Some may think that to be a stretch, but I would not put it past an administration who has "dissed" their one true ally in the middle east, and who is actively supporting the defeat of Netanyahu in today's election.

Has anyone gone through the thought experiment of this administration (silently) shepherding Iran to a nuclear position, and then the destruction of Israel? Once the event happens, what can *anyone* do about it? At the very most, the world could take away Obama's Peace Price. Everyone could plead ignorance, or maybe even say "we'll try harder next time" or something lame like that. But ultimately, no one is in charge of what the U.S. is doing, and there is no culpability if that happens.

Even if someone were to melt Iran's people and buildings into the sand afterwards -- maybe an Israeli doomsday device? -- it wouldn't repair anything. It would only give some people the satisfaction of revenge, probably on both sides of the issue.

The only upside is that this might confirm that mankind is contributing to global warming after all. I suppose the detonation of a thermonuclear device above oil-rich territory would undoubtedly heat things up. The part of that which is good, is that the GWCL's (Global Warming Chicken Littles) would have something else to worry about for a long, long time.

YNGH Is correct on the ball ammo nomenclature.

I've handled enough ammo cans to verify that. And for that matter, fired enough military ammo.

Yes, I understand the difference. If Iran was only interested in nuclear energy vs nuclear weapons, they'd have no need for plutonium production facilities such as the heavy water reactor.

His endgame is and always has been to weaken, in any way he can get away with, what he has always seen as an Imperial US.

I understand this is an extremely polarizing issue. Here's a more complete analysis of the situation by Sheldon Richman: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/a...

You must live in la la land. I would not know where to start in discrediting your statements.

Read this, Trevor is the king of research, be sure to use his research site, keywiki.org, to get background on most of the admin. http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Enemies-Wit...

I agree that the welcome mat may NOT include handouts. But I think that the general attitude has changed and needs to change more.

Jan

Well said. +1. More if I could.

No, you are not wrong. Both of Dinesh D'Souza's movies give an accurate and damning look at our current president.

"Iran has not attacked any country in hundreds of years"

Uh, beg to differ there. They are the ones overtly supporting many of the terror groups in the Middle East. They were pretty brazen in offering the families of Palestinian suicide bombers salaries. And they were linked to arms shipments headed for those territories. One shouldn't forget the Iran hostage crisis either. When a sovereign nation holds citizens of another hostage, that's an act of war.

And yes, they have been overtly calling for the destruction of Israel. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was very outspoken against both Israel and the United States- calling for their destruction in open forum.

Does that mean the people of Iran are all monsters? No. I've met some who left intentionally to get away from the atmosphere there. And we saw the student uprisings of about four years ago. But to say that the people in charge of Iran are peaceful is a about ten bridges too far for me.

Not when the "welcome mat" consists of government handouts. That's the problem. Conservatives (notice I don't use the word Republicans) believe that people should be responsible for themselves. Democrats believe that they should be responsible for everybody and this justifies them in taking from whomever they want to gain political power - and pocket some of the largesse along the way.

With all due respect, I believe that the Iran of today is very different than the Iran you experienced.

and the Iranian sponsorship of factions attacking
Israel daily? -- j

could this relate to Valerie's having been born in
Iran? . it seems that her influence is undersold. -- j

I very much remember the "drying up" of 9mm and .40 S&W... painful time. After things opened up I've loaded up (pardon the pun) with more rounds of each (plus .357 Sig) than I'll admit to in this public forum. :)

I didn't take that into consideration. It's a good point. There is probably a dozen irrational reasons, but in totality it might seem a rational stance. Still,
--an enigma.

I think we've more or less aligned our nomenclature, although I could not find any requirement for a specific powder type in the M855 specification (if you have a link, could you PM me with it?). I'll stick with the accepted "ball ammo" definition per my previous post. :)

*IF* there is a propensity for the 5.56 to fragment, it is likely due to its relatively low mass and high kinetic energy - the lead core of the bullet may simply strip through its jacket. I have heard people claim that the 5.56 "tumbles in flight" but that is patently false. The drag of anything tumbling would make it ineffective and inaccurate, which is not how I'd describe this round.

I agree that the M-16 was designed to be a "spray and pray" weapon. Clearly your long gun is more aligned for sniping. And I'm with you - I'd prefer a .308 BTHP any day for precision shooting.

.50 Beowulf would be fun but expen$ive to shoot.

The Russians are best known for ball powder in whatever they sell, probably because there wouldn't be a consumer market in Russia (not sure if they have gun ownership there).

I probably read too much into it, but whenever I hear 'ball ammo' I'm basically thinking of ball/spherical powder design - lower flashpoint, faster rate of burn, higher velocity and the yield is a very distinctive crack.

Sporting rifles use cylindrical gun powder, burns a little slower, but is probably more reliable in adverse weather or something, might be why it is popular for American hunting rifles. All of the .308's, .300's 30-30 / 30-06, etc. all have cylindrical powder. If you buy black powder for reloading, unless you know what you are doing and special order, I'm 99.9% certain you get cylindrical over the counter.

I think the designation of "M855" is more to eliminate a large source of inexpensive ammo that people can buy for their AR-15s... a few years ago, Dear Leader had DHS buying billions of rounds of .223 / 9mm / .45 ACP to basically take supply out of the market and drive prices up.

This is really just an extension of that it seems like. If you took 5.56 out of the surplus ammo market, it would constrain supply for the .223 and probably double/triple prices again.

You need to read the article, it refers to M855 ammunition, that is 5.56 MM, and mil-spec ball powder.

.223 is a Remington round, and was designed from the nearly identical preexisting .222 and .224 rounds. The .223 was developed as a commercial alternative for the consumer-grade AR-15, as opposed to the M-16 / M4 which the 5.56mm is intended for.

The 5.56mm is designed in projectile weight and charge to be optimized for a 20 inch barrel. you do not see those (very rare) in the consumer Ar-15 market. Most are 16's, you see a few 17's, etc. 5.56 is designed for a 1:19 twist ratio, whereas .223 is for a 1:7 to 1:9. If you fire a 5.56 out of a short-length AR-15 barrel, it will probably wobble a little. When either of them strike the target, these are basically projectiles not much bigger than a pellet gun shoots, it will absolutely tumble & fragment. It's relatively high velocity, but it's a 150 yard weapon, not a 1000 or 2000 yard weapon. (My Archangel is pretty effective out to about 500 meters and can be sighted & fired out to 2000 if you really want to spend a few thousand on a scope).

If you google M855 and differences between the 5.56 mm and .223 round, I think you will see what I'm trying to get across.

The point is, M855 references the 5.56 mil-spec surplus ammunition, which really doesn't have a place in the sporting / consumer market because the characteristics are different. It's cheap.. maybe 15 cents a round in bulk, but beyond that, it behaves differently.

You can also switch the upper on an AR for 50 caliber by the way... the Beowulf rounds.

All of it is like driving a model T though compared to a Tesla.. This is the next generation of weaponry.

http://tracking-point.com

And once the camel's nose is under the tent...

Ummm... okay.

1). You've demonstrated that there are several types of powder that may be used to reload a cartridge, including "ball powder" (I'm pretty sure they sell it outside Russia :) ) but that it not where the term "ball ammo" comes from. Not that Wikipedia is the authoritative source on all things gun, but they do get it right when they say "Full metal jacket or "ball" bullets (cartridges with ball bullets (which despite the name are not spherical) are called ball ammunition) are completely encased in the harder metal jacket, except for the base."

2). Your note above states that "An AR-15 is high velocity, but it's a very small round, and it tumbles in flight". I assume you are referring to the 5.56mm variant of the AR, but note that there are others including the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .308, and .458 SOCOM (wouldn't that be a hoot to shoot?). 5.56mm is indeed a small diameter round, but it does not tumble in flight. This round is no different than any other round in that it spirals once it leaves the barrel, and once it strikes a target of mass physics takes over and the kinetic energy is dissipated inside (and possibly outside) the target.

3). AR does not automatically mean 5.56mm. As I mentioned, ARs can be had in multiple calibers, some of which would be quite suitable for boar hunting.

Incorrect -

1.) http://ultimatereloader.com/reloading-10...

Russians use spherical gunpowder grains (ball ammo). Or at least I asked a gunsmith once about the unique sound that my AK / SKS / Mosin make, and that was the answer he gave - I've seen it confirmed regularly. I have AR's as well, and many other rifles & handguns, but the sound of the SKS in particular is very unique.

2.) It's a very small projectile, and everything I've read seems to indicate it tumbles and fragments on impact, which is why it does an extreme amount of damage for otherwise being not much larger than a .22 (other than a higher velocity). I did a new Google search, and seems to confirm. Shooting through paper won't be enough resistance to send it out of flight, but compared to say a 30-06 or .308 round or 7.62x54... it's an extremely tiny projectile (55 grains versus 165 for example). My 300 magnum looks like a nuclear warhead compared to a .223. It's a popular sporting rifle, but is not designed for stopping power against a significant target (like a bear, elk, moose, boar, etc.). They are illegal to hunt deer with in Minnesota actually (where I grew up) because they tend to maime rather than kill the game.

3.) agreed... but I wouldn't pick an AR15 for that. I do some boar hunting in Arizona on occasion... I wouldn't dream of using an AR for that, I'd be scared to death it wouldn't have the stopping power.

A few thoughts.

1. "Ball ammo" is full-metal jacket (sans the base) bullet versus a hollow-point bullet or other types of bullet construction. It has nothing to do with the shape of powder granules.
2. A 5.56 round does NOT tumble in flight (urban legend time). It spirals just like any other round and you will see this on any paper target that you put a round through.
3. There is a HUGE difference between an armor-piercing round designed to penetrate metallic and ceramic armor and a round that can penetrate body armor (usually made of woven Kevlar). Certain types of high velocity smaller caliber ball ammunition can penetrate body armor.