wonder who these will be used against

Threedee said:
He's picking on the fact that you said the FBI could call it in instead of saying the state can.
Click to expand...

And the federal gov't can call out the national guard. There are national guard units in Iraq right now. They have been called out to assist civil authorities.
 
WinterBorn said:
And the federal gov't can call out the national guard. There are national guard units in Iraq right now. They have been called out to assist civil authorities.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I believe as a formality, the president always asks the permission of the governors to sign the specified units over to active duty service.
 
WinterBorn said:
And the federal gov't can call out the national guard. There are national guard units in Iraq right now. They have been called out to assist civil authorities.
Click to expand...

That can't be decided by LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. That's decided by executives in state or national level.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Something about silencers being unfair or scary when the government has them?
Click to expand...

No. And you haven't said anything about how they retard the usefulness of the gun for the purpose you've stated and are only effective for long range (outside the engagement range of almost ALL LEO organizations) anti personal use.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
No. And you haven't said anything about how they retard the usefulness of the gun for the purpose you've stated and are only effective for long range (outside the engagement range of almost ALL LEO organizations) anti personal use.
Click to expand...

A 20 mil gun is going to disable a vehicle whether or not is has a silencer. The air baffles don't reduce its effectiveness so greatly that it can't puncture vehicle armor, particularly when the bullets they use are anti-armor explosive rounds designed to compensate for that. The inertia of the bullet isn't solely what punctures the armor.
 
Just think about what you're saying. There's no practical purpose (nefarious or otherwise) for the FBI to want a 20 mil cannon for anti-personnel use. They have guns that are more accurate with longer range and much more quiet that are far better suited for the job. The only reason they would have for a 20 mil gun is to disable vehicles. There's zero reason to think they would want it to blow personnel to smithereens.
 
ib1yysguy said:
A 20 mil gun is going to disable a vehicle whether or not is has a silencer. The air baffles don't reduce its effectiveness so greatly that it can't puncture vehicle armor, particularly when the bullets they use are anti-armor explosive rounds designed to compensate for that. The inertia of the bullet isn't solely what punctures the armor.
Click to expand...

Inertia is the primary mechanism, especially since you would use SUBSONIC ammunition in a silenced weapon for any sort of equipment longevity and effectiveness. With an explosive round you may have a point, but not on anything sloped that is composite and more than 1.25 inches thick (which is far thinner than your standard armored vehicle these days).

In case you didn't know, for a bullet to travel faster than the speed of sound, it would have to move at around 1150 FPS. A 20mm projectile can weight between 900 and 1500 grains and thus requires a significant powder charge (best estimates of about 500 grains of water equivalent). This produces a muzzle velocity of around almost 4000 fps. A proper reduction to subsonic levels would lose about 75% of it's kinetic energy and a correlating range reduction.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Just think about what you're saying. There's no practical purpose (nefarious or otherwise) for the FBI to want a 20 mil cannon for anti-personnel use. They have guns that are more accurate with longer range and much more quiet that are far better suited for the job. The only reason they would have for a 20 mil gun is to disable vehicles. There's zero reason to think they would want it to blow personnel to smithereens.
Click to expand...

It'd be plenty of reason, were it nefarious. Such a use by clandestine agents could be used to allow further government restrictions on the populace if it were made to look like a terrorist or right wing militia group. I'm speaking hypothetically of course, nothing I know of would indicate that level of government planning possible.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
It'd be plenty of reason, were it nefarious. Such a use by clandestine agents could be used to allow further government restrictions on the populace if it were made to look like a terrorist or right wing militia group. I'm speaking hypothetically of course, nothing I know of would indicate that level of government planning possible.
Click to expand...

That's retarded.

Which is more likely? The situation above or the idea that they're going to disable a plane, lightly armored vehicle, or an unarmored vehicle?
 
ib1yysguy said:
That's retarded.

Which is more likely? The situation above or the idea that they're going to disable a plane, lightly armored vehicle, or an unarmored vehicle?
Click to expand...

You didn't seem to read the last line, where I said it was ALL HYPOTHETICAL. Hypothetically, you could have read the whole thing and answered honestly, but you didn't. Again, the rifle itself can have some uses that you've mentioned, but not when combined with an effective sound suppressor.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You didn't seem to read the last line, where I said it was ALL HYPOTHETICAL. Hypothetically, you could have read the whole thing and answered honestly, but you didn't. Again, the rifle itself can have some uses that you've mentioned, but not when combined with an effective sound suppressor.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second that a sound suppressor would eliminate the usefulness of a 20mm round to disable an engine or to pierce armor. I don't for a second differ to your weapons expertise either. A 20 mil round has plenty of penetrating power, particularly when you consider that the FBI has access to armor piercing rounds. There's 0 reason to think they'd want this for anti personnel reasons. A 50 cal would do a better job in EVERY aspect. Blowing someone to fucking bits doesn't count for shit. And if they wanted to change gun laws, thats only the most retarded argument ever since I'm pretty sure that round is illegal for civilian use already.


Taken directly form wiki:

Usage
Like most cannon ammunition, 20 mm caliber weapons are typically used against large targets such as vehicles, buildings, or aircraft. Though effective against individual soldiers, 20 mm ammunition is so large and heavy that its effects are nearly wasted on relatively small targets.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I don't believe for a second that a sound suppressor would eliminate the usefulness of a 20mm round to disable an engine or to pierce armor. I don't for a second differ to your weapons expertise either. A 20 mil round has plenty of penetrating power, particularly when you consider that the FBI has access to armor piercing rounds. There's 0 reason to think they'd want this for anti personnel reasons. A 50 cal would do a better job in EVERY aspect. Blowing someone to fucking bits doesn't count for shit. And if they wanted to change gun laws, thats only the most retarded argument ever since I'm pretty sure that round is illegal for civilian use already.


Taken directly form wiki:

Usage
Like most cannon ammunition, 20 mm caliber weapons are typically used against large targets such as vehicles, buildings, or aircraft. Though effective against individual soldiers, 20 mm ammunition is so large and heavy that its effects are nearly wasted on relatively small targets.
Click to expand...

I've read the wiki, long before this discussion ever took place. You obviously don't know how an AP round works. I never said that it was good for anti personnel, I said with a suppressor attached, it has no other practical use. You could argue it used against aircraft, which are not armored and the lose of velocity would not be detrimental to disabling it. But again, why suppress it if you're taking out an aircraft?

You mentioned a 50 cal too. Why don't they just get more of those? Modern 50 cal ammo is capable of doing everything the FBI could possibly need the 20mm for, in a lighter, cheaper (not that THAT option ever meant anything to a government agency), more efficient package.

And no, they're not illegal for civilians to use or own. Restricted to Title III, but not illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top