea

that gun is going to kick like all hell, and you're looking at a major over-penetration problem. A .308 can shoot through an entire house, so if you live in a city, using that gun is risking life imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter beyond the dead nigger in your house with gaping 30 cal leakage.

>>592640

Are shotguns even that good at STOPPIN' POWAH? I think I remember looking at kinetic energy figures for shotgun shells, and a 2-3/4" with 00 buck produces a bit less energy as 7.62 ball. Even a 3" magnum shell had less energy than most .30-06. When you consider that shotgun spread isn't going to be appreciable at home defense distances even with no choke, and the fact that shotgun shells won't penetrate body armor, I really don't see the point of using a shotgun for home defense. Rifles give almost as much energy, have far more magazine capacity, produce less recoil and allow quicker follow-up shots, penetrate soft body armor, and have about as much spread as a shotgun at close range (that is to say, none at all).

Regarding OP, I don't see the point of .308 over 5.56 for home defense. The entire point of .308 is better long range performance, but for home defense you're talking about short range. For me the best home defense gun would seem to be an AR-15 or some other salt rifle chambered in an intermediate caliber. After that, the best would be a battle rifle, followed by a shotgun, followed by a handgun, followed by a tactical assault spoon.

Am I correct in this assumption?

>>592725

>shotguns have enough weight and force in their loads to "whallop" a target

Stopped reading there.

>>592652

>kinetic energy is meaningless

hey look it's that Fuddy Five guy that I beat down with my .357 Sig in those other two threads.

>>592725

>I choose 308 for home defense because I live out in the country where punch through isn't a big consideration

I have first hand experience with a negligent discharge of a Mas 49-56 (slamfire) inside a home. The only thing that stopped the bullet from going through the whole house, from one end to the other, out the window and into my neighbor's property a few hundred yards away (in the country as well) was a solid wood kitchen room chair. Before that, it blew clean through all the shitty little sheet rock walls, a chair, a piano and another chair.

I don't care what you say or what kind of load you're using, .308 has so much kinetic energy that it is absolutely going to penetrate in close quarters, not just the nigger but whatever else is behind the nigger. It's actually ironic because you're talking like kinetic energy is meaningless but then you're like muh .308 power. Get your goddamn priorities straight in your head, bucko.

>>592652

salt rifle>shotgun>battle rifle> pistol

shotgun before battle rifle solely because of over penetration. You may end up blasting the nigger with 6 or 7 .308 rounds inside 10 feet because you're exciting, and they're all going to over penetrate the nigger and tumble their ass off, and who knows where the fuck they're going.

>>592744

>>592746

I never said kinetic energy was meaningless, apparently nobody actually reads what I write. Energy is not helpful unless it is used and turned into something, that's what I said, not energy is meaningless, how do you even read that out of what I wrote? How is mentioning that it is a factor in damage but isn't the sole factor by itself saying its not important? How is stating facts about how terminal ballistics works ever completely turned around by people?

Mr 357 Sig guy is either a very persistent troll (almost 100% certain of this) or your classic 800 pound computer autist, and Mr. Mas49 shooter, I totally understand the ability for battle rifles to punch through things. I also shoot lots of other things up on my property and know that 5.56mm that doesn't fragment will punch deep through things, I also know that many handgun rounds will punch through a lot. A soft point 308 that expands in a target will have less penetration through hard barriers behind it than a 9mm ball that misses the target completely, far less than a 5.56mm that misses and doesnt' fragment against anything and presents a severe hazard.

And apparently you have no idea how to read, so no wonder why you had a negligent discharge.

>>592734

Someone who has never killed things, I presume? Another keyboard warrior? Someone who only has second hand information? Just because people disspelled the movie myth that shotguns knock people back 12 feet through the air and through plate glass windows never dispelled anything about the blunt force trauma that shotguns deliver with their weight and momentum. The arguement isn't that shotgun blasts throw people through the air, its that "whump' is blunt force trauma that accompanies solid hits by shotgun blasts, anyone whose used them at close range on things knows this is very real, and the defending factor people have to defend the use of birdshot for close range defense.

If you use birdshot on enough game you will see conditions where animals are still very much alive, but very much incapacitated by sheer trauma of the blow. People who have been hit with 12 gauge shotgun blasts at close range wearing soft body armor will tell you all about the trauma of "whump" factor. In some cases people would have died without a trauma plate, and even those who don't get too seriously injured can attest to the effect.

I'm guessing you get all your facts from smarmy Youtube vidoes.

>>592759

>Someone who has never killed things, I presume? Another keyboard warrior? Someone who only has second hand information?

You are even worse than a keyboard warrior. You are – may Gun Granpa forgive me for using this word – a Fudd.

>the blunt force trauma that shotguns deliver with their weight

Nigger, a 3" slug weighs an ounce.

>"whump' is blunt force trauma that accompanies solid hits by shotgun blasts

The general medical term for "whump" is a temporary cavity. All bullets will produce a temporary cavity upon striking a target. The problem is that the velocity of the temporary cavity's shock wave is usually not fast enough for handgun and shotgun projectiles to cause damage to soft tissue, which is highly flexible. Salt rifle rounds will produce a much faster expanding temporary cavity, so they actually have the capacity to cause significant tissue damage due to the temporary cavity.

>and the defending factor people have to defend the use of birdshot for close range defense

I am now 90% sure you're trolling. Well played, anon.

>but very much incapacitated by sheer trauma of the blow

Any such effect would be caused by the transfer of kinetic energy from the bullet to the target, and so any projectile which transfers an equivalent amount of kinetic energy into the target will produce the same effect. A few grams of weight difference or a 0.1 inch wider projectile isn't going to make a difference.

>People who have been hit with 12 gauge shotgun blasts at close range wearing soft body armor will tell you all about the trauma of "whump" factor

Given that the backface deformation caused by shooting even a level II (much less of a level IIIA) vest is less than the NIJ limit, I'm doubtful on that. Maybe in freak cases that could happen, but if so it's due to random chance and no reason to make a decision on which firearm to use for self-defense over.

>I'm guessing you get all your facts from smarmy Youtube vidoes.

I will admit that in my search for information on the wounding potential of boolits, I have never before come across this strange Dark Force you speak of known as "whump."

>>592761

Fudd's are made fun of, but people forget they actually have useful knowledge because they practice killing things with guns and have real world, rather than purely read about, knowledge. Making fun of them is wanton ignorance and to ignore their real world experience is arrogant ignorance.

Shotguns are used to take hinges off doors. How do they accomplish this? Do they punch a hole through the hinge or do they blow the hinge off with blunt force?

Beanbag shotgun rounds are called 'less lethal' force because although they can wound wihtout killing, even these low power shotgun rounds can cause enough blunt force trauma to kill. And these are low power loads that aren't supposed to break the skin.

Birdshot loads have been known to kill a lot of things, from humans to other medium game, at close ranger distances, even though their performance in ballistics gel is poor. Even detractors of using birdshot for self defesne (me included) have to admit the rounds have been used effectively before despite their shallow wounding nature.

Energy isn't "transferred" in some straight 1:1 ft.lbs. to effect ratio. The effect of a larger projectile at the same energy is to create greater resistance and thus energy is being resisted faster and sooner, this greatly changes the dynamics of the blow. Energy is being resisted and absorbed at different rates and in different ways when we change the bullet shape, material, velocity, size, and especially weight. "Target took 100% of kinetic energy total" is a worthless statement, how did the energy crush, break, stretch tissue, how did it affect the target, did the projectile push the target, puncture the target, what parts of the target did it damage and how? Energy only, or velocity only thinking is trying to oversimplify terminal ballistics to the point of not understanding anything about it at all.

I know exactly what temporary stretch is. I also know what shotguns do on living tissues. Shotguns use their energy better to blunt force trauma effects through momentum (yes, even at one ounce, nigger) than fast, small projectiles. Fast projectiels tend to cause massive temporary stretch that does little good, heavier projectiles tend to penetrate tissue better, or create superior blunt trauma or sheer force.

Level IIIa armor has been shown to stop 12 bore foster slugs in tests, but they still aren't rated to stop them. Why? They can take doors off hinges, why?

>>592776

>blow the hinge off with blunt force

I'll give you a chance to explain yourself logically. What magic force do shotguns have that allows them to do this? It's can't be plain kinetic energy. It can't be weight, given that the slug only weighs an ounce. So what is it?

>even these low power shotgun rounds can cause enough blunt force trauma to kill

So do rubber bullets. I'm not sure what the logic is behind "less lethal rounds fired from this gun can kill, therefore this gun is superior to that gun."

>Birdshot loads have been known to kill a lot of things

So can airguns and .22 rifles, but you're a dumbass if you think either one is the superior choice for a self-defense gun. Just like you're a dumbass if you willingly use birdshot for self-defense.

>have to admit the rounds have been used effectively before

This is just a repetition of your bean bag round claim. "Has been used before" and "it can possibly be done" are not good arguments. Again, .22 rifles can kill people. Airguns can kill people. Hell, people can be tased and have a heart attack. Does that make a .22 rimfire rifle, an airgun, or a taser better than a rifle for self defense?

>Energy isn't "transferred" in some straight 1:1 ft.lbs. to effect ratio

Every foot pound of energy expended while the bullet is inside the target is transferred into the target in a straight 1:1 ratio. If the bullet actually stops inside the target, all of its energy is transferred to the target. This is how collisions work.

>The effect of a larger projectile at the same energy is to create greater resistance and thus energy is being resisted faster and sooner

This has to be the greatest example of Fudd Fysics I've ever seen. Again, if a projectile is stopped inside the target, whether the kinetic energy is derived more from the mass of the projectile or from its speed doesn't change the amount of energy that is transferred to the target. If anything, a projectile that travels deeper before stopping is better, since it expends its energy more on damaging organs and major blood vessels than on making a hole in someone's muscle tissue. The only real effect you'll see by varying the speed vs the mass of a projectile while maintaining constant energy is that the faster projectile may produce greater damage through the temporary wound cavity than the slower one.

>how did the energy crush, break, stretch tissue

If it's a rifle round, it'll do it better than a shotgun slug, given that the rifle round is moving faster and therefore produces a more damaging temporary wound cavity.

>Energy only, or velocity only thinking is trying to oversimplify terminal ballistics to the point of not understanding anything about it at all

Then what's the magic force? Again, apparently it's not energy. It's not velocity. It's not mass. What magic of Fuddlore are you going to come up with to suggest that one lump of lead with kinetic energy equal to another lump of lead, but where the first lump is slightly heavier and much slower, will result in the first lump of lead gaining magic powers that make it able to magically wound a target?

>Shotguns use their energy better

THROUGH. WHAT. MECHANISM?

You can't just pull shit out of your ass and expect people to take you seriously

Again, a shotgun will produce less temporary wound cavity damage than a rifle round, as it is traveling more slowly and therefore produces a less effective temporary cavity, due to human tissue being flexible.

>Fast projectiels tend to cause massive temporary stretch that does little good

More Fudd Fysics

>Level IIIa armor has been shown to stop 12 bore foster slugs in tests, but they still aren't rated to stop them

Because the NIJ testing criteria was produced with the intent of testing vests against the kind of threats police officers face in their day-to-day service, which is mostly handguns.

Or are you going to claim that, minus any actual evidence, the fact that shotgun rounds weren't included in the Magic NIJ Documents proves something about the effects of shotgun slugs on human targets, despite the fact that actual testing shows that shotguns have no superior (and in some ways inferior) performance on vests compared to handguns?

>They can take doors off hinges, why?

Well I suppose if you're ever attacked by a gang of door hinges, you'll have the right tool for the job.

>>592791

Hit a 4X4 pine support beam with a 20oz hammer with the same exact energy as a 20 pound hammer going much slower. The lighter, faster swinging hammer will bruise and cut the held in post while the big boi sledgehammer will break the post or knock it out. In both cases the post took 100% of the kinetic energy of a dead swing, but where not the effects completely different?

Let's take a big chunk of wood and have it sitting free on the ground, then do the same experiment and see what it does to the block. The damage to the block will be different, the distance the block will fly after being struck will be different. 100% of energy absorbed, but is it the same? With all the dynamics of speed, shape, face size considered?

Hit something with a 3,000 pound sports car then hit it with a 30,000 pound heavy truck at the same energy, although lower speed, would you not have completely different results, no matter if the target took 100% of the kinetic energy involved or not?

The idea that "energy transfer" is important is ridiculous, it explains absolutely nothing. Shoot a big old dictionary, those giant ones at the library, with a high powered handgun. If you let the book stand without anything to keep it from tumbling, the book will move with the momentum of the bullet, catch the bullet and keep it from piercing through, will absorb 100% of the energy of the bullet, and suffer less damage than if you had the book stand static with backing so it could not move with the bullet, in which case it would maximize damage to the book by punching all the way through. In this case, 100% energy absorption is less effective than <100% energy transfer. Energy transfer as an absolute value is worthless.

There are no "temporary wound cavities" just temporary cavities, so the fact you bring this up shows you either no zero or you are a great troll. Temporary stretch does not matter, that's why light fast bullets that can't create PERMANENT stretch are poor performers, their velocity turns into temporary stretch that does NOTHING instead of increasing penetration which will damage things. If you have done any real research, bullet design to bullet design, the 45 ACP will always cause more total damage than a 9mm at the same energy, because the smaller bullet and lighter weight turns into worthless temporary stretch cavitation while the 45 will actually use its force to do something actually useful, crushing tissue.

The frontal surface area of the .308 is 0.0745 inches square. The frontal surface area of the 12 bore shotgun is 0.4162 inches square, or 5.58 times the area of the 7.62mm NATO bullet. Yes, the difference is huge, massive, gigantic, of massive, massive difference. The 12 bore foster slug at one ounce is 2.9 times the weight of a 150 grain .308 bullet. They are on completely different levels of performance, even when they are at nearly the same exact energy, even when the target has 100% energy transference.

The far, far, far, far, far larger surface area, its instant transfer of energy, the weight of momentum, all change its dynamics. The 308 will do well by causing permanent stretch cavity, the shotgun will kill primarily through its massive direct crush cavity. The rifle will achieve shock through hydrostatic shock permanent stretch, the shotgun gains the advantage of trauma created by its own dynamics, one can whallop the target in a way the other can't because they are both "transferring their energy" in ways that are completely different.

And the point of the door hinges is to illustrate all this. The shotgun has enough "whump" to smash a door hinge off, something a rifle can't do. Do you think something that can rip a door hinge off can't have that same whallop factor against a living thing?

Again, I can tell you are either a troll or an idiot to think temporary stretch is of value, so I'm writing this for the sake of serious readers, not because your increasingly weak arguments.

>home defense

>.308

You want to shoot through maybe 1 drywall in an American house, you don't want to shoot through the neighbors house.

>>593703

I already explained nigger, don't bully me! >>592507

>>593725

what the fuck are you queers arguing about?

>>593725

You're having a metldown fatty, grab another hot pocket and get momma to bring you some grape soda so you can get your blood sugar back to normal. We don't want you putting yourself in hospital.

I acknowledged hydrostatic shock (permanent stretch) so I don't know how you came up with your massive block of nonsense that you did. If YOU did your research you will find that yes, the permanent stretch I talked about is important, but that the temporary stretch rarely to never is. By the time the tissue stops stretching to the point of breaking its not being damaged, therefore temporary cavitation is not a factor till you get to high powered weapons, but even then experts say that the temporary cavity breaking things is a rarity even then, so in ballistics gel the temporary cavity is basically ignored. If it stretches the ballistics gel to failure, then that permanent stretch is very important. If it doesn't, the temporary cavity is generally ignored, its simply not a factor. This shows you have not done any research, you are almost 100% a troll.

I never said 45 was better. I simply stated a fact, given any similar bullet design, the 45 ACP will always damage more total tissue, which is a fact. By the time you calculate the total tissue destroyed in a gel block, the 45 ACP will always cause more total damage, if the bullets penetrate to the same depth the 45 always does more damage. As for "45 doesn't expand as well as 9mm" that's pure bullshit, velocity was a more important factor in early jacketed hollow point designs, but today's improved bullets expand well in 45 even in the heavy slow bullets. 45's weight and size indeed give it what I said it did, not blanket superiority, but rather far, far, far greater wounding potential because its heavier, larger bullet uses its kinetic energy better. Which it does. Also keep in mind 45 doens't have to expand as much to get the same expanded diameter, and will push the same size expanded bullet deeper. It objectively has far greater potential than the 9mm, that's fact.

Then you go on a whacko rant that makes absolutely no sense, like a good autist, or a great troll. The rifle patterns in your first picture describe the effects of hydrostatic shock in 308 expanding bullets, the right the general effect of the 12 bore foster slug. You proved my point for me. Everything I said was vindicated with your two pictures. The light for weight 308 bullets and more frangible bullets showed that lightly constructed and light bullets cause LESS damage than heavier and more heavily constructed bullets, the instant fragmentation wastes more energy than controlled expansion with better, often heavier bullets. Over construction of a bullet leads to the last, third rifle wound pattern. Light and fast and frangible are inferior to heavier weight and sturdier construction, if we don't take the principle too far.

As for the shotgun, it shows my entire point. The same energy in a low velocity, massive size soft lead projectile ends up leaving no visible hydrostatic shock and a completely different wound pattern. Thus, my point is correct, energy is not an apples to apples comparison, its important, perhaps the most important factor, but without the other factors considered we have nothing. We get to see a very effective round in action, the already massive .729 projectile expands to a typical 1.25 inches crushing a massive, massive wound cavity. Instead of its resistance turning into hydrostatic shock, it crushes massive, massive direct crush cavities in front of it, causing terrible gaping wounds throughout its entire penetration. Herein lies the "whump" factor.

When the 308 expands and causes temproary cavitation and its permanent stretch cavity its resistance is to the IMMEDIATE tissue surrounding it, its resistance, force, energy, is being delivered immediately to surrounding tissues to cause temporary and permanent stretch. The resistance is FAST, and it is being directed to the ENTIRE SURROUNDING AREA of the violent impact, most energy is lost in this violent exchange, the remaining energy pushing the core of the bullet to its final resting spot. Most of the force is being dissipated to the surrounding tissues, not only in forward motion, but in a violent reaction and resistance from the entire surrounding area, force is being used to crush tissue in a complete 360 degree manner, the force is being directed upwards, downwards, sideways, to create an oblong "ball' core of hydrostatic shock. Not only is the rile bullet of lighter weight, its bullet directs energy quickly to surrounding tissues and not in a more singular direction and force.

>>593725

The shotgun slug, on the other hand, creates some disruption and some temporary stretch, but what is it doing in general? The slug, or even close shotgun pattern, creates massive frontal resistance, a long slow drag that crushes a lot of tissue directly, but also puts its momentum and force in one direction generally. Notice how the slug expands then creates a near uniform permanent crush cavity, unlike the faster lighter bullet which dissipates its high velocity energy quickly, the slug reserves its energy and "keeps trucking" consistently. While the hydrostatic shock bullet directs its force in a violent, quick burst to surrounding tissue, spreading its energy and force over a massive area of immediate tissue, the heavier slow slug or close shot group wastes little precious energy disrupting tissue around it and keeps pushing its momentum and crush forward.

This translates to consistent forward direction of force, effective use of the energy. It also means that the shotgun makes good use of its superior momentum, actually imparting it to some effect where the rifle does not. This leads to rifles not having any "puch" effect because the damage is more shallow and limited, the shotgun being able to "punch" "push" "whallop" because of the dynamics of the slow, heavy, high forward resistance it creates.

I do ballistics gel tests my self, am educated on them and their effects, highly respect them. But they can't tell every single aspect of performance.

If you can't go shoot real animals to see what guns do in real life, even try shooting a 60+ plus bucket of sheetrock mud, once with a high power rifle, again with a shotgun. See the massive difference in performance. Shoot some sturdier real life objects, watch what the effects are. Again, if shotgun "whallop" doesnt' exist, it wouldn't be used to take off door hinges. There is something to weight, resistance, and "whallop" you aren't seeing.

>>593769

look it's the Fuddy Five retard again

>>589903

No 308 is for home defense, unless you're actively shooting out of a window at insurgents from afar and/or they have thick foliage; that's a battle rifle cartridge son.

>>593769

>IDS A BIG BOOLIT DATS WHY

good ol' Fuddy Five logic

not saying big bullets aren't good, but if you're traveling below 800 fps, you have a problem, friendo.

Always carry +P with .45

>>593769

you autistic moron

no one is doubting that a .308 is going to blow a nigger to pieces, we're just saying that if you live in any proximity to other houses, there's a very good chance you're going to accidentally fuck someone else's shit up.