Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/11/2003 5:11:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 3:11:09 PM EST by DevL]
What do you say to someone like this....


"Realy! thats not what special warfare special weapons had to say,The only reason why the twist was changed to 1/12 is because the 14 twist didnt satisfiy the armys acuracy requirements in cold weather and after action reports on performance state how vietcong hit with the older 16 were being disembowled with torso hits and holes the size of grapefruits being made in people.The slower twist didnt stabilize the bullet enough in flight so when it hit something results were catastrophic. Thats why the 1/7 twist rate causes rounds to zip throgh people plus the fact that ss109has a steel core making it somewhat armor piercing.I dont care what ammo oracle says,The after action reports speak for themselves plus the fact that the 1/14 twist made worse wounds than the 1/12,twist rate does effect velocity wich in turn effects the fragmentation of the bullet and I have heard first hand stories from veterans who used the earlier rifle and I wouldnt say those guys are lying.Advisers,Seals and special forces were among the first to get the 1/14 twist M16 so for me first hand knowledge from guys who used it wins out over ammo oracle along with the many articles describing what horific wounds the M16 caused when it first came into service. Wich by the way got the attention of the red cross wich called the round and rifle that fired it "inhumane" because of the damage done.So how come when the twist went to 1/12 it did less damage than the 1/14?I would say real stable bullets do less damage than unstable ones.I know I wouldnt want to get hit by a round wobbling in mid flight as oposed to one flying straighter,But then again I realy would not want to get shot at all and least of all by a round that keyholed before it hit."

Now I have been called a dick or told I have a sucky attitude more than once but, I did point this guy to the ammo oracle and simply corrected him when I started out...
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 5:52:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 5:56:50 PM EST by neilfj]
But Devl, he has "first hand experience with the rifle at the range and otherwise." So what more is there to say? Until you have first hand experience with the rifle at the range and otherwise, and have read the proper books you should reserve your opinions.. [:)] Edited to add: PS..your attitude sucks. Perhaps he can give you advice on resolving that problem too! [:)]
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 5:54:48 PM EST
I dunno. [wave] maybe?
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 7:25:59 PM EST
Now he is dogging ballistic gelatin testing, Dr Fackler, the IWBA and is insinuating he was in Vietnam because he "...saw the difference in 1/14 and 1/12 wound ballistics first hand" [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 10:46:37 PM EST
What do you say to someone like this....
View Quote
No more than you have to! At least that's the opinion of this ol' simple man. I have known you here on this board now for sometime and you always give good information and know what you are talking about. You gave this dude good information, yet he either doesn't understand it or know what to do with it. I use to argue with folks and try to make em see things differently, but why bother? Someone like this obviously doesn't have a clue and never will, so why waste your time trying to help them? I usually give info once and then I'm done with it. If someone doesn't want to believe, then fine. It's no skin off my hiney. Let em go through life talking about their experience with special forces, swat teams, the A-team, whatever! [:D] Just keep posting in here and on tacticalforums where the members have no pre-conceived notions that can't be changed and who seek accurate, scientific info. These folks can make fun of gel, Fackler, etc all they want. But based upon their methods and Fackler's methods, I think I will keep sticking with science for the immediate future. -CH
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 7:54:46 AM EST
devl, you may want to read what I posted on the thread you started. It's for you.
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 12:12:29 PM EST
this is a quote, directed at DevL
You must wander around here just looking for threads to criticize,GET A LIFE,
View Quote
Hey, if the shoe fits...
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 3:41:02 PM EST
If you bothered to read my posts you would not make that comment. I never criticise anyone who is correct and all I did was point out his incorrect contention and direct him to the appropriate information. Should I just "kiss his ass" instead like some other members say they would do? [rolleyes] When someone is incorrect I point it out. If someone asks for help I give it. What I dont do is post meaningless crap like the post above this one. Just becasue I am at home sick does not mean I dont "have a life" as you would like to imagine. I dont even see the need to post some crap like that? What does it do but waste bandwidth? If you found a fallacy in my post please point it out. Now look what you have gone and done... you made me waste bandwidth by replying to a freaking useless post.
Link Posted: 10/12/2003 8:11:21 PM EST
For those lashing out at Dev for being "critical", what do you call your responses to him? I see nothing mentioned that contributes to the discussion. Rather, I see a lame two sentence reply that seems to be nothing more than someone sticking in their useless 2 cents. Unless you have something to contribute I think you should heed your own advice and "get a life". Folks, there are subjects where BS can be tolerated and then there are topics where it cannot. Discussions about sports, politics, etc can be full of BS and it really doesn't matter all that much. But discussions about firearms and ammunition are different. The info given in such discussions may literally mean the difference between life and death for the people who receive that info. Therefore when someone posts something that's obviously nuts, the knowledgeable people of this board are going to step up and correct it. If that means being critical, then so be it. I would much rather be critical of someone's post than to allow it to stand and misinform hundreds or thousands of other readers who may not know any better. There is no room for BS info in weapon and ammo related discussions. I hope people pay attention to certain individuals who post here. Folks like Troy, Brouhaha, Tatjana, DevL, Forest, AR15fan, ARMDLBRL and to some degree myself (although I consider myself less knowledgeable than the above mentioned people) have been here a long time and they know what they are doing. These people are a great service to the board and if they give you ammo advice, it's based on something solid that you can rely on. Now there will be times when it appears they are being critical of someone. But it is not done in an effort to discredit or humiliate someone else. It's done in an effort to protect other members of this board (both you and I) from being subjected to and unknowingly accepting BS info as fact. If these discussions lead to a better understanding of the topic, that's even better. But again, would it be responsible to allow information you know to be totally false to stand when it can easily be corrected by simply posting the facts? I think not. I think a couple of you guys should rethink your position. Afterall, someone stepping up and being critical of bad info may someday save you money, your time, or maybe even your life. -CH
Top Top