The Dagny Dagger

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Dermako

    Insensitivity Trained
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 16, 2019
    114
    26
    DFW
    Have read about this before and picked it up again the other day.
    Apparently it is coming to life and will be open sourced.
    Legalities aside, it is an interesting read.

    If I am not mistaken, Texas included an "intent to defeat" clause in the statute.
    Don't think you can engineer around that with exotic metals.

    Hurley's Gold
     

    mad88minute

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Oct 13, 2017
    1,659
    96
    Houston
    Q: Will you make a .45ACP Dagny Dagger?
    A: No. It's an under-pressured, fat, obsolete cartridge too slow to defeat armor well, even in our APHP design. We do look forward to a 10mm loading for those who like it big.

    Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,590
    96
    Magnolia
    Damn interesting - open source would mean the blue prints for such a design would be public, and anyone could make these if they had the tools and the materials with modest skills to back them up. Looks like a steel penetrator with a polymer or metal base. 9mm probably hovers in the 70 to 90 grain window?
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    What I'm seeing is another gimmick or niche round that is stupid expensive.

    You don't need AP rounds to defeat most conventional body armor. Most conventional body armor covers the majority of center mass. If you fire center mass and the attacker isn't going down, you then adjust and shoot either the head or the pelvis. Problem solved and you don't need any hyped up, stupidly expensive ammo to get the job done.
     

    Maverick44

    Youngest old man on TGT.
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    How often do people have to shoot someone wearing body armor in self defense, and is that number large enough to justify the extra danger of a round over penetrating and causing damage, injury, or death to others in the area?

    I'm with Axxe. This sounds like a gimmick designed to separate you from your money.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    What I'm seeing is another gimmick or niche round that is stupid expensive.

    You don't need AP rounds to defeat most conventional body armor. Most conventional body armor covers the majority of center mass. If you fire center mass and the attacker isn't going down, you then adjust and shoot either the head or the pelvis. Problem solved and you don't need any hyped up, stupidly expensive ammo to get the job done.
    You took the words right out of my mouth.


    Mk, so they have pointy sabot round for 9mm that defeats IIIa vests. Cool, but lots of stuff can make it through already, and as my distinguished colleague noted, there are plenty of parts to hit that are not generally armored.

    I agree with them, the prohibition infringes on our rights, guaranteed with the 2a, but the reality is AP handgun ammo is truly pointless. I cannot see any reasonable scenario where I would use it, even if I had some on hand.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    You took the words right out of my mouth.


    Mk, so they have pointy sabot round for 9mm that defeats IIIa vests. Cool, but lots of stuff can make it through already, and as my distinguished colleague noted, there are plenty of parts to hit that are not generally armored.

    I agree with them, the prohibition infringes on our rights, guaranteed with the 2a, but the reality is AP handgun ammo is truly pointless. I cannot see any reasonable scenario where I would use it, even if I had some on hand.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    Best of my knowledge, rifle AP is still not regulated or illegal. And if that is true, then a person could possibly have pistol carbine or SBR in a rifle cartridge and it wouldn't be an issue either.

    I looked at the shape of their "bullets" and wasn't overcome with any confidence in them being fed reliably through many pistols. I may be wrong, but I place a very high degree on reliability in ammo and pistol for any SD situations. And way above being a gimmick round that might, or might not penetrate body armor.

    I am with you on the infringement thing as well, and more on the principle of it being an infringement as well. Unless a person was covered head to toe in body armor, I can't really see a huge need for AP ammo either.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Best of my knowledge, rifle AP is still not regulated or illegal. And if that is true, then a person could possibly have pistol carbine or SBR in a rifle cartridge and it wouldn't be an issue either.

    I looked at the shape of their "bullets" and wasn't overcome with any confidence in them being fed reliably through many pistols. I may be wrong, but I place a very high degree on reliability in ammo and pistol for any SD situations. And way above being a gimmick round that might, or might not penetrate body armor.

    I am with you on the infringement thing as well, and more on the principle of it being an infringement as well. Unless a person was covered head to toe in body armor, I can't really see a huge need for AP ammo either.
    Correct (i think) but there are pistols that will shoot most any rifle round made, so they say "its pistol ammo" and ban it. That was the dust up over 62gn green tip a few years ago.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,590
    96
    Magnolia
    Ammo bans are dangerous and stupid.

    Ban "pistol" ammo - yet there are plenty of "rifles" that shoot pistol ammo. Why can I have AP ammo in my 5.56mm AR, but if I have a 9mm AR, I cannot? So if I can have a 5.56mm pistol that should punch thru armor, why can't I have a 9mm pistol that can punch thru armor?

    As silly as stocking up specific AP ammo for a handgun might seem - we're seeing more violence, politically motivated violence, and we're seeing groups on both sides gearing up and wearing armor. If ANTIFA shitstains are attacking me and some / all happen to be wearing vests, I wouldn't mind having AP ammo in that situation. Hitting center mass of their body is going to be easier than taking a shot at the noggin or the balls with the heart rate jacked up and adrenaline pumping.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    You don't need AP rounds to defeat most conventional body armor. Most conventional body armor covers the majority of center mass. If you fire center mass and the attacker isn't going down, you then adjust and shoot either the head or the pelvis. Problem solved and you don't need any hyped up, stupidly expensive ammo to get the job done.

    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!

    As silly as stocking up specific AP ammo for a handgun might seem - we're seeing more violence, politically motivated violence, and we're seeing groups on both sides gearing up and wearing armor. If ANTIFA shitstains are attacking me and some / all happen to be wearing vests, I wouldn't mind having AP ammo in that situation. Hitting center mass of their body is going to be easier than taking a shot at the noggin or the balls with the heart rate jacked up and adrenaline pumping.

    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.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    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

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    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

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart 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

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    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

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    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

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart 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

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 22, 2020
    3,682
    96
    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

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    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.
     
    Top Bottom