The Dagny Dagger

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
566
63
Austin, Texas
I don't know -- this sounds a lot like cop-haters who say, "Why didn't the cop just shoot the knife out of the bad guy's hand instead of killing him?"

OK, so someone is facing a threat with body armor, and it's no problem because he'll just headshot everybody? Maybe for some of you that's no problem, you shoot the wings off flies (even while moving, right?), but for average humans like me, losing 50% of the available target area means it's a much harder shot I must now make, and I shoot at targets a lot -- I can say that's a big deal for us normal humans.

And I've never been in a gun fight before, but maybe the gun fights y'all are involved in require a full, written disclosure of body armor before the shooting starts? Because it seems to me you might not know if someone is wearing body armor or not, so you shoot at each other, your first shot (which would have perfectly bisected his heart, of course) is stopped by his body armor, but the bad guy's shot...it just blew your spine out, so, um, "adjust and shoot the head"....well, even for those wizards who can't miss...too late!



Agreed. For us normal folks, that greatly reduced target area means we have to take a longer time to aquire a better sight picture. The longer we're aiming, the longer we're vulnerable, because the part that's aiming is not behind cover.

Watching the video, I think the main intent behind the creation of this ammo was inline with the 2A thinking -- the citizens need to be armed as well, because the government might become the Bad Guy. So if the government is sending their jackbooted thugs at you, and they're all wearing armor, then the creators of this AP round seem to think citizens should have the power to defeat that armor.
A)
Think of your possible scenarios like a bell curve, your likely scenarios are there in the middle and probably don't include people in armor.
B) why carry a specialized bullet that is decidedly inferior for anything but poking a tiny hole in textile based armor. What does its ballistics look like after passing through a iiia vest?
C) thats why I carry a G17 quite often. Plenty of rounds for all targets

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

etmo

Active Member
Jan 25, 2020
550
93
Cedar Creek, Tx
A)
Think of your possible scenarios like a bell curve, your likely scenarios are there in the middle and probably don't include people in armor.
B) why carry a specialized bullet that is decidedly inferior for anything but poking a tiny hole in textile bases armor
Totally agree, although I think you might be mis-reading the intent of the creators of this bullet. I don't know them, so I'm not pretending to speak for them, but it seems to me that this bullet was not developed with carry in mind...at all.

So I think the creators would say, "Don't carry this bullet. This bullet is for resisting government tyranny, riots with groups of people wearing armor, etc, etc, not for going to the grocery store." Using your terms, in the bell curve of possible scenarios, this bullet aligns with (hopefully) a very small amount of area under the curve (governmental tyranny, etc), not daily carry.

Lastly, have you seen the ballistic gelatin tests with the latest version of this round? "Decidedly inferior" is not a term I would use to describe what I saw from those tests. Which of course leads to the obvious but mandatory -- this product is in its infancy compared to most bullets on the market. Very much a work in progress. It's amazing for what it is right now, but with 2-3 more years of R&D?
 

Axxe55

Trophy Husband. Just Ask My Wife!
Dec 15, 2019
8,715
113
Somewhere....In Texas!
I don't know -- this sounds a lot like cop-haters who say, "Why didn't the cop just shoot the knife out of the bad guy's hand instead of killing him?"

OK, so someone is facing a threat with body armor, and it's no problem because he'll just headshot everybody? Maybe for some of you that's no problem, you shoot the wings off flies (even while moving, right?), but for average humans like me, losing 50% of the available target area means it's a much harder shot I must now make, and I shoot at targets a lot -- I can say that's a big deal for us normal humans.

And I've never been in a gun fight before, but maybe the gun fights y'all are involved in require a full, written disclosure of body armor before the shooting starts? Because it seems to me you might not know if someone is wearing body armor or not, so you shoot at each other, your first shot (which would have perfectly bisected his heart, of course) is stopped by his body armor, but the bad guy's shot...it just blew your spine out, so, um, "adjust and shoot the head"....well, even for those wizards who can't miss...too late!



Agreed. For us normal folks, that greatly reduced target area means we have to take a longer time to aquire a better sight picture. The longer we're aiming, the longer we're vulnerable, because the part that's aiming is not behind cover.

Watching the video, I think the main intent behind the creation of this ammo was inline with the 2A thinking -- the citizens need to be armed as well, because the government might become the Bad Guy. So if the government is sending their jackbooted thugs at you, and they're all wearing armor, then the creators of this AP round seem to think citizens should have the power to defeat that armor.
My main focus of what I spoke of was for most self defense, or home defense type situations, if body armor were to be used by the attacker. I think that the possibility of body armor being used would be very slight, but maybe possible.

Most of us practice shooting center mass, as you said, a larger target, much easier to hit than a head shot. Personally, it comes down to how you practice or train. I adjusted my thinking on this several years ago. At home, it's more likely I would be using a shotgun, and as far as I know, most all body armor will defeat almost all shotgun ammo to my knowledge. A head target isn't really that hard to hit with shotgun at close range if one practices that scenario.

Same with a pistol. Self defense shootings in public, are going to be up close and personal. If the attacker uses body armor, the head target can be hit at close ranges if you spend the time practicing for such shots.

If I were having to go into an area, knowing that potential attackers were known the use body armor, then yes, I would want to be packing AP ammo for sure.

Mostly, I see this ammo as being more of gimmick round to get around ATF rulings on AP ammo. Personally, I'd rather stick with conventional ammo I KNOW works, than some gimmick ammo that MIGHT work.
 

etmo

Active Member
Jan 25, 2020
550
93
Cedar Creek, Tx
Mostly, I see this ammo as being more of gimmick round to get around ATF rulings on AP ammo. Personally, I'd rather stick with conventional ammo I KNOW works, than some gimmick ammo that MIGHT work.
That's fair. And I think perhaps all of us on this forum would agree, but I don't think we are the target audience for this ammo. We all have rifles, we all have a reasonable quantity of green tips and similar ammunition already, which again, is probably a better way to go -- for now.

But what about the average gun owner, stuck in an apartment in some city somewhere with his Glock 17? What is he supposed to do in that extremely unlikely event when the SHTF? I think that's who this round was developed for, at least initially.

And in the future, who knows? A kid starts off making this ammo, who knows where he'll be in 5 or 10 years? Maybe he'll invent a better green tip and get bought up by Federal, and then we will all be buying his stuff. It's good to see people experimenting and pushing the envelope, not to mention tweaking the nose of the unelected bureaucrats at the ATF.
 

cycleguy2300

Active Member
Mar 19, 2010
566
63
Austin, Texas
Totally agree, although I think you might be mis-reading the intent of the creators of this bullet. I don't know them, so I'm not pretending to speak for them, but it seems to me that this bullet was not developed with carry in mind...at all.

So I think the creators would say, "Don't carry this bullet. This bullet is for resisting government tyranny, riots with groups of people wearing armor, etc, etc, not for going to the grocery store." Using your terms, in the bell curve of possible scenarios, this bullet aligns with (hopefully) a very small amount of area under the curve (governmental tyranny, etc), not daily carry.

Lastly, have you seen the ballistic gelatin tests with the latest version of this round? "Decidedly inferior" is not a term I would use to describe what I saw from those tests. Which of course leads to the obvious but mandatory -- this product is in its infancy compared to most bullets on the market. Very much a work in progress. It's amazing for what it is right now, but with 2-3 more years of R&D?
I have ZERO problems with any guns or bullets being used per the 2a. I am just arguing, this bullet is so niche as to be an overall disadvantage in combat. Obviously you fight with what you have on hand, but:
A)
Fmj or sp pistol rounds would be a more effective round on a much wider range of targets.
B)
Rifles and, long barreled pistols (like my 10.5 ar pistol) are MUCH more effective at penetrating soft armor and still having much more energy afterwards.

Buy them if you want, but I see them about as useful as tracers in a self defense situation...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

Axxe55

Trophy Husband. Just Ask My Wife!
Dec 15, 2019
8,715
113
Somewhere....In Texas!
That's fair. And I think perhaps all of us on this forum would agree, but I don't think we are the target audience for this ammo. We all have rifles, we all have a reasonable quantity of green tips and similar ammunition already, which again, is probably a better way to go -- for now.

But what about the average gun owner, stuck in an apartment in some city somewhere with his Glock 17? What is he supposed to do in that extremely unlikely event when the SHTF? I think that's who this round was developed for, at least initially.

And in the future, who knows? A kid starts off making this ammo, who knows where he'll be in 5 or 10 years? Maybe he'll invent a better green tip and get bought up by Federal, and then we will all be buying his stuff. It's good to see people experimenting and pushing the envelope, not to mention tweaking the nose of the unelected bureaucrats at the ATF.
I understand you stance on this, and I don't disagree with you at all. First of all, restricting pistol AP ammo and bullets is just another infringement that we should not have in the first place.

But, I'd rather have proven ammo for my firearms. I place a high degree of confidence in reliable ammo and guns for self and home defense.

I do support anyone trying to push the boundaries of ammo design and function. It's how ammo gets better. But at this point, that ammo is stupidly too expensive for me to be testing it to gain the confidence I would need to use it. Besides, it's such an unlikely scenario that I would really ever need such ammo.
 

Mills

Well-Known
Mar 22, 2020
1,915
113
Texas
I do not want any tricked out ammo in my edc.
If you end up in court as the defendant, I guarantee that a round such as the DD will be red meat for the prosecution.
 

etmo

Active Member
Jan 25, 2020
550
93
Cedar Creek, Tx
I do not want any tricked out ammo in my edc.
If you end up in court as the defendant, I guarantee that a round such as the DD will be red meat for the prosecution.
Agreed -- nothing but the most reliable, tried-and-true ammo in the EDC & home defense guns

As for the prosecution using it against you, yes, they will use it against you, but no, it never affects the outcome of the case.

"Your Honor, yes, my client was raping her, but she shot him with weird ammo, so she is the real criminal here!" As you can imagine, such an argument never sways the jury.

It's either a good shoot or it's not, ammo doesn't matter, trigger weight doesn't matter, gun doesn't matter, etc. I was just listening to a lawyer present research on this, and he had been unable to find a single case on record in California where some aspect of the self-defense equipment -- the trigger weight or type of ammo or type of gun -- affected the jury's decision in self-defense shootings.

He noted, as you did, that the prosecution always mentions the equipment in a negative light -- they'll try to sell your Glock 17 to the jury as a "military-grade weapon" which is "meant for war" and that your fiber-optic front sight is only useful for "increasing the amount of harm to another human", but again, it has never mattered, at least in the scope of his research. If a jury full of CA morons aren't buying it, I doubt it will work in Texas, either.
 

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
Texas Gun Forum Ad
silencers
third coast
Ranier
Tyrant Designs
DK Firearms

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
94,762
Messages
2,095,260
Members
30,270
Latest member
Mycloud
Top Bottom