Conference back40::soapbox

>>George, there are no "cop-killer bullets" not one single cop has ever been 
>>shot with an armour piercing round. NOT ONE, NOT EVER!

	so are you saying there's no such thing as a cop-killer bullet
	because no cops have been killed by them, or because there actually
	is no bullet that can pierce a bullet-proof vest - that's just
	a myth?  sorry - i'm not up on my ammo - just asking for a 
	clarification.

    
    
    	>	so are you saying there's no such thing as a cop-killer bullet
>	because no cops have been killed by them, or because there actually
>	is no bullet that can pierce a bullet-proof vest - that's just
>	a myth?  sorry - i'm not up on my ammo - just asking for a 
>	clarification.
    
    	There are armor piercing rounds, but they are strictly regulated
    (i.e.-not for civilian purchase) and no police officer has ever been
    killed with an armor piercing bullet. Also, 99.9% of the handguns out
    there cannot generate the energy to drive a bullet through a Kevlar
    vest, even a solid steel or tungsten carbide bullet. The only pistol
    ammo I know of that can penetrate kevlar is the "cyclone" 9mm ammo used
    by the BATF, FBI, etc. It screams out of the barrel at 1800+fps (a good
    400fps faster than the fastest 9mm +P+ rounds) and is restricted to
    govt/police sales only. They used it at WACO. %*}
    
    	Any good rifle with off the shelf ammo will penetrate a cops vest.
    
    
    jim

	Thanks, Jim - I love it when you talk like that. ;>

	One question (neophyte alert) -
    
>>    	There are armor piercing rounds, but they are strictly regulated
	
	Are these rounds which aren't for civilian purchase controlled
	more effectively than firearms themselves?  I mean, we're always
	hearing about how gun control is useless because criminals will
	get them if they want them anyways.  Is it different for these
	armor-piercing bullets?  

    
    
>	Are these rounds which aren't for civilian purchase controlled
>	more effectively than firearms themselves?  I mean, we're always
>	hearing about how gun control is useless because criminals will
>	get them if they want them anyways.  Is it different for these
>	armor-piercing bullets?  

    	well, let's just say you could buy a box of 100 KTW's (steel cored,
    teflon coated to reduce barrel friction) for about $1000 if you know
    the right folks. These bullets were unregulated for years so there is
    still a supply floating around. 
    
    jim
    

    
    
    	p.s. - take note. armor piercing ammo was "unregulated" for years
    and still no cops were ever shot with an armor piercing round.

    .387 - re: regulated ammunition...
    
    If an individual has regulated ammo, it was probably obtained
    illegally.  The fact is, that it probably IS easier to control the
    bullet than the gun.  Anyone can make a gun with simple machine shop
    tools.  However, making a (safe) 1800pfs screaming 9mm handgun round is
    probably a bit beyond your typical reloader.
    
    re: armor-piercing.  Like the man said, any ol' rifle will do in a
    kevlar vest.  I know that I buy protection ammunition based on stopping
    power primarily (it's a bit more complex than that).  As a rule, armor
    piercing has little stopping power (it goes _through_ things by
    definition).  All of the ammunition I carry by choice would be stopped
    by a vest.  I'm not interested in drilling a 1/4" hole in somebody just
    before they kill me.  Therefore, armor piercing rounds do not interest
    me, or most any handgun owner (or rifle owner for that matter).
    
    A criminal who *wanted* to kill a cop does not need armor piercing
    rounds, either.  Any criminal who would buy such a round either has a
    specific goal in mind (and would ignore regulations) or doesn't know
    much about ammunition.
    
    The whole "cop killer" thing is a media hoax, plain and simple.  There
    is no basis in fact or physics behind such a claim.
    
    re: legitimate uses of armor piercing rounds...  shooting through
    walls, doors, car windshields, helmets.   Basically military
    application.  They are NOT defensive rounds.

    
    
    	I seem to remember a case where a couple of terrorists had holed up
    inside a box car lined with steel plating. Some troops opened up on it
    with M16's (loaded with std ammo) and made alot of noise but couldn't
    penetrate it. Then the local specialists came in and opened up with
    .308 KTW's (armor piercing). Swiss cheese city.....
    
    
    

    <<< Note 44.385 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


>	so are you saying there's no such thing as a cop-killer bullet
>	because no cops have been killed by them,

	Depends on sematics. Last year, aproximately 350 police officers
	were killed in the line of duty. About half of them were shot.
	So, in a pure sense, there ARE "cop killer" bullets.

	There are also armor-piercing rounds, but none of these has ever
	been used to kill a cop.

> or because there actually
>	is no bullet that can pierce a bullet-proof vest

	Virtually all rifle hunting calibers will penetrate a standard
	Level IIa vest (standard issue "soft" body armor). It requires
	a Level IV vest (bulky, heavy with ceramic inserts) to stop 
	most rifle rounds.

> - that's just
>	a myth? 

	The cop-killer bullet made (in)famous by the Brady Bunch IS
	a myth.

Jim

    <<< Note 44.387 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	Are these rounds which aren't for civilian purchase controlled
>	more effectively than firearms themselves? 

	Manufacturers and Distributors will only seel this ammo to
	Law enforcement and the Military. Orders will only be accepted
	on official letterhead or via department purchase orders.

> I mean, we're always
>	hearing about how gun control is useless because criminals will
>	get them if they want them anyways.  Is it different for these
>	armor-piercing bullets?  

	No system is 100% foolproof.

Jim

What's the NRA's position on regulation of ammunition?

prone.

   <<< Note 44.394 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>What's the NRA's position on regulation of ammunition?

	The NRA helped to write the current laws that formalized the already
	standard industry practice of only selling AP ammo to law enforcement
	and the military.

	They did this in order to preempt a move by Brady and Schumer to
	ban nearly all rifle ammunition.

Jim

	I know this looks as though I'm belaboring the point, but 
	that's only because I am...

>>	The cop-killer bullet made (in)famous by the Brady Bunch IS
>>	a myth.

	Is this a specific bullet?  Or does it refer to a class of 
	armor-piercing projectiles?  If it's a specific bullet, then
	let me get this straight - the bullet is a myth?  Or the name
	"cop-killer" is a misnomer?  Is it just the name that doesn't
	sit well with the NRA (and others)?

    
    
>	Is this a specific bullet?  Or does it refer to a class of 
>	armor-piercing projectile?
    
    	It refers to a class of projectile. Specifically, a solid steel
    bullet coated with teflon (no, the teflon doesn't help it penetrate any
    better! It's to reduce barrel wear. Steel is much harder than lead.)
    usually.
    
>If it's a specific bullet, then
>	let me get this straight - the bullet is a myth?  Or the name
>	"cop-killer" is a misnomer?  Is it just the name that doesn't
>	sit well with the NRA (and others)?
    
    	Cop-killer is a misnomer. No cop has ever been killed with armor
    piercing ammuntion. It's not that the name didn't sit well with the
    NRA, it's the fact that that HCI tried to weasel in and ban ALL rifle
    ammunition instead of just AP rounds.
    
    	Only the cops and the military have access to AP rounds.
    
    jim

    >Is this a specific bullet?  Or does it refer to a class of
    >armor-piercing projectiles? 
    
     In the original debate, HCI et al decried the existence of teflon
    coated ammunition which they claimed was designed to penetrate bullet
    proof vests. They and the media called these rounds "cop killer
    bullets" despite the fact that they were not ever used to actually kill
    any law enforcement professionals. So the name was a lie right off the
    bat, designed purely to provoke an emotional and ill considered
    response by the masses, few of whom had even the slightest clue what
    was going on.
    
     Once they had that "issue" to conquer, they crafted legislation which
    would outlaw the sale of _any_ ammunition which would be capable of
    penetrating a bullet proof vest. This broad language included all
    commonly used hunting rifle ammunition. The NRA responded by crafting
    legislation which prohibited civilians from purchasing armor piercing
    rounds, which just so happened to never have been marketed to the general
    public anyway.
    
     It was a manufactured issue, designed to incite anti gun emotion and
    to garner publicity for a fledgling organization.

	.401  ah.  thanks very much, doc - that really clears it
	up nicely for me.  i appreciate it.

  YAGN

  George

>>  YAGN

	who?  if you mean me, you're dead wrong.

I thought the "N" was "note" not "nut."

>>I thought the "N" was "note" not "nut."

	oh yeah, of course you're right.  sorry.

	fwiw, George, I had considered moving the replies about
	cop-killer bullets, but since it was pretty much just me
	asking the question, I knew it would be over rather quickly.

   >  In the original debate, HCI et al decried the existence of teflon
   > coated ammunition which they claimed was designed to penetrate bullet
   > proof vests. They and the media called these rounds "cop killer
   > bullets" despite the fact that they were not ever used to actually kill
   > any law enforcement professionals. 

   Just to clarify a bit. HCI and assorted other anti-firearm groups invented
   the label 'cop-killer'. The press is guilty of picking up that term and
   using it as a legitimate term (which it was not). 

   This is exactly how the term 'assault rifle' as we know it today got
   started. The original definition of an assault rifle does not represent
   the current commonly accepted media version.

   > So the name was a lie right off the
   > bat, designed purely to provoke an emotional and ill considered
   > response by the masses, few of whom had even the slightest clue what
   > was going on.

   I would add 'emotional and ill considered response by the IGNORANT masses'.
   (This is how they see the majority of the populace - with some justification)
    
   Why is the press considered 'liberal tools' by some? Because the press 
   routinely spread this kind of unsupported, uninvestigated information without
   hesitation and routinely ignore the truth when it is placed in front of them.
   They're more than ready to investigate the conservative side of any argument, 
   and then editorialize against it however.

   (No, it is not supply and demand).

   Doug.

    re: .401
    
    You mean the media *purposefully* deceived people on this issue?  Wow! 
    Never would have thought them capable of spewing propaganda to promote
    one side of an issue.
    
    Imagine my surprise...  ;^)

   .416  While all of that is true, a percentage of the population would
   probably have the same opinion of the bullets whether they were called
   "cop-killer" bullets or just "armor-piercing" bullets.  I don't think
   whatever furor there was/is can be blamed _solely_ on the name.

    <<< Note 44.397 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	Is this a specific bullet?  Or does it refer to a class of 
>	armor-piercing projectiles?  If it's a specific bullet, then
>	let me get this straight - the bullet is a myth?  Or the name
>	"cop-killer" is a misnomer?  Is it just the name that doesn't
>	sit well with the NRA (and others)?

	There was an attempt by the pro-control crowd to pass legislation
	to ban a class of ammunition that they labeled "cop-killer bullets"
	(for obvious emotional reasons). The definition of this class was
	"any round that can be fired from a handgun that will penetrate
	a Level IIa vest".

	Since there is a group of single-shot handguns that are chambered
	in all of the popular rifle calibers (they are used for hunting
	and competition) AND any of these rounds would, in fact, pentrate
	a vest, all of these calibers would have been banned. 

	Since I believe, no matter how mis-guided they may be, that the
	pro-control crowd is not stupid, I must also conclude that this
	was a deliberate attempt to eliminate virtually all rifle ammunition.
	If they couldn't ban the guns, they would try to ban the bullets.

	So the whole thing was a farce from the beginning. 

Jim

    
    Cop-killing pullets?   I'm opposed to that sort of thing!
    

    
>    Cop-killing pullets?   I'm opposed to that sort of thing!
 

   chicken   

Ban cop-killer donuts!  Support low-fat donuts.

    
>>    Actually it's in fact the 'name' we give to things which forms our
>>    opinions of them.

	I do agree with you.  That's why I said "a percentage of the
	population".  If the media had played up a bullet that could
	pierce through a bullet-proof vest, but had never called it
	a "cop-killer", I believe some people would still have seen it in
	the same light; would have seen past any terminology and still have
	been concerned about the bullet itself.

    A head shot avoids the vest problem.  Anyone stupid enough to
    shoot at a police officer should be put in prison.  Wether they
    killed the po or not.  Any bullet that kills a po could be
    considered a "cop-killer".  It is the individual who miss used
    the object who is really the killer.
    
    The whole issue of "cop-killer" is the same deal as "assault weapon".
    Smoke and mirrors.  Hype.  Firearms don't just jump up and assault
    people and bullets don't arbitrarily perforate cops.  It's usually
    a bad person who's responsible for that.  
    
    MadMike

	Don't the police wear bullet-proof vests to at least _lessen_
	the chances of being gunned down?  Wouldn't an armor-piercing
	bullet reduce the efficacy of that level of protection?
	It's not _totally_ smoke and mirrors, is it?

    Why pay big bucks for an "armor piercing" round when you could just use
    a rifle round for cheap money? Or a sawed off shotgun, for that matter.

    Lady Di:

    Armor piercing rounds were _never_, in my experience, an
    over-the-counter item. They were always very expensive,
    and not stocked by most retailers. They are effective
    for a given use (combat situations), and largely ineffective
    elsewhere. A vast majority of law enforcement officials,
    who have access to this type of round, do not use them.
    They are considered dangerous to use in most street
    combat situations. They are also used almost exclusively
    in rifles. They have as many disadvantages in combat
    use as they have advantages. They are a special purpose
    tool, like a mortar launcher. In some combat situations,
    a mortar launcher is exactly what you need, in most situations
    it is exactly what you don't need. For this reason,
    not every foot soldier is issued a mortar launcher.
    The same logic applies to armor piercing bullets.

    To make an issue of them is, in my opinion, a rather
    obvious attempt to "create" an issue. But HCI is big
    on manufacturing such issues.

    If one looks at the circumstances where guns are used
    in crime, virtually nothing that HCI has ever proposed
    will have any effect on crime, or public safety in
    general.

	If they're really as unavailable (or undesirable to the
	criminal element) as you all say, then that's great.
	Thanks again for the info.

    
    
    	>	Don't the police wear bullet-proof vests to at least _lessen_
>	the chances of being gunned down?  Wouldn't an armor-piercing
>	bullet reduce the efficacy of that level of protection?
>	It's not _totally_ smoke and mirrors, is it?
    
    	Like I said before, most handgun rounds do NOT produce the energy
    necessary to go through a level IIa Kevlar vest, even when loaded with
    armor piercing ammuntion. It's a moot point...
    
    
    jim

    
    what does HCI stand for??
    
    Mark

    
    HCI == Handgun Control Incorporated
    

    
>    what does HCI stand for??
    
  Helping Criminals Incorporated

  Helping Crime Increase

Amos

    <<< Note 370.32 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    A head shot avoids the vest problem. 

	Many police organizations pleaded with the pro-control crowd
	to NOT stress the issue of police body armour in the media.
	Since saving lives was NOT part of the agenda, HCI et. al. 
	ignored these requests. As a result, more police officers 
	were injured with head wounds since the criminals knew that
	thay had a better chance if they aimed for the head.

Jim

    <<< Note 370.41 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	thay had a better chance if they aimed for the head.

    	Vests or not, don't they always have a better chance if they
    	aim for the head?

    re: Note 370.33 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS
    
    > Don't the police wear bullet-proof vests to at least _lessen_
    > the chances of being gunned down?  Wouldn't an armor-piercing
    > bullet reduce the efficacy of that level of protection?
    
    99.99999% (+/- 20%) of all encounters the police will have with an armed 
    perp, the bad guy will have a handgun.  It is very very rare when a
    handgun, especially a cheap stolen one, can propel a projectile which
    can pierce the average vest.  I don't think people going haywire with
    high powered rifles who specifically target a cop are much of a
    problem.  The police officer that get's killed is usually hit someone
    where the vest isn't (head, groin, armpit) "Real" Armor piercing
    ammo, as has been discussed is not available to the general public.
    
    > It's not _totally_ smoke and mirrors, is it?
    It is.  It's against the law to kill someone.  It's really really
    against the law to kill a civil service officer.  It's a federal
    felony (ooooohhhhhhh) for a convicted felon to be in possession of
    a firearm.  That's ten years guaranteed time being John Gotti's
    sex-toy.  But that probably doesn't sell many newspapers. COPKILLER
    SHOOTIN ASSAULT WEAPON LOOKIN BAZOOKA TOTIN BEERSWILLIN REDNECK DRAWLIN
    "deer hunters" are baaaad dudes.  Connie Chung said so.

    Jim made an excellent point on HCI's priorities.
    
    Joe:
    > Vests or not, don't they always have a better chance if they
    > aim for the head?
    
    It's hard to hit someone in the head in a moving situation.  You aim
    to hit the largest center of mass (upper chest).  If a crook aims for
    the head, I'd bet the bullet would strike somewhere in the upper
    chest (and be stopped by the vest).  In a close situation I suppose
    that a head shot would work.  Otherwise the bad guy would probably
    be lucky (or has practiced a lot with this particular firearm) to
    get a head shot, or the guy could fire off 18 rounds of 9mm and hope
    for the best.  
    
    Fortunantly I've never been shot while wearing a vest, so I can't
    speak for what it feels like.  I think getting hit while wearing a
    vest is still a traumatic experience that will knock the officer
    down.  The perp could then run over to the downed officer and... you
    get the idea.   

    
    
    	I've talked to guys who've been shot while wearing a vest and it
    leaves quite a nasty bruise, even from a .22lr. A .44mag in the chest
    can stop your heart if you don't have the metal trauma plate in.
    
    
    	re: head shots
    
    	I'll take you to the range someday and let you try hitting the head
    of a target at 20feet. We'll induce a little stress by having you run �
    a mile before hand (just to get the adrenaline up). I can almost
    guarantee it'll be all you can do to keep your shots on the paper,
    nevermind aiming for specific body parts (hence the fallacy of
    'winging' a perp).
    
    jim

      <<< Note 370.42 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


>    	Vests or not, don't they always have a better chance if they
>    	aim for the head?


	"Better" only if they HIT the head. It is a relatively small
	target compared to the torso.

	Most people will go for "center of mass", that's why vests have
	proven so effective in cutting down on officer deaths and injuries.

Jim

No one seemed to really address Di's original question -- which sprang 
immediately to my mind, too: If by regulating this class of bullet there 
have been no known use of it by criminals against cops, then shouldn't that 
mean that other gun regulations would also be effective, thereby blowing 
the whole NRA argument?

You have to admit, on first blush it's pretty compelling. Otherwise why 
would all you gun aficionados have responded by demeaning their 
effectiveness, talking up their cost, squeeling about propoganda? If the 
NRA's claim that laws don't apply to crooks is accurate, then they can get
them. And even if this ammo probably wouldn't work as advertised, there are
bound to be some perps who would try -- especially given al the press these
things got (right? Theoretically, that's why the cops were so pissed at HCI 
for making such a big deal about it).

You miss the point.

Crooks don't use them because they don't arm themselves for gunfights with 
cops. That's the last thing they want. They carry to scare, fight-off, or 
hurt the rest of us.

NNTTM.

Tom
(and you thought I was agin' ya)

    The difference is that for 200 years, we have been manufacturing
    firearms.  There are so many in existence and in the hands of so many,
    that there is no possible way to truly regulate firearms the way HCI
    calls for.
    
    Armor peircing rounds are relatively scarce, relatively recent and were
    never widely available to the public at large.  And as mentioned by
    another noter, they are not easily made by your average reloader.
    
    
    -steve

>>Crooks don't use them because they don't arm themselves for gunfights with 
>>cops. That's the last thing they want. They carry to scare, fight-off, or 
>>hurt the rest of us.

	If there were a bullet that could penetrate any manner of vest
	and it were as readily available as any other bullet, do you think
	that would still be true?

    
    
>No one seemed to really address Di's original question -- which sprang 
>immediately to my mind, too: If by regulating this class of bullet there 
>have been no known use of it by criminals against cops, then shouldn't that 
>mean that other gun regulations would also be effective, thereby blowing 
>the whole NRA argument?
    
    	You haven't been paying attention. If you'd been following this
    string you would see that I and others have said that AP rounds have
    never been used to kill cops, even BEFORE the strict regulations. The
    argument is moot....
    
    
    jim

    
    
>>Crooks don't use them because they don't arm themselves for gunfights with 
>>cops. That's the last thing they want. They carry to scare, fight-off, or 
>>hurt the rest of us.

>	If there were a bullet that could penetrate any manner of vest
>	and it were as readily available as any other bullet, do you think
>	that would still be true?

 	I think it would still be true. There are very few criminals that
    actively seek out cops to kill. I believe most cops are actually shot
    with their own sidearms (taken away from them while struggling with a
    perp). Killing a cop guarantees a major investigation.
    
    
    jim

	>>Killing a cop guarantees a major investigation.

	That's a good point.  Plus, I had forgotten that you said
	they were unregulated for years with no incidents.

    >Plus, I had forgotten that you said
    >they were unregulated for years with no incidents.
    
    A minor point...

>                      <<< Note 370.47 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>

>No one seemed to really address Di's original question -- which sprang 
>immediately to my mind, too: If by regulating this class of bullet there 
>have been no known use of it by criminals against cops, then shouldn't that 
>mean that other gun regulations would also be effective, thereby blowing 
>the whole NRA argument?

NO!
For many many years you could buy metal-piercing pistol ammo across the 
counter. right up until 85 or '86. THEN THE LAW WAS PASSED. Before the stuff 
was regulated there were NO, ZERO, NONE, cops shot with it. it was a 
non-issue. like the semi-auto ban Whicxh names 19 specific and 200 by 
action-type
No crime ever used a FN-FAL  but it is banned
            "        Steyr-aug    "
            "        FN_FLR        "
            "        SIG-57        "
            "        Galil          "
            "        Valmet68 or 72  "

The list goes on. Many unregulated things have never been a problem, but
someone wants to make a name so they use language which is inflammatory and 
create media responses.

Armour-piercing surplus rifle ammo was cheap, inexpensive practise stuff
 in the 60's and 70's for hi-power competition shooters. 
It is unavailable today so the price of practise went way up.

and finally when talking about bans ask how well banning drugs has done.
Amos

	apparently not _that_  minor

    <<< Note 370.54 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>
                          -< regulation doesn't work >-

Amos,

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? I wasn't disagreeing with 
you. I was merely explaining why that kind of ammo wasn't used. No one else 
had done that, and I was surprised.

    .47...  again, I repeat...
    
    Most anybody who want a round that will +stop+ another body, will elect
    to NOT use A/P ammo.  It is not a good stopping round.  It is a punch
    holes through something round.  
    
    A big fat .357 magnum load pushing a big fat piece of lead will knock
    down a wrestler wearing a vest.  Think in terms of getting hit with a
    big rock.  It doesn't NEED to go through you to make you sit down.
    
    So, again, not even a crook would buy A/P rounds, unless he bought the
    line of crap dished out buy the anti's.