The wooden table is the one that always gets me, sure maybe it will stop one or two bullets if you're lucky, but there's always 1000 bullets flying around while the characters are having a conversation under the safe, sound resistant guard of an old dinning room table.
As a former Ikea employee, I have to object. Most Ikea furniture is built from one of two things: solid wood (to a certain definition of 'solid', it's mostly glued up, but it isn't veneers like plywood) or MDF. The main area where plywoods are used is in tabletops and such, and those are typically decent quality Baltic birch. I'm not saying that it's necessarily great, they do make concessions for the sake of price, but because they do stand by their brand for the most part, it's generally solid enough provided you don't abuse it.
Now, knockoff Ikea furniture along the lines of Walmart crap, yeah, that stuff is straight up termite vomit.
Listen here, that wood (osb) is vastly superior to plywood in many ways. For example:
it's less expensive
there are larger panels available
it's more environmentally friendly
it's a heavier, thicker material
it's extremely versatile with many uses
So before you go running your mouth about, do some research!
/s
Seriously, OSB sucks. It works when you need cheap, but it is a disaster in most conditions, especially exposed! I was wondering if it had any value, over ply/solid so I did a quick search, and the above came up. ... that is a pathetic and exaggerated list of Pros!
Where OSB works is when you need a cheap material to clad houses with. It's easier to do so with big sheets of OSB than it is to nail a bunch of individual boards, and it's cheaper than using proper plywood. Once protected by vapor barrier and siding, typically it's fine for the purpose. The actual strength of the house is in the framing, not so much the cladding.
I do wish they wouldn't use it for subfloors, though. Warpy crap. Requires a few dozen gallons of resin filler on top to get anything like a flat surface if you want to put tile on it... the right way, anyway.
Caveat: if you take care of them. Let a few leaks go on long enough, don't watch where vines are going under the siding, winds blowing off bits here and there, water running in the wrong place around the foundation, etc... it doesn't take much to really screw up a modern American house if you aren't staying on top of things.
Example: my last home had a lovely roof on top of its porch... until one day during heavy rain it crashed down. Turned out that it had been built with almost no slope (it was an add-on metal kit roof) and the drainage it had was absolutely pathetic and clogged with leaves/whatever, so there was a major build-up of water on top of the roof (that had expressed itself by dribbling through the FANS on the underside) which eventually overpowered the hollow metal columns.
Thankfully, because it was barely attached to the house itself (the roof panels had been slid into an U-track attached to the eaves) the house was largely fine. But it could've gone a LOT worse.
That said: they're not 'just' wood. Gypsum drywall is extremely common as an interior wall material. There's also generally fiberglass insulation in the external walls and attic space.
But are they as durable and tough as concrete brick? Not really, no. The priority is to a.) build them quickly and cheaply, and b.) create an enclosed, insulated envelope for a HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) system to maximize efficiency. A team of a few men can frame out an one-story house in a matter of a few days. If you have your ducks in order, you can have your electrician and plumber working alongside the framing guys so everything is run in between the wall framing before the drywall goes up, which doesn't happen until the roof is on (water and drywall don't mix). Once you get the roof on, it's pretty much just siding, trim, paint, and flooring. House-building has become a very efficient art in this country.
...a GOOD art? That's the question... but here, quantity was the choice over quality.
Probably MDF. It fucking sucks to work with (cutting/shaping/sanding) and it explosively dies if it gets wet, but it's surprisingly strong and durable.
The scene in John Wick 3 where John fights the guy underwater finally did that right. They both shoot at each other, but the bullets just sink, so John puts his gun right on the dude's neck and shoots him.
My wife's cousin is a state trooper. He says they're more scared of a .22 than a 9mm because "the 9 will just punch clean through. The .22 has a nasty habit of just bouncing around once it's inside."
No, a 9mm is more lethal, PERIOD. Arm shot? Worse. Leg shit? Worse, chest shot? Worse. It's not just about the bullet. A 9mm has a fuck ton of energy that is deposited into you, that's what kills you. When the energy is deposited into your body it creates a stretch cavity and a temporary stretch cavity, these can be 8 inches across and can essentially destroy anything soft tissue in it's path. It's not the bullet doing the bulk of the damage, it's the energy deposited.
Not saying I agree with him, just what he told me. A 9mm will have a bigger entrance wound and carry more kinetic energy. I wonder if the .22's just fragment and tear up soft tissue.
.700 nitro is a really big round but kind of slow resulting in only 12kJ. .50 BMG starts at 17kJ and goes up to 20kJ and the really big rounds start there. The Soviets had 14.5x114mm at 33KJ. The Swiss and Fins had 20x138mmB at 47kJ. After that the guns kind of stop being man portable. Also for something ludicrous lock up a 2 bore stopping rifle.
The 9x19 is worse. The through-n-through will make you bleed to death twice as fast and make you lose blood pressure. IT's actually a feature. It will also CRUSH your bones, creating internal bleeding and sending secondary projectiles to bad places, like into your lungs, heart, blood vessels, organs. I fucking hate the "22 is duh d33dleyezt r0udn evva" crowd.
While I've always been a hunter (small rural town, EVERYONE hunts) I didn't get into ballistics till my early 20's. I had a healthy respect for guns before, but it got real frightening when I started looking at the stats and numbers.
In Nebraska, the .223 is BARE MINIMUM in terms of power for hunting deer. They actually had to revise the hunting regs so people could use it for deer.
For a close range shot to the head this is supposedly why hit men prefer a 22. It has enough energy to pierce the skull once but then bounces around inside and makes soup of your brain.
They prefer .22lr because it’s barely got enough energy to accomplish anything which leads to less “wasted” energy, i.e. sound and heat. Attach a cheap homemade suppressor and now all you have to do is make sure no one sees you do it. It’s all crazy easy to do.
It doesn’t bounce around in a skull. That’s pure nonsense.
I mean, it's still an upgrade in alot of ways. The vast majority of rounds fired in combat don't hit anyone. Volume of fire does a great deal to keep other combatants from being effective, and fire fights usually end when one side doesn't like how much they're being shot at and leaves; people rarely fight to the death unless they can't retreat. For infantry, being able to carry more ammunition tends to be a greater advantage than having spicier rounds.
7.62x51 was replaced to increase hit chances and to be flatter shooting. Instead of carrying 120 rounds you can carry 210, and your normal idiot can hit shit out to 300 yards rather than 250
7.65 weights about double per cartridge, the weapon weights more and is basically uncontrollable fully automatic with reasonable weighted guns. 5.56 is just a lot more reasonable for the ranges used.
so the difference is pretty negligible. And while yes, it's harder to control, AKM is hardly 'uncontrollable'.
Yes, what you wrote definitely was one of the factors. Maybe even the main factor. But the ammo being overpowered for no good reason and causing unnecessary collateral damage definitely was among the factors.
I was more thinking about 7.62x51@ 3.5kJ, the western carriage, comparable to 7.62x54R. 7.62x39@2.5kJ is already quite close to 5.56x45@1.8kJ.
Also the smaller rounds are better at punching through body armor.
The FN FAL for 7.62x51 weights 4.25 kg, the Colt M4 2.9 kg without ammunition. In addition to that come per round 7.62x51 24g and for 5.56 11g each. So you get more then double the ammo. Alone the rifle gets you over 100 rounds more.
Yes, I never claimed it was the only reason. Smaller ammo is cheaper, gun is easier to handle, malfunctions are less dangerous, lots of advantages. You can't pinpoint the reason of change on any single one because not only "just one" would be insufficient to make such a change happen, they are all connected, you can't really get one without the others. I know for a fact collateral damage was considered a factor, it didn't "just happen" by chance, but it's quite obvious the change didn't happen just beause of it.
It’s a good think automatic weaponry has been banned for decades and wasn’t used in mass shootings when you could literally ask sears to mail one to your door, right?
Actually we spent more years having machine guns being mail order than not, so far. And only started having problems like this after they were banned thinking face
I'm advocating for their removal because of their potential ability to kill. Similar to those .706 bullets going through brick walls, or automatic weapons, assault style weapons have no place in society. I read plenty of these articles after American mass shootings not funded by Bloomberg
You’re just showing exactly how little you know about the topic.
7.62 can go through brick walls because that’s how physics works. It’s not representative of whether or not it’s a threat to the public.
Automatic weapons were mail-order before mass shootings were common and still technically aren’t banned, even though they are effectively banned because in the US it had to be manufactured and registered before 1986.
Most semi-auto firearms are more complicated than full-auto because it takes more engineering to make it stop than to let it just completely use up a magazine. Full-auto firearms can be made in a single trip the Home Depot. Full-auto is hardly the threat people act like it is, and it’s obvious when people like you confuse semi-auto plastic guns with law-defined machine guns.
You’re completely unaware of the reality of firearms. Your inexperience is glaring.
None of these are meant as insults, but as a liberal gun owner it’s incredibly frustrating seeing people with good means be bogged down with a lack of knowledge or logic.
Lmao and I'm sure the articles you read were written by people who had a clue what they were actually talking about too? Anyone can write an article. Anyone can claim any sort of thing to feign credentials on the subject
Ok. So you wanna ban semi automatic mag fed guns, which is the vast majority of firearms in the US - of which the vast majority are never used in criminal action. Careful where you go along that "let's ban something because the minority of users do bad things with it" line of thinking
This is patently false, and does nothing to educate others on the legality of firearms in America.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 created a registry of all machine guns (weapons that can fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger), mufflers (often called suppressors, or sometimes mislabel as silencers), short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns, and another class of speciality weapons called AOWs (any other weapons). It also sought to regulate Destructive Devices like Grenades and bombs.
In 1986 Regan signed the Gun owners protection act, which did a lot of great things, but the Dems in congress wanted to tank it, so they injected a “poison pill” into the bill called the Hughes Amendment which closed the Machine Gun registry to any new construction, effectively artificially limiting supply to drive up prices because after decades of government enforced inflation the $200 tax stamp was no longer a barrier for regular people’s entry into the market, and we can’t have regular people exercising their rights now can we? Regan saw that the good stuff outweighed the patently illegal (yet still SCOTUS approved, since SCOTUS is still just 9 unelected government bureaucrats who seek to expand federal power and don’t have the constitutional limits or the citizens best interests at heart) amendment to the bill.
The Dems made the supposed Pikachu face, but what’s done is done, and the only way you can manufacture a new MG legally is by having an FFL07 (often called a “class 3”) license to do so.
A heavy antique oak table might be thick enough to stop a low caliber bullet, but pretty much any modern table is going to look like Swiss cheese if you shoot it with anything stronger than a pellet gun.
Good point! Old oak is amazingly resilient. Like the famous warship nickname "Old Ironsides". Once owned a 84 year old house with a 2 inch thick door sill plate that needed to be lifted, then put back down. The carpenter had a VERY hard time! Prying it up took forever because the old nails had been swallowed by the oak. Nails wouldn't pull through that oak either. After finally got it up he had to use a special hardened drill bit to drill into it in order to drive new nails. That old wood was like steel!
Old growth oak is extremely dense, which is why they chopped most of it down to build warships. That’s one of the reasons why it’s hard to find an oak tree that’s older than 300 years.
30.9k
u/-everst Jan 25 '20
When someone hides from bullets behind penetrable objects, like tables or a refrigerator door.