thoughts and opinions on Nosler Ballistic tip bullets for Home defense??

[E53001]

anybody have any experience or insights with these specific bullet tips???

[Robb Jensen]

If you're going to use a 5.56mm rifle for home defense you'll probably be best served by a 55gr HP or soft point vs. a varmint bullet.

[ST911]

anybody have any experience or insights with these specific bullet tips???

Varmint bullet that offers limited penetration and enhanced fragmentation.

See also: Hornady VMAX and Sierra Blitzking, both loaded in defensive loads as well.

All are exceptionally accurate in my experience.

[E53001]

i've used these in 30-06 silver ballistic tip and the results were outstanding for deer,and was just curious if anybody has tinkered around with them in 5.56 cal and what the end results were

[jmart]

If you're going to use a 5.56mm rifle for home defense you'll probably be best served by a 55gr HP or soft point vs. a varmint bullet.

How many 55 grain softpoints aren't constructed for varmint applications? Speer, Hornady, Sierra, they're all very lightly constructed. Unless you are talking a bonded bullet, but those are few. HPs are also lightly constructed, their jackets are really thin.

[BC98]

FWIW, I believe Hornady TAP are loaded with VMax bullets.

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[Robb Jensen]

Check out the 223 rifle data book on Federal's web site. The 14.5 inch barrel and heavy clothing tests (page 3) in particular show load T223E (the Sierra 55 BTHP "gameking") getting 11 inches of penetration, and T223F (the Nosler 55 BT) getting 12.0 inches of penetration. The range tested was at 10 yards.

Here's the link for their 223 rifle data.

http://www.le.atk.com/223data/223rifle.asp?pgtocall=1

Paladin

It's for varmints with body armor ! aka 'tactical' varmints ;)

I 'carry' 77gr MK262 Mod 1 in my 'carry' carbines. i.e. non-varmint bullets.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/262002.jpg

[556]

anybody have any experience or insights with these specific bullet tips???

I use/like them ( 55gr nosler ballistic tips) for my in the city home defense gun for two reasons.

They feed flawlessly

They don't over penatrate, if they exit the target there will be a mess. However if you miss the target they will almost alway fragment enough not to penetrate much more than 1 wall.

[556]

It's for varmints with body armor ! aka 'tactical' varmints ;)

I 'carry' 77gr MK262 Mod 1 in my 'carry' carbines. i.e. non-varmint bullets.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/262002.jpg

My Colt (1-7twist) on my boat (ie "Boat Gun") sports the Barnes 70gr TSX. It is supurb on the penetration with a super wound channel. Inside 35 yards they will completely exit a average Black Bear and I haven't recovered one from caribou which were shot at 120 yards.

[Failure2Stop]

I would be very hesitent to use a bullet that does not penetrate at lest 12" of bare gelatin. The targetry used on square ranges tends to make people believe that lethal threats will stand squared off to you, exposing their entire torso without anything in front of them.

To have justification to shoot someone, they must be a lethal threat. This will usually mean have some sort of weapon, which will most likely be pointed at/or swinging at you.

In most shootings between armed people, most shots land near the weapon due to the human propensity to focus on the weapon during a violent encounter. So, the bullets need to be able to travel through outstretched arms and such and still penetrate enough to puncture/destroy vital organs.

What if the person you need to shoot is under partial cover? Does the bullet have enough penetration ability to make it through the cover and end the fight? Though I question to valitity of the statement by the poster that believes that his ballistic-tipped bullets will be stopped in one wall, I would definately not want to rely on a bullet that would allow an adversary effective cover from behind a door frame.

The 77/75 gr cannellured bullets perform just as well as the lightweight bullets at close range, and outperform them as velocity drops. The only purpose for varmint bullets is for. . . wait for it. . . shooting varmints.

[556]

I would be very hesitent to use a bullet that does not penetrate at lest 12" of bare gelatin. The targetry used on square ranges tends to make people believe that lethal threats will stand squared off to you, exposing their entire torso without anything in front of them.

To have justification to shoot someone, they must be a lethal threat. This will usually mean have some sort of weapon, which will most likely be pointed at/or swinging at you.

In most shootings between armed people, most shots land near the weapon due to the human propensity to focus on the weapon during a violent encounter. So, the bullets need to be able to travel through outstretched arms and such and still penetrate enough to puncture/destroy vital organs.

What if the person you need to shoot is under partial cover? Does the bullet have enough penetration ability to make it through the cover and end the fight? Though I question to valitity of the statement by the poster that believes that his ballistic-tipped bullets will be stopped in one wall, I would definately not want to rely on a bullet that would allow an adversary effective cover from behind a door frame.

The 77/75 gr cannellured bullets perform just as well as the lightweight bullets at close range, and outperform them as velocity drops. The only purpose for varmint bullets is for. . . wait for it. . . shooting varmints.

There is nothing wrong with your theory, as it is well known, and I do practice such in environments deserving of such.

The original poster wanted some thoughts on the Ballistic tip with home defense in mind and I gave him mine. Since you question the validity of my statements I must assume you have never tested the 40 or 55gr Ballistic tip your self. The test is simple. Shoot two pieces of ½ in sheet rock 4” apart and tell me how much energy in the fragments is left to penetrate flesh. Then try it through a two by four & two peaces of sheet rock.

If you ever seen what a ballistic tip does to a coyote or wolf you would rethink your hitting someone in the arm or hand or elbow……what ever you want to fantasize.

If I have to punch someone and that person does not fall…I simply punch again…….

I DO NOT SHOOT WHAT I CAN’T SEE no matter what I think I’m hitting by penetration of cover. I only shoot at what I can see…..if the scumbag offers me half a forehead that is what I’ll take. I would rather be shot myself then tohit an unintended living target by shooting though cover..

I know it is probably really hard for some of you to think that many of us do not live in a war zone……

I live in a “HOME” where my children have free reign, they come and go as they please as do my grandchildren. My good neighbors and friends live close by. When the bump goes in the night it is the AR with ballistic tips which is my “to go” gun…..I will never be sorry for shooting something I can’t see or by killing an unintended target due solid chunks of projectiles bouncing around flying aimlessly.

[WS6]

I know a person is not a coyote but...

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1932647

Ballistic tip .223 can be NASTY! if they aren't behind cover. Any kind of serious cover and you are SOL though.

[Failure2Stop]

556-

I just spent too long writing a response that I think may be taken as insultory, (as I do not know you, and you do not know me) so I will simply agree to the fact that what some people need, others do not understand.

LaMas tried this concept. Anyone interested can reserch them. Long story short; didn't work out.

I am interested in the results of your tests, as I have not conducted those tests with those rounds. If you have pictures and data of the gel-shots and penetration/fragmentation in drywall, I would like to see it. I think it is very much inline with the thread's question and may make for informed choices in defensive ammunition.

[Hootiewho]

I am not advocating the use of these bullets, although some of my buddies from my county's SD was prep'd to go to New Orleans after Katrina and the 60 grain ballistic Hornady TAP ammo was what they were given.

One the 60 grain BT TAP. First, I know that a person is totally different, but I have shot about 6 deer with these bullets. Half were neck shots, the other chest shots. About 2-3 inches inside the wound to about 8 inches turns to jello. All tissue is nothing but a mush. Only few small particles actually penetrated out or the neck, and none out of the chest. On a lightly clothed, small frame individual; they may be fine. A big guy, forget it. He'll have a nasty wound, and probably die from it, but it ain't going through. They might work good on the US/Mexican border in August, but up north, in the cold, with a 300 lb linebacker, no way.

[556]

556-

I just spent too long writing a response that I think may be taken as insultory, (as I do not know you, and you do not know me) so I will simply agree to the fact that what some people need, others do not understand.

LaMas tried this concept. Anyone interested can reserch them. Long story short; didn't work out.

I am interested in the results of your tests, as I have not conducted those tests with those rounds. If you have pictures and data of the gel-shots and penetration/fragmentation in drywall, I would like to see it. I think it is very much inline with the thread's question and may make for informed choices in defensive ammunition.

Like I said, I understand your comments fully, and they are valid. I also accept them to be correct in many circumstances required of the AR platform.

With that said, it does not discount the ballistic tip as a defensive round inside and around one’s home in our society as it is today.

These projectiles out of a 16” (what most civilians use) are a better one shot “FIGHT STOPPER” than most handguns we use for self-defense with less penetration.

Just recently we had one of our warriors return from Iraq. He AD’d his 45 acp in his hotel room, the 230 grain slug penetrated 6 walls and this was after going thought his arm and getting deflected off the bone. No worries, it turns out he will get back full use of his arm and no one was hit by the runaway slug.

However I would have to say; if his arm was hit by the projectiles under discussion, I would bet a month’s wage that his arm usage would suck to say the least. Plus the slug fragments would have been contained within the room.

Look, I’m not looking for a fight or argument. Nor am I going to perform a test just for pictures etc…I perform such un-scientific tests just to satisfy my own curiosity.. Not all of us have need to shoot though car doors, glass, walls or one shot put downs at 200 plus yards….. I just need a step up on the crack heads and tweeker wanna be gang bangers who may attempt to threaten my family within/around my home.

That’s where my AR with ballistic tips has an advantage over my 1911, regardless of type of normal clothing, size, or drug use of target.

I guess if we had a 6'.5" 300lb volunteer to dress up as we do up here in the winter. We could have him start at 21 ft with a rambo knife. I'll start with with my AR at low ready and won't fire till he charges me....hmmmmm....Would that be a scientific test?;)

[PALADIN-hgwt]

xxxxx

[Failure2Stop]

Try reading page 5 of the previously offered Federal LE reference. It shows the Sierra 55 BTHP (T223E) achieving...wait for it...12.5 inches of Gelatin penetration AFTER going thru drywall. My water filled laundry soap jug test at 200 yards showed quite nice expansion as well, at an estimated 2100 fps impact velocity.

Paladin

Not quite sure of what side of the fence you are on here. I have read the offered reference, and the T223E (Boat Tail Hollow Point) performs how I advocate (despite the gree-dye marketing temp cavity profile) above. The T223F (Ballistic Tip) shows 8.5" of penetration after wallboard, supporting the concept that they are not rendered harmless after passing through a wall.

I am all for sarcasm, but I am not sure which way your arrows are aimed- it seems like you are targeting me, but they are hitting someone else.

556-

I approach the issue as you are, and I do not mean to come accross as argumentative or condescending. I see this as a discussion on good guys (us) getting rid of bad guys (the threat) to defend our families and countrymen. At the end of the day this is about good people making informed decisions on how to defend our families, and I definately understand the concept of reducing the hazard of our actions to the very family members we are protecting.

I tried to do some live tissue ballistic testing as you advised, but sadly the requisition forms for Gitmo deteinees requires the CO's signature, who is TAD right now. :(

But back to the topic-
I fully agree that a rifle loaded with pretty much anything is better than a pistol loaded with pretty much anything, for many reasons, overpenetration among them. To complicate the issue, I have offered advice in the past to use 55gr projectiles for HD, and I do not think myself wrong for it.

I do not consider anyone that would use Ballistic Tipped bullets for HD to be an ignoramus or internet commando. It appears that the 55gr (+) are reasonable choices for most people. Since the OP asked for thoughts and opinions- I said was I would be hesitant to use a bullet that failed to achieve at least 12" of penetration in ballistic gelatin (implying the lightweight variety). I see how that could be understood to imply that I wouldn't shoot someone with it, but what I meant was that given the choice I would select something in the 77/75gr range, such as the 5.56 Hornady TAP.

I understand conducting shoots to satisfy your own curiosity, I was just interested in any pictures you may have had. It's no problem, I did not mean to imply that you were lying, so apologies if it was taken that way.

A note on the animal shots that keep popping up (not you Hootie). There is a great "to do" made of the exit wounds. Unless the exit wound is a visible hole into the internals of the torso, what you are seeing is the stellate exit wound caused by temporary cavity interacting with the skin, which reacts much more negatively with stress than most internal organs. This is not to say that the bullet didn't do it's job on the inside, but to see what terminal performance the projectile provided, a careful dissection of the animal must be carried out by trained personnel. Also, as is pretty obvious, how bullets perform in animals is different than how they perform in people, as the physiology is sufficiently different.

I consider this to be a discussion of concept, nothing more than that. If terminal ballistics and personal selection are verging on religions conviction for anyone, I apologise, and I hope my heresy can be forgiven. I, however, am not fixed im my personl ammo selection, and am willing to rationally discuss my position and understanding.

[WS6]

Not quite sure of what side of the fence you are on here. I have read the offered reference, and the T223E (Boat Tail Hollow Point) performs how I advocate (despite the gree-dye marketing temp cavity profile) above. The T223F (Ballistic Tip) shows 8.5" of penetration after wallboard, supporting the concept that they are not rendered harmless after passing through a wall.

I am all for sarcasm, but I am not sure which way your arrows are aimed- it seems like you are targeting me, but they are hitting someone else.

556-

I approach the issue as you are, and I do not mean to come accross as argumentative or condescending. I see this as a discussion on good guys (us) getting rid of bad guys (the threat) to defend our families and countrymen. At the end of the day this is about good people making informed decisions on how to defend our families, and I definately understand the concept of reducing the hazard of our actions to the very family members we are protecting.

I tried to do some live tissue ballistic testing as you advised, but sadly the requisition forms for Gitmo deteinees requires the CO's signature, who is TAD right now. :(

But back to the topic-
I fully agree that a rifle loaded with pretty much anything is better than a pistol loaded with pretty much anything, for many reasons, overpenetration among them. To complicate the issue, I have offered advice in the past to use 55gr projectiles for HD, and I do not think myself wrong for it.

I do not consider anyone that would use Ballistic Tipped bullets for HD to be an ignoramus or internet commando. It appears that the 55gr (+) are reasonable choices for most people. Since the OP asked for thoughts and opinions- I said was I would be hesitant to use a bullet that failed to achieve at least 12" of penetration in ballistic gelatin (implying the lightweight variety). I see how that could be understood to imply that I wouldn't shoot someone with it, but what I meant was that given the choice I would select something in the 77/75gr range, such as the 5.56 Hornady TAP.

I understand conducting shoots to satisfy your own curiosity, I was just interested in any pictures you may have had. It's no problem, I did not mean to imply that you were lying, so apologies if it was taken that way.

A note on the animal shots that keep popping up (not you Hootie). There is a great "to do" made of the exit wounds. Unless the exit wound is a visible hole into the internals of the torso, what you are seeing is the stellate exit wound caused by temporary cavity interacting with the skin, which reacts much more negatively with stress than most internal organs. This is not to say that the bullet didn't do it's job on the inside, but to see what terminal performance the projectile provided, a careful dissection of the animal must be carried out by trained personnel. Also, as is pretty obvious, how bullets perform in animals is different than how they perform in people, as the physiology is sufficiently different.

I consider this to be a discussion of concept, nothing more than that. If terminal ballistics and personal selection are verging on religions conviction for anyone, I apologise, and I hope my heresy can be forgiven. I, however, am not fixed im my personl ammo selection, and am willing to rationally discuss my position and understanding.


I agree, animals are not people (let's not get technical on terminology).

I also say that any round that turns from entry-10" of flesh/organ penetrated into soup is going to be VERY effective. The vitals of the thoracic cavity are NOT clustered next to the spine, they FILL it. I don't know many people that 10" of penetration into the chest cavity thereof would NOT hit vitals.

Also, assuming an arm or other appendage is struck before the targeted part (COM), the Ballistic tip would do much more damage than an FMJ or OTM to the limb hit, possibly rendering it totally useless, as well as creating lots of blood loss (brachial artery...) and possible psychological defeat.

Failing the above, another attempt is just 5# of pressure away.

[Failure2Stop]

I also say that any round that turns from entry-10" of flesh/organ penetrated into soup is going to be VERY effective. The vitals of the thoracic cavity are NOT clustered next to the spine, they FILL it. I don't know many people that 10" of penetration into the chest cavity thereof would NOT hit vitals.


Anything that liquiefies the heart/major vascular structures is effective. No dissent. Issues arise with non fully-frontal shots. If the only shot you have is through the bicep/shoulder, then the bullet must penetrate the shoulder, humerous, more muscle of the arm, fat and muscle around the rib-cage, the ribcage, the lung, and significant portions of the heart/major vascular structures. This is where the requirement for a minimum of 12" of penetration comes from.



Also, assuming an arm or other appendage is struck before the targeted part (COM), the Ballistic tip would do much more damage than an FMJ or OTM to the limb hit, possibly rendering it totally useless, as well as creating lots of blood loss (brachial artery...) and possible psychological defeat.


A ballistic tip may cause more damage to a limb than other types, but it may not. Even the robust M-47 AK round can cause massive damage to limbs despite their non-fragmentary performance (see this link (http://kevinsites.net/2004_03_28_archive.html)). Either way, damage to limbs cannot be relied upon as a stopper. Even significant blood loss from a severed brachial artery may take hours to cause incapacitation (Hemorrhagic Shock).

Gunshots themselves are not instantly painful or unbalancing enough, especially when the victim is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or adrenaline, to promise incapacitation. Though most non-CNS single shot incapacitations are psychological, the phenominon is not reliable as a method of stopping.



Failing the above, another attempt is just 5# of pressure away.

This is true, multiple shots are better, but is outside the scope of the discussion, and is heavly dependant on the method of employment. One shot is all you might get.

If we are talking about use inside a residence, the average shot distance will be measured in feet, not yards. Consider that an average man can cover 7 yards (21 feet) in 1.5 seconds. If that man begins closing with you, as you make the decision to fire, you just lost about .2-.3 seconds to identify, decide, and act. Sweeping the safety and raising the muzzle will take you another .1-.2 seconds. Establishing some kind of sight picture will take another .1-.3 seconds. This leaves you with 1.1 to .7 seconds (with times that are assuming a high degree of proficiency with no performance degredation under stress) before the aggressor will be physically occupying the space you are, during which time you say you are going to assess the shot's effectiveness.

Since the muzzle of a 16" carbine is about 2'-3' from your actual position, the BG will be inside the muzzle in even less than 1.5 seconds. Now just imagine you are actually at room distances, which will be about 10'.

The times needed are not just to get off a shot, but to incapacitate the threat.

The shot after the assessment may be 5 pounds away, but it will be about 1/2 second too late.

Of course, the same argument could be used for any type of round, but shots that penetrate the heart have a much higher incidence of rapid incapacitation than any other non-CNS shot. Either way, count on shooting until the threat drops.

[WS6]

Anything that liquiefies the heart/major vascular structures is effective. No dissent. Issues arise with non fully-frontal shots. If the only shot you have is through the bicep/shoulder, then the bullet must penetrate the shoulder, humerous, more muscle of the arm, fat and muscle around the rib-cage, the ribcage, the lung, and significant portions of the heart/major vascular structures. This is where the requirement for a minimum of 12" of penetration comes from.



A ballistic tip may cause more damage to a limb than other types, but it may not. Even the robust M-47 AK round can cause massive damage to limbs despite their non-fragmentary performance (see this link (http://kevinsites.net/2004_03_28_archive.html)). Either way, damage to limbs cannot be relied upon as a stopper. Even significant blood loss from a severed brachial artery may take hours to cause incapacitation (Hemorrhagic Shock).

Gunshots themselves are not instantly painful or unbalancing enough, especially when the victim is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or adrenaline, to promise incapacitation. Though most non-CNS single shot incapacitations are psychological, the phenominon is not reliable as a method of stopping.



This is true, multiple shots are better, but is outside the scope of the discussion, and is heavly dependant on the method of employment. One shot is all you might get.

If we are talking about use inside a residence, the average shot distance will be measured in feet, not yards. Consider that an average man can cover 7 yards (21 feet) in 1.5 seconds. If that man begins closing with you, as you make the decision to fire, you just lost about .2-.3 seconds to identify, decide, and act. Sweeping the safety and raising the muzzle will take you another .1-.2 seconds. Establishing some kind of sight picture will take another .1-.3 seconds. This leaves you with 1.1 to .7 seconds (with times that are assuming a high degree of proficiency with no performance degredation under stress) before the aggressor will be physically occupying the space you are, during which time you say you are going to assess the shot's effectiveness.

Since the muzzle of a 16" carbine is about 2'-3' from your actual position, the BG will be inside the muzzle in even less than 1.5 seconds. Now just imagine you are actually at room distances, which will be about 10'.

The times needed are not just to get off a shot, but to incapacitate the threat.

The shot after the assessment may be 5 pounds away, but it will be about 1/2 second too late.

Of course, the same argument could be used for any type of round, but shots that penetrate the heart have a much higher incidence of rapid incapacitation than any other non-CNS shot. Either way, count on shooting until the threat drops.


I agree with what you have stated, but let's be honest, inside a house the nastiest thing out there is a load of #1 buck-shot from a 12 ga.

Trying to pick which .224" round is most effective is an academic discussion at best when all can all agree (ok, I am sure someone won't...) that the 12ga is the king in CQ.

I would like to look at your scenario though. You base the ENTIRE premise of needing ONE GOOD SHOT on the fact that your attacker will be closing distance and attacking you and thus possibly preventing another shot. If he doesn't close, you get more shots. If he does, he may be bigger/stronger and you wont get more shots, so that ONE had BETTER! count.

^THat is what you are saying, right?

Okay, my thought is this. Very few people cover their thoracic cavity or turn sideways when charging someone. Bang--soup.

[Failure2Stop]

Trying to pick which .224" round is most effective is an academic discussion at best when all can all agree (ok, I am sure someone won't...) that the 12ga is the king in CQ.


Picking which 5.56 round is more effective is more than academic, and a 12ga is outperformed by 5.56. I hope I am not coming off as argumentative here, but please bear with me.

Rifles work better than shotguns. The concept of the superiority of the shotgun was born out of the old west and WWI. Shotguns are more effective than .45 pistols. Shotguns were better than bolt-action rifles in trench-clearing. But shotguns were found to be limited in their effectiveness, thus creating the need for the SMG for trench-clearing. Shotguns are not as precise as rifles, even at short distances, and do not cause as much damage to tissue as good 5.56 rounds.

Different 5.56 performs, well, differently. Some penetrate very deeply with no (or very little) fragmentation, such as the DPX. Some yaw and fragment very rapidly (such as the 40gr varmint types). Both give different wound profiles, as they were built to do different things. Most certainly different users require different performance. A Prairiedog shooter needs the rapid upset to tear the vermin to tiny pieces, ensuring a humane kill. A deer hunter needs deep penetration to ensure that the bullet pierces the heart and lungs and exits, to provide a blood trail. The deer hunter knows that the deer is probably going to run for a bit even after taking one through the heart. Not a problem, because the incidence of lethal-threat deer is sufficiently low that the hunter does not actually need to drop the deer instantly.

For good result in the two-legged variety, we need a bullet that is somewhere in between the two extremes. And even with that, there are differing needs. What works for a traffic cop to get through automobile glass is not what a SWAT cop needs for hostage rescue, and neither is what an average PFC needs in Ramadi.

If you look at what knowledgable professionals recommend for use, none of it is lightweight varmint. 55gr is where the loads start to perform as needed, but certainly not all 55gr ammo meets the requirements.

We match the ammo to the need.



You base the ENTIRE premise of needing ONE GOOD SHOT on the fact that your attacker will be closing distance and attacking you and thus possibly preventing another shot. If he doesn't close, you get more shots. If he does, he may be bigger/stronger and you wont get more shots, so that ONE had BETTER! count.


I was going to do a longer topic on this, but my post length was reaching critical mass. I understand where you are coming from in your response, but omission of more scenarios does not invalidate the issue.

I was applying too much pressure with the response, thus giving the intial statement far too much weight in the discussion.

I was addressing the issue with single shots. At the bottom of the post I noted that you should plan on shooting the threat to the ground. It was a response to the "shoot/assess/shoot" concept that was brought up, linked to the issue with compressed time/space.

Engagement technique in a terminal effects discussion is misplaced. We should always plan to shoot until the threat ceases all hostile actions. This observation should be made in the .2 seconds between shots. It is primarily indicated by the target dropping out of sight picture.

I should have better written my response, but I was just typing through an explaination without properly planning the response.



Okay, my thought is this. Very few people cover their thoracic cavity or turn sideways when charging someone. Bang--soup.

No, but their weapon will most likely be extended toward you, thus providing interference for the bullet. Further, any strikes not through the sternum will probably not travel deeply enough to reach critical areas.

Other case- the threat may be moving perpendicular to your vantage point (say toward a loved one), requiring an oblique/flank shot.

Still, seeing that heavier bullets perform just as well (or better) than the lightweights at close range, and reduce shallow penetration failures, why not go with a bullet that meets the FBI minimum criteria, as recommended by people that study this for a living?
>LINK (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001244)<

[WS6]

Sorry for not quoting, but it would have been lengthy.

I can see your points in all areas, however, I still feel that a BT would do the job 95% of the time. For the other 5%, you have a point. To be honest though, 55gr FMJ is in the AR's that are kept loaded around the house and I have yet to meet someone who wanted to see if it would hurt or not.

[556]

May I suggest if an intruder is in your home un-invited with a weapon in hand.

The only reaction needed, should be by the intruder reacting to a BT already in flight..........:eek:

If target doen't react as desired, that leaves 1.35 seconds to launch 5 + more (skilled operator)................