TexasCHLforum.com

I'm thinking about slowly buying the parts for the upper as funds become available. Like I said, I'm trying to save for a 1911, but $20 here, $40 there, and eventually I'll have a complete upper - even though it will likely cost more in the end. Anyone ever bought the individual components to spec out their own build? I'm looking for a good list of the necessary parts. I know of one on Sniper Central, but it wasn't a very well written list.

WarHawk-AVG wrote: Quite the contrary!

I know this guys stuff isn't "Scientific" but its real world application and seeing the results 1st hand (thru pics) is quite good enough to make me a believer or at least give me an idea of what guns/bullets are capable of penetrating

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the .22 is capable of penetrating 3 layers of walls...thats 2 rooms over, most pistol and rifle bullets went thru 12 sheets of sheetrock (aka 6 walls) and kept on going

Even 00 buck 2 3/4" penetrated 3 walls!
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theboxotruth.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see what real world ammo can do...you can even see penetration test on cars (fyi a car is NOT cover!!)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Learn something new every day. I wish I had access to some land where I could perform my own tests on various mediums.

WarHawk-AVG wrote:

atxgun wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote: On the issue of a shotgun being "more effective and safer for the neighbors"...That's debatable. There is no denying the psychological effects of hearing a Remington 870 chamber a round. Everyone knows that sound. The flipside is, shotguns have limited ammunition capacity, are slow to reload, and the recovery time between shots is typically longer when compared to an AR15. We also have evidence to suggest that some .223/5.56mm ammunition, even when fired from a 16-inch barrel, actually offers less penetration than many 9mm rounds fired from handguns. In fact, this was the very argument many LE agencies used to support their ongoing movement away from shotguns to patrol carbines.

And finally, in the OPs question about legal issues: Many police agencies now carry AR15's in their patrol cars. We also have a few scattered incidents of people legally defending their homes with AR15's. Some weren't so bright on tactics and at least one sprayed half the neighborhood in the process. Still, none that I know of were prosecuted. So there is evidence to suggest that AR15's are becoming a "commonly used" firearm for self-defense. Given all these factors, it's REALLY hard for me to imagine that platform presenting a legal issue. I think this is especially true given the recent SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case.

If you could cite the evidence on the .223's penetrating less than 9mmm along with the evidence of non prosecuted ar-15 home defense, I'd love to read it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud owner but I find the former claim hard to swallow, considering factory rounds are used in both cases. I could believe the latter and frankly would just like to read about it.

I imagine you won't disagree that most real world self/home defense gun fights last a matter of seconds with less than half a dozen rounds being exchanged from both sides combined. Given that I don't think the need to quickly reload is much of a factor if you're planning for that type of situation. My Mossberg 590 holds 8+1 and that's what I keep under my bed while my AR sits unloaded in the closet. Living in an apt, I feel the shotgun is the best option for optimal defense with minimal probability of undesired consequences.

Quite the contrary!

I know this guys stuff isn't "Scientific" but its real world application and seeing the results 1st hand (thru pics) is quite good enough to make me a believer or at least give me an idea of what guns/bullets are capable of penetrating

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the .22 is capable of penetrating 3 layers of walls...thats 2 rooms over, most pistol and rifle bullets went thru 12 sheets of sheetrock (aka 6 walls) and kept on going

Even 00 buck 2 3/4" penetrated 3 walls!
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theboxotruth.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see what real world ammo can do...you can even see penetration test on cars (fyi a car is NOT cover!!)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This still doesn't support the claim that from G.C. that .223 ammo won't penetrate as much as 00 buck. I stil maintain that under most realistic scenerios that an AR type weapon is a lousy choice. The AR is a fun range gun. the AR/15 M16 was designed to throw a lot of lead in a combat situation. Not for personal or Home defense. I

Liberty wrote: This still doesn't support the claim that from G.C. that .223 ammo won't penetrate as much as 00 buck. I stil maintain that under most realistic scenerios that an AR type weapon is a lousy choice. The AR is a fun range gun. the AR/15 M16 was designed to throw a lot of lead in a combat situation. Not for personal or Home defense. I

You are entitled to your opinion and I did say the issue of superiority of one weapon system over the other is debatable. While I think the shotgun is a fine weapon, I'm not above noting that it has it's limitations. Every weapon system has it's problems and is not ideal in all scenarios.

Now, as an example of the evidence you requested, one source that is frequently cited Dr. Gary Roberts' aritcle titled, "Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons: The Wounding Effects of 5.56mm Carbines Compared with 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant." Massad Ayoob also cited this same source in a March 2001 article for American Handgunnner. I did a google search and found a copy of Ayoob's article here. If the link does not work, the full link is as follows...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... tBody;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, I am not going to say that a round fired from an AR15 that misses it's target is any less of a threat than 00 Buck or a 9mm bullet that has also missed it's target. That would defy the laws of physics. But what I am saying is that when we actually put bullets in their intended targets, some 5.56NATO/.223 ammo has been shown to stay where we put it rather than continuing downrange with sufficient energy to cause additional injury. One of Roberts' stated conclusions was the AR15 actually poses less danger downrange to innocent bystanders. That was due, in part, to the reduced penetration of these rounds when fired into 10% ordnance gelatin. Roberts article is often cited by police agencies as evidence to support their move away from shotguns and toward AR15s.

Among other reasons, police agencies also cite lower recoil/faster shot-to-shot recovery, greater ammunition capacity, faster reloads, and the ability to accurately place shots with greater precision at any distance from 0-100meters than is possible with a shotgun. Agencies also report that their smaller statured officers, are able successfully engage targets and therefore qualify more often with the lighter recoiling AR15s than 12ga shotguns. And should a suspect wear body armor, AR15s appear to be better at dealing with that issue as well.

YMMV. Everyone is quite capable of drawing their own conclusions from whatever evidence they choose. You asked so I've offered the evidence above and I again point to the fact that shotguns are quickly falling out of favor with the one group of people who face defensive shooting situations on a fairly regular basis. You may or may not agree with my conclusions or my opinions. I personally don't care. I do however think that if you were really interested in the validity of those claims, you could have researched it independently on your own rather than trying to call me out. It took me longer to write this response than it did to find the article I cited above.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

Liberty wrote: This still doesn't support the claim that from G.C. that .223 ammo won't penetrate as much as 00 buck. I stil maintain that under most realistic scenerios that an AR type weapon is a lousy choice. The AR is a fun range gun. the AR/15 M16 was designed to throw a lot of lead in a combat situation. Not for personal or Home defense. I

You are entitled to your opinion and I did say the issue of superiority of one weapon system over the other is debatable. While I think the shotgun is a fine weapon, I'm not above noting that it has it's limitations. Every weapon system has it's problems and is not ideal in all scenarios.

...
YMMV. Everyone is quite capable of drawing their own conclusions from whatever evidence they choose. You asked so I've offered the evidence above and I again point to the fact that shotguns are quickly falling out of favor with the one group of people who face defensive shooting situations on a fairly regular basis. You may or may not agree with my conclusions or my opinions. I personally don't care. I do however think that if you were really interested in the validity of those claims, you could have researched it independently on your own rather than trying to call me out. It took me longer to write this response than it did to find the article I cited above.

I was wasn't attempting to be contriversial but rather find myself fascinated with the newfound interest of the AR15. I have no doubt that the AR15 migh be a better choice for some instances. but I was trying to flesh out why one might concider the AR15 a better choice or safer choice. I must admit I was focused on home or vehicle defence , and not as a police weapon. I fully understand that it should be an option for the patrolman. What I am trying to understand is if it is worthwhile concideration for the average person for self defence. I truly respect your opinion on it and was trying to flesh out if there was a round or something that would limit the penetration of the 223 round. I don't concider myself an expert on homedefence and relish the input and opinions I can garner from this board. I tend to come off as arguementitive, but I was just trying to understand. Personlly I would love to justify a need for an AR 15.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:Now, I am not going to say that a round fired from an AR15 that misses it's target is any less of a threat than 00 Buck or a 9mm bullet that has also missed it's target. That would defy the laws of physics. But what I am saying is that when we actually put bullets in their intended targets, some 5.56NATO/.223 ammo has been shown to stay where we put it rather than continuing downrange with sufficient energy to cause additional injury.

When it comes to the walls in typical residential construction, they should be regarded as concealment, not cover, when it comes to stopping bullets; any serious self-defense load will penetrate interior (and many exterior) walls.

Note that for personal defense, you are not required to limit your ammo choices to the military's ball or SS109 penetrator-type rounds - softpoints of some type are perfectly acceptable . . . they're less likely to overpentrate a bad guy, though if you miss, even .223 softpoints will penetrate things like furniture, sheetrock, etc.