We had a special guest at the range...

[LiquidTension]

Also forgotten in the thread is the fact that anyone with half a grain of sense will realize that a head shot defeats body armor every time. I know, let's ban head shots

I understand not wanting to be shot through a vest, but you can't have it both ways. Sacrifices of personal safety must be made in order to maintain freedom. No, I'm not saying that armor piercing rounds are necessary for freedom. I AM saying that banning them just chips away freedom that much more. The antis rejoice any time the other side agrees with them.

 

[j.wise]

As I sit here at my computer, I look down at the CZ 52 next to me. I wonder...does the 7.62 Tok punch through body armor? I'm told it does, but to what degree I don't know. Then the thought of Saturday evening, when I confronted the man with a kitchen knife comes to mind...

I realize something... how few BGs have high-velocity Eastern bloc pistols compared with the number who own kitchen knives? You see, kitchen knives stab through kevlar vests quite easily, negating the need for fancy-shmancy armor-penetrating pistols.

Oh well...

 

[Jesse H]

Gumshoe,

So I understand you don't appreciate that caliber since it penetrates kevlar, which could very likely injure or kill you.

How do you feel about people that train to aim, shoot, and hit areas that aren't protected by a vest? Would you be more comfortable for you if people weren't allowed to train in such a way? Being shot thru kevlar, or shot at the unprotected head would yield the same results of ouchiness I'd imagine.

 

[amprecon]

BAN........I hate that d*mn word!

 

[Bowlcut]

the round may have rather dubious beginnings or history, and it may not serve a true peaceful role, id still like an oppertunity to own one of those. thats a down right sexy pistol. sexy in the cold war way, when things had to be sleak and get their job done well. id hate to be deined the oppertunity not to own one cause what it MIGHT do.

but man that is a pretty gun. the ammo is pretty too, really sleak. but she looks good, not just a work horse

 

[gumshoe4]

Sorry-didn't mean to start a gun ban discussion. Also sorry about the delay in response. I've been out of town most of the week.

I'm not against the gun. I'm also not worried about law-abiding folks shooting me, either with this round or any other. Making jokes about shooting a cop in the head instead of through his body armor is, in my opinion, not only in poor taste, but is also not the point. We're discussing ammunition which is designed to pierce body armor and which has no other discernible use. I'm discussing the possibility that if such ammo was legal, any criminal or crook could buy it or obtain it with virtually no regulation whatsoever. Why would a criminal use such ammo if he could go in and buy other types of ammo? Because he would know that its sole purpose is to defeat body armor. Who normally wears body armor these days and has regular contact with such criminals? LEOs.

The example of the body armor-clad bank robbers in North Hollywood is not applicable for several reasons, the primary one being that occasions in which the bad guys wear body armor are very uncommon generally and secondly, I seriously doubt that those crooks were ever within practical usable range of the pistol and ammunition described within this thread.

Now, I clearly understand that many of you disagree with me. Using your argument, there should be no reason that you should not be allowed to own any type of armament you want. Is there a line you would draw here? Would you allow law-abiding citizens to own handgrenades, for example? How about 20mm chain guns or SAWs? How about small tactical nuclear devices? Please understand-I'm drawing on the absurd here to point out that all of you have a line you draw SOMEWHERE which others might consider to be an infringement of their right to bear arms. Is it appropriate for you to draw your line for someone else? Is your line or limit based upon an emotional argument or upon logic?

For the record-I am progun (that's why I'm here), I belong to the NRA and have for many years, I support Florida-style CCW for citizens and nationwide carry for both citizens and cops. Those of you who have read any of my posts in the past or who know me from the Sacto shoots know this to be true. Others-sorry, you just have my word and you'll either accept that I am a 2nd Amendment supporter or I'm not.

I think it's interesting that right here on this site, we have a thread started by a person who is very concerned about whether law enforcement officers support the 2nd Amendment at the same time that we have this thread in which folks are putting forth the notion that the Soviet .22 ammo capable of and intended for defeating law enforcement body armor should be readily available to anyone. Talk about trying to have it both ways! Fortunately, most cops I know (at least the line guys and gals) are pro-gun, regardless of how y'all feel on this one particular issue, because they know the truth about armed personal defense.

And Denfoote-respectfully, I submit that your argument is the emotional one. My argument is based in logic. Yours apparently is something to the effect that if you want it, you ought to be able to have it and anybody who doesn't agree must be anti-2nd Amendment. It's not logically based.

I knew when Justin made his objection to my original comment that there would be disagreement and controversy about this subject and I knew what I had to say would go against the grain. It appears that for the moment, I'm the only LEO here who chooses to state an opinion about the Soviet .22 armor-defeating round. Maybe others don't want to join or maybe they think I'm full of crap, but MY bottom line is this-I don't think that the 2nd Amendment means that criminals get to possess armor-piercing ammo so they can kill cops by defeating their body armor. I don't think the original framers had that intent. Therefore, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I respectfully submit that the absolutists and I must agree to disagree.

Bob

 

[Serpico]

"Sacrifices of personal safety must be made in order to maintain freedom."

And with statements like that, you wonder why the anti's get bills passed....


Yes...there aren't enough guns to choose from so we need that kevlar killer...why? Because we can't have it...I have an idea...let's bring a boatload of them in and have one used by some thug on the street against a cop....then the anti's can hold it up on the news and scream cop killer....then congress can ban it...and while they are at, they can add a few more provisions to the bill and ban sutff we already own....good idea....

 

[gumshoe4]

And now you understand how the anti-gunners have been able to insert a wedge between law-abiding gun owners and cops, a relationship which was, in the past, a very strong one.

Let's argue absurdity and insist on owning any damn thing we please and the consequences be damned. I wonder if Serpico and others would be so hell-bent-for-leather if they were explaining why they wanted to have Kevlar-piercing ammo readily available to the public to the widows and children of the police officers killed in the line of duty I saw yesterday at the California Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony in Sacramento. It's one thing to argue in anonimity here on the net. It's entirely another thing to make a logical argument to those folks.

I think I've said enough about this and I've taken way more than my fair share of heat for stating my opinion on this subject. I'm done discussing it.

Bob

 

[Marko Kloos]

It's one thing to argue in anonimity here on the net. It's entirely another thing to make a logical argument to those folks.

That's because reason gets the short end of the stick when emotionalism and pack mentality is brought into the picture. This is the entire strategy of the gun banners: circumvent logic and reason by appealing to pure emotionalism. It's a good tactic when facts and reason are not on your side.

Those police officers killed in the line of duty were killed by people who do not obey the law by definition. Any yutz can shoot through any kind of body armor with a $80 milsurp Mauser, or simply stab through it with an easily-concealed kitchen knife, but somehow the streets are safer because we banned "armor-piercing" handgun bullets...and thus caved in to the reasoning that anything that could kill a cop "easier" should be banned. Don't you see that the other end of that logic is to ban guns altogether? You think that the private ownership of handguns is reasonable, as long as you can't shoot AP ammo from them. Sarah Brady, and a whole bunch of other folks who have greater influence on the legislature than you do, think that the private ownership of handguns is altogether unreasonable.

Now I pose a different question: if the Second Amendment is ultimately intended as a "failsafe" device on the Constitution, so that the citizenry can fight a tyrannical government if needed...how can you advocate that the kind of weapons needed to fight such a tyrannical government and its agents (body armor and all) should be off-limits to civilians? Do you believe that your fellow gun owners will turn into instant cop-killers as soon as they get their hands on one of those silly PSMs and a box of AP ammo?

Personally, I favor a "goose and gander" amendment to the Constitution: no government entity may use weapons which are off-limits to the average citizen.

 

[George Hill]

I think everyone has expressed both sides of the "Because I don't like this perticular gun, it should be banned" debate.

So let's just drop that stuff right now - and return the thread to it's original purpose.
A rare and very interesting gun. It's small, it's potent, and it's so ugly it's cool.

I like it. Reminds me of a compact CZ-52.
I like it a lot.
I'd love to have one. But where does one get the ammunition for it?
Did I mention that I really like it alot?

The fact that it can buzz through a vest is only icing on the cake. The fact that this little gun gives pause to any would be jackbooted thug is so much bonus. To give a JBT the idea that he is not invincible, nor the Ultimate Power In The Universe is a good thing. The Government needs to know that it is IN CHECK by THE PEOPLE. The way the Bill of Rights intended.

Cool freaking little pistol... I'm going to have to buy me one of these.

 

[Serpico]

Gumshoe...I think you need to reread my post....I am not for importing armor piercing guns and ammo....I think you missed the sarcasm...

 

[George Hill]

A super cool little compact auto that hits like a nail gun...
The price is what, around 200?

Gimmie 2 of those and 2 CZ-52's. With plenty of magazines for them all around.

 

[gumshoe4]

OK, I guess I'm not done.

No, Lendsringer, respectfully, it's because neither you nor anyone else would be able to stand in front of those folks and make an argument that body-armor piercing ammunition should be available to the general public knowing that criminals could obtain such ammo with no regulation whatsoever and pose a grave danger to officers. I won't allow you to use the old "emotional argument" saw I've seen so many times herein, because I know you are very knowledgeable about guns and ammo generally and because I know that you are fully aware of the single use of this ammo and that it has no other purpose.

In one sense, you are correct-there is a paucity of data involving the use of this ammunition against law enforcement officers, because it is not readily available or legal in this country. That is perfectly acceptable to me. I think it's more important to have live cops with intact body armor than dead ones supplying data.

Contrary to your assertion, I do understand the basic tenet of gun bans by incrementalism. I live in California, Lendsringer, where incrementalism occurs every day in the Legislature and I am directly affected because I cannot buy handguns here which you and others can buy in most other parts of the country. I have a very clear understanding of incrementalism in handgun banning, I am directly affected by it and I am opposed to it and have worked politically to prevent it here by contacting legislators regarding bills to which I am opposed and by voting, IN EVERY ELECTION, for pro-gun candidates.

Do you have any understanding, other than a rhetorical one, of why I am opposed to such ammunition? I don't think that banning this ammunition constitutes movement towards incremental gun bans, but I do think that by keeping it unavailable, officers, including me personally, are safer. I reiterate that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that body-armor defeating ammunition should be available to criminals so they can use it to kill cops.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with you on your "Goose and Gander" theory. I am not comfortable with the idea that cops have access to 15-round mags while law-abiding citizens do not or that they can carry concealed while law-abiding citizens cannot. I don't view an armed law-abiding population as my problem-my problem is the criminal element.

May I suggest that you go back and read my other posts? My concern is NOT that law-abiding citizens will turn into cop killers if they get the Soviet .22 round (although George leads me to believe that, at least in his case, it could happen). Listen carefully: I will AGAIN state that my concern is that if such ammunition was generally available to the public, then anyone, including criminals, could buy it essentially without regulation. I DON'T WANT CRIMINALS TO HAVE THIS AMMUNITION. Clear enough? I'm not saying you or anyone else here is a criminal. I'm also not being ambiguous, so kindly don't put words in my mouth.

George, I sense that you are not confortable with the idea that law enforcement officers might be safer in our body armor if the Soviet .22 was not available to the public. Sorry, I'm a little confused...do you think all cops are JBTs and that we all were responsible for Waco? If that's what you think, you're very wrong, my friend, and I am a little appalled that you think we are expendable-or did I miss some more sarcasm?

OK-anything else? I'm getting ready to go out of town again to do some more crime-fighting. Anyone else want to express some more jack-booted thug, anti-cop sentiment before I leave as a going away present, or are we ready to move on?

I know-don't go away mad, just go away.....beat you to it.

 

[Triad]

I know that you are fully aware of the single use of this ammo and that it has no other purpose.

Really? I think it would make a fine round for hunting small game and target shooting, as well as general plinking.

 

[Tamara]

gumshoe4,

...because neither you nor anyone else would be able to stand in front of those folks and make an argument that body-armor piercing ammunition should be available to the general public knowing that criminals could obtain such ammo with no regulation whatsoever and pose a grave danger to officers.

Yes, I would, because it already is. 7.62 Tok, available cheap by the case and chambered in in flat, concealable pistols, will burn right through most soft vests. Let's not forget pretty much every rifle caliber in the world will, too.

I would also have no problem standing in front of widows and orphans of drunk drivers and telling them that cars and alcohol should not be banned. Et cetera, et al.

Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of black crepe can change it.

Using your argument, there should be no reason that you should not be allowed to own any type of armament you want. Is there a line you would draw here? Would you allow law-abiding citizens to own handgrenades, for example? How about 20mm chain guns or SAWs? How about small tactical nuclear devices? Please understand-I'm drawing on the absurd

Check, check, check and check. What's absurd?

U.S. v. Miller says I have the right to a SAW; and as far as cannons go, Congress has the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Who were they supposed to issue them to?

I live in California...

Which is sad, because it means you already tolerate as normal laws that I couldn't stand for. Of course, I tolerate gun laws that would have made my great-grandparents revolt. I guess the water's not hot enough for either of us to jump out of the pot yet, huh?

 

[12-34hom]

Gumshoe4, save your breath.....

12-34hom.

 

[Intune]

12
Good advice. But for the wrong reason.

Gumshoe4:
Your “…chain-gun, SAW…†remark being viewed as “drawing on the absurd†says it all for me. Give them small arms so they feel like they can defend themselves but nothing large enough where they could become a danger to US.


Let’s try this on for size, shall we? Criminals begin using body armor across the country. Please tell us what type of round LEO’s would be DEMANDING for use in their weapons. FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY sure looks purty, eh?

Also, where are all these police officer shootings taking place? Has the criminal element put the muzzle on CNN and Fox News? They used to cover those stories but…

 

[12-34hom]

I beg to differ, my advice to Gumshoe4 was for all the right reasons.

You're either for or against us rational is pure B.S.

Change is the essence of life, remain static and die.

12-34hom.

 

[rauchman]

Wow, a rather heated debate. While I can understand Gumshoe4's concerns of criminals having armor piercing ammo, the reality is that right now the criminals would be the ones who would have easier access to it than a law abiding citizen would. That scares me. How is that just about all of the gun laws revolve around possible criminal intent? Don't give them more than 10 rounds of ammo in their mags..... a law abiding citizen doesn't have a need for that. How is it that there are laws in effect banning full auto weapons, yet criminals have much easier access to them than law abiding citizens? I will elect to decide what it is I need, thank you very much. I don't need big brother to decide that for me. Criminals always have easier access to the banned stuff. All you need are the right connections. Armor piercing ammo, full auto. They can totally ban guns in America, but the bottom line is that the only people who are truly effected by that are the law abiding citizens. The criminals will take the chance of having "insert banned commodity here" brought into the country if it's going to sell and make money, ie: drugs, weapons, etc. Now, why is it the average law abiding always gets screwed? It's always because of protecting "the children", law enforcement, etc. What about the average Joe? How are we, the general public protected from the people that are always on a quest to take away things from us. I'm sorry, but if you are law enforcement I have great respect for you, but just like the military, it is a job you volunteer for. Nobody twisted your arm to take that job. You take that job with the understanding, you are going into harms way. It is an honorable position, absolutey. However, just because folks have elected to take that type of job does not mean that the average citizen should be denied access to things that are supposed to be guarenteed in the ole Constitution.

Let the flames begin......

 

[braindead0]

Allowing criminals to control the people is no better than slavery. Besides, I'm sure most of the people here could (in a pinch) improvise AP ammunition using HP bullets and hardened steel rods.

So what's the point of banning this cartridge anyway? It would just be a way to take on 50 riders, get some pork, ban a few other things...etc..etc....

I have several friends who are LEO's in California, and not one would support banning any firearms... cause they're sick of the CA bans already.

 

[Penforhire]

Gumshoe, the fair question you asked is where to draw the line. I think I have a relatively simple dividing line. I should be allowed to own and use any destructive device whose effects can be aimed and contained so as to not endanger others when used "according to instructions."

This rules out things like landmines, which are are not aimed and whose effects are difficult, if not impossible to contain.

However, this allows for any caliber of non-explosive projectile, at any velocity that can be stopped by an intended barrier (backstop), at any rate of fire that a person can control (handheld M60's are not considered controllable, Rambo not withstanding).

I support my law enforcement officers as much as possible. But infringing on my 2nd amendment rights is not a grey area to me. Ban ANYTHING and only criminals will have them.

 

[Serpico]

Criminals, criminals, criminals...big yawn....I'm not as worried about criminals having these types of things as much as the mentally ill...which the bulk of your schoolyard/post office shooter types are....

"I should be allowed to own and use any destructive device whose effects can be aimed and contained so as to not endanger others when used "according to instructions."


come now..how many men read instructions?

 

[BHP9]

Look folks, all I'm saying is that ammunition which will defeat body armor is a concern to law enforcement officers who otherwise support private ownership of firearms. Since this entire subject is presently nothing more than rhetorical at best, let me ask you-is it unreasonable to show some concern for the safety of those officers, or, in your view, if a law enforcement officer is in favor of banning such ammunition as a matter of self-preservation, is he by definition nothing more than yet another cop who does not support your 2nd Amendment rights? More importantly, in order to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, is it absolutely necessary to allow general distribution of such single-purpose ammunition? Do we really want officers to be killed if such ammunition was generally available to the criminal element of society in order to prove that we support the 2nd Amendment?

I both agree and disagree with you.

On the one hand outlawing something will temporarily keep it out of the hands of the average knuckle head crook but if the need or desire becomes great enough this type of weapon and ammo will simply be smuggled in and sold on the street. Its done very day with other weapons all over the world and the more strict the laws become the more prevelant the illegal weapons flow becomes.

Ammo made in other parts of the world that penetrates bullet proof vests in all calibers is also availble to crooks that really want it.

And of course if one has even a small machine shop and is a crook anything can be duplicated from weapons to ammo and sold illegally, so the lets ban it and make the world safe for the police is great for keeping weapons and ammo out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but doesn't even slow down the determined crook. Since he has the money he can get it.

The real reason it is banned is not because the Government is affraid of crooks, it is because the Government is afraid of the common people. Crooks don't usually threaten the power of the Government they usually play ball with it. It is the people that worry the Government most and this is what the gun and ammo bans are aimed squarely at. To control absolutely is to control the ownership of guns and ammo and this is the real agenda of anyone in any country that is in power. It is by nature only human nature to do so.

 

[TreeSquid]

I agree with Gumshoe.

I agree with him on all points. I believe that the healthiest thing we can have in law enforcement is a nice, happy "police vs. the civilians" mentality. After all, the police are here to keep those pesky civvies in line, not to serve and protect them, or some such rubbish! Normal people are not to be trusted with anything that could harm the police, because the police and those ordering the police around always make the right decisions and can always be trusted. Yes sir, infallible they are, so impervious to civilian weapons they should be.

On a non-fascist note, I think that anything the cops can have, I should be able to have. I'm not a criminal, I don't make a habit of shooting cops, so I don't think I should be treated like a liability, like someone who has the right to defend himself only against people who are poorly equipped.

As for "concern for officers", what about concern for citizens? I'm sorry, but my freedom far outweighs your safety when you CHOOSE a profession that you are fully aware may get you shot at. I'm really glad that gumshoe puts his own safety before that of law abiding citizens.

Keep on ruling with an iron fist! That's what makes America great!

 

[tetchaje1]

COOL GUN!!! I want one, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea of where to get ammunition for it.

Gumshoe,
I will not go into details here on the internet, but there are several other commonly available brands of pistol ammunition on the market -- other than the well-known 7.62x25 -- that will zing through a ballistic vest. I have seen some of these brands discounted on gunshop shelves in recent weeks as the store owners are trying to move them.

The bottom line is that I would be willing to bet that MOST criminals aren't even aware of Cold War Commie specials, as they seem to fancy Smith revolvers, Glocks, Rugers, and, of course, the cheapies like the Jennings and Brycos. I HIGHLY DOUBT that this caliber would ever be used in a police officer related shooting because of that very fact.

Besides, I am with everybody else here that it isn't the gubmint's business regulating what I can and can't have because of "possible misuse". Let us please ban automobiles and steak knifes if that is the case...