.45 vs Body Armor - Page 9
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 96
Like Tree113Likes

.45 vs Body Armor

This is a discussion on .45 vs Body Armor within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by xenawarriorcat and you know you been there if the shakes start 30-minutes after it's over. amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Body in SC and my mind is in the Tropics
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xenawarriorcat View Post
    and you know you been there if the shakes start 30-minutes after it's over.

    amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Folks ask why I carry two guns...Well if I did not I'd be off balance and walk in circles!

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    6,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sgtbill View Post
    Yes type 3 with a trauma plate. No not knocked down and not incapacitated. I will post the slug this morning with a photo of a K.T.W. .357 Magnum round. You can see the shape of the projectile and the strange color of green teflon coating.
    Bill
    Thanks. Good to know. I use a 3 while teaching and often wondered how effective it would be.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Keysville Va.
    Posts
    303

    Default

    No one can criticize you even if they have been there. Everyone will face a shooting situation in a diffrent manner some as you do some as I have. I must admit to eating my fair share of dirt over the years with 9 1/2 years in the military and 25 years in the Police Department.
    P.S. Be safe out there, your job is to come home to your family each night after shift.
    Bill

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    I asked the owner of our range if he could start a class for training against a perp with body armor and shooting at it with tear gas going off?

    He told me if I get a list of 50 signatures from people interested he will check into it.


  5. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mousedaddy View Post
    I'm probably going to get slagged off now but guys honestly unless you have been under fire by heavy weapons saying what you will do is crap. The first thing you will do is panic then probably wet your selfs.

    I have and still am In the military and have also been a cop for 17 years and have been under fire numerous times. Shooting a weapon under fire comes down to training and muscle memory unless you have been under fire you can spout off what you would do but believe me you would do just as I do which is keep yr face in the ground until you have situational awareness.

    Just shooting off at anything that moves causes more problems

    Your turn now criticize me tell me I'm wrong but unless you have been there you don't have a clue.
    Hi
    No disrespect Sir.
    But there are lots of incidences, where a person with no training acts in self defense or in defense of another. used deadly force and killed the attacker in horrible conditions. In home breakins , armed robberys, rapes and other attacks, Late at night in the dark, just waking up! After a rape, being beaten
    and other times when the victim was not prepared. They just act. never under hvy fire no armed forces training. just people. Thats a fact. with training a person should be better at it than the not trained.
    Old women and old men have killed their attackers. Young kids have defended themselfs.
    humans have had training to stay alive. from apes to us we were fighting to get here.
    Every day someone fights back! The only thing I want is our leaders to stop trying to make self defense unlawful. most of the people will not fight back but there are a lot that will. thats why there are sheep, Guarddogs and wolfs. and then there the GOVERMENT.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    May? Could? Might? Not good enough answers to the question. Velocity and energy and shape relate more to the penetration, IMHO. Depends of course on what you call body armor. If we are talking the newest and best on our soldiers in war, nothing will penetrate of any calibre that is currently available to you and I. If you are talking "less structured" body armor I can only think of the exotic ammo produced for the FN5.7X28; extreme high rifle-like velocity, high energy and rifle-shaped bullet. There have been recent battles with ATF over this exotic ammo because it is armor piercing. Mexican druggies like it for just that reason. It is not, to my knowledge available to you and I but maybe some LEO personnel can get same.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    FLORIDA / JACKSONVILLE
    Posts
    213

    Default

    If its Kevlar it can fail after repeated shots in the same area. Plate armor No! Plate armor can take a mag of 308 to it and not give but it has to be body armor plating not your moms frying pan sewn into your vest! Lol
    ”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    113

    Default

    The Aurora shooter was NOT wearing body armor. He was wearing a tactical vest. Receipts of his purchases confirmed this. The libtards harassed the company that sold these products. And the company apologized, for no reason other than to appease a bunch of trouble makers.
    Beware the Fury of a patient man.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    5,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roguejesse View Post
    The Aurora shooter was NOT wearing body armor. He was wearing a tactical vest. Receipts of his purchases confirmed this. The libtards harassed the company that sold these products. And the company apologized, for no reason other than to appease a bunch of trouble makers.
    Since there's been a gag order imposed on the case since just a couple days after the event, there is no way to know whether or not the shooter was armored up. You are correct in that one receipt made it out into the public before that gag order was imposed, and it had a tac-vest, a knife and one other line-item that I can't recall right now, on it. But that was not the only purchase he made in preparation for the assault. He also bought somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of ammo in a fairly short period of time weeks-prior to the shooting. He also had some kind of knee-pads and elbow-pads on according to many witnesses, oh, and the gas mask too. It's quite possible that he bought armor in a separate purchase from the vest. I do know that cops at the scene were quoted as saying he was wearing a "ballistic helmet" and was indeed armored up. It's possible they mistook the knee-pads and helmet etc. for armor, and he didn't really have any at all, but none of us knows the answer to that question at this point, and won't until the trial starts and the evidence starts being presented.

    In short, that one receipt that's in the public domain is not proof that he was unarmored. It's not even proof that he wore that particular vest in the assault. At this point, it's nothing but a meaningless factoid for which we have no further context to evaluate its significance from.

    Blues
    I pray for peace. Peace and justice. If we can't have both, I choose justice.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Since there's been a gag order imposed on the case since just a couple days after the event, there is no way to know whether or not the shooter was armored up. You are correct in that one receipt made it out into the public before that gag order was imposed, and it had a tac-vest, a knife and one other line-item that I can't recall right now, on it. But that was not the only purchase he made in preparation for the assault. He also bought somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of ammo in a fairly short period of time weeks-prior to the shooting. He also had some kind of knee-pads and elbow-pads on according to many witnesses, oh, and the gas mask too. It's quite possible that he bought armor in a separate purchase from the vest. I do know that cops at the scene were quoted as saying he was wearing a "ballistic helmet" and was indeed armored up. It's possible they mistook the knee-pads and helmet etc. for armor, and he didn't really have any at all, but none of us knows the answer to that question at this point, and won't until the trial starts and the evidence starts being presented.

    In short, that one receipt that's in the public domain is not proof that he was unarmored. It's not even proof that he wore that particular vest in the assault. At this point, it's nothing but a meaningless factoid for which we have no further context to evaluate its significance from.

    Blues
    You made some valid points; but you are speculating on what he might of bought; playing the strawman argument. I find the receipts to be credible evidence, followed by the apology by the company that sold the items to the shooter.

    6,000 rounds of ammunition; which was more like 3,000 in 5.56mm with pistol and shotgun ammo added in: is no big deal of a purchase. Unless you live in one of the anti-Second Amendment States e.g. NY, IL, CA. Anybody that is a frequent shooter, usually has a few thousand rounds in various calibers, for the firearms that are used most frequently.

    The MSM has a pretty poor track record of delivering the facts as provided, or knowing the subject matter. Name:  Journo Guide Guns.jpg
Views: 972
Size:  70.9 KB

    Eyewitness statements by people in a dark, smoke filled movie theater can be erroneous, due to the insufficient light and viewing conditions, and insufficient knowledge of what a ballistic vest actually is.

    To put it succinctly, the police are probably the only ones that know definitively, because they have the evidence (tagged, bagged and logged I hope) of what he was wearing at the time.
    Beware the Fury of a patient man.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •