Handloading and the Geneva and Hague accords

Did you ever see the movie "Wanted" ?
a sniper/assassin's bullet was jacketed so that the jacket disassembled in flight and the bullet inside had no rifling marks.
This kind of machine work is not cheap and not practical . Using something too soft will cause it to fowl the rifling causing accuracy problems in consecutive rounds, unless the barrel is cleaned respectively .
Using something too hard will remove the edge of the rifling and permanently alter the gun's accuracy even cause tumbling.
Polishing the bore has it's advantages and disadvantages , doing so, removes any roughness and less lead is left behind and building up, doing so also dulls the edge of the rifling.
I can deal with cleaning my gun, not with loosing it's accuracy.

 

There is the old trick of Paper Patching! Use a thick enough patch, the rifeling will not be imprinted on the bullet! I ran some experiments with moulded paper and rabbit skin glue as a binder and wrapped small diameter projectiles to make sabots Didn't quite work out as I had hoped, the rifeling didn't impart much spin to the projectile! Still, with a little tuning, I can see it working!
Another thought I might try is hydro pressing paper and glue into bullet moulds, enough pressure and a way to fully fill the mould throughout the pressing should produce a pretty dense bullet capable of "Taking" the rifeling and holding together long enough! Would make for a pretty good frangable round too! Hum....................

 

Yup Yup! And the idea of a paper bullet being frangable would leave little "Evidence" behind!

 

Apply a vacume to the freezing prosess at ultra low temps. Maybe using a non water media! Add in a shot gun type wad, or shot cup to cushin the shock and pressure, would prolly work a charm!

 

The movie shooter is based on the book "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter. 10 books in the series and while the movie was fairly true to the book, I think the book was better.

The series is pretty good in general but a couple of the books dragged. His lawyer was a pretty cool character too.

 

Stephen Hunter is a serious firearms enthusiast and his Bob Lee Swaggart character is based originally on Carlos Hathcock. The whole series of his novels are well written from a firearms perspective and should be on your reading list.

 

The gun on the M! Abrams tank is a smooth bore 120 mm or so that fires missiles or explosive rounds that are full sized, or a high velocity depleted uranium rod in a sabot that hits about a mile a second velocity. I have used 30 cal plastic sabots to shoot 22 cal projectiles for training. Feed and functioned well and had a very high velocity, but not super accurate. Needless to say, they had no rifling marks, but that wasn't their purpose. Always found it interesting that it is illegal to use a dum dum bullet, but OK to burn a person, combatant or non combatant with napalm or a flame thrower. As well as hydrogen bombs that will fry you, irradiate you, blow you into atoms, or put out fall out that will kill for weeks or years. Have often thought that in case of a civil war in the US, the least of our worries is going to be if our weapons meet the requirements of the Geneva convention.

 

Know what? I have to, respectfully, disagree. Screenwriting like this is what comes from having no better than a half-assed understanding of guns and firearms. Paper-patched bullets work best with (1) black powder arms, and (2) unjacketed lead bullets. I've known a few shooters who loaded paper-patched bullets over double-based smokeless powder in modern rifles — Which is, just about, the last combination I would select for an accurate 1,000 yard + shot!

I carefully watched and listened to 'Marky Mark' deliver his technical lines and explanations in 'Shooter'. His face was almost completely 'deadpan'; and his voice sounded flat, as if he were reciting lines that someone else had told him to say! I am a long-range rifleman; and, trust me on this: As far as I'm concerned, Mark Wahlberg might as well have tried to talk about nuclear fission! It was (disappointingly) obvious to me that 'Marky Mark' was blatantly pretending; and, like many of the ridiculous one-shot, kills 'Marky' is supposed to have made in that movie, it all came across (at least to me) as fantastical 'gun fiction'.

Even the absurd use of an abbreviated firing pin towards the end of the movie is highly implausible! Who would actually do something like that to an expensive high precision firearm? (Hide the gun, and be done with it!) 'Shooter' let me down on so many different levels of credulity! Then again, what do you expect from an overhyped movie star who is legally and permanently banned from owning or using real firearms for the rest of his life? Even the use of real firearms in his movies is, strictly speaking, something that 'Marky' shouldn't be allowed to do.)

I mean, hell, forget about earning a living. Are convicted drunk drivers allowed to continue driving to work while their licenses are suspended? If you, or I were a convicted (violent) criminal would either of us be allowed to disregard federal firearm laws in the same way that 'Marky' does under the guise of earning a living? (There's still plenty of movie scripts out there that don't call for the use of a gun, right!) Under the exact same set of occupational circumstances, what do you think the BATF would do to you, or to me?

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Mark Wahlberg's movie career the BATF is flagrantly guilty of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT of the federal firearms laws. You or I, sure as hell, wouldn't be allowed to get away with handling real firearms in the same way that Mark Wahlberg routinely does.

All this while 'the sheeple' are presently clamoring for more and more gun laws, as well. Which causes me to continue to wonder about 'Why' the government does not actively and universally enforce the myriad federal and state gun laws THAT AMERICA ALREADY HAS written on the books?

As for myself? I honestly do not believe that more gun laws, along with the coordinated popular demonization of certain firearms is going to – now, or ever will – produce the rectified peaceful solution to today’s excessive gun violence that so many Americans are presently looking for. I honestly do not.

‘Why’? Because it’s not really ‘guns’ that are the problem. It’s the almost complete lack of higher ethics and historical morality inside of today’s numerous public institutions that is actually at fault. (Simply stated: American government is no longer allowing its younger citizens to learn how to be ‘good’, anymore!)

Nobody should, realistically, expect others to obey various codes of higher social ethics that today's younger generations have NOT been academically exposed to; and yesterday's older generations have been (and are presently being) strongly encouraged by modern government to completely ignore.

Gun violence in America, today, is not unlike a self-fulfilling prophesy. First an implausible and highly amoral social situation is deliberately created; and, then, the entire nation winds up wallowing in the inevitable bloody results. I saw a sign the other day blaming Florida's Parkland High School shooting on (Ready?) the National Rifle Association. (Who'd a thunk!)

The sign read, 'NRA, their blood is on your hands!' What crap! What absolute overemotional hype and bullhooey! The morally distracted, the ethically unconcerned, and the preferentially amoral general American public is to blame for horrific events like the Parkland massacre — NOT 'assault style' rifles, (Whatever, the hell, that means?) or any of the fully legal and enormously law-abiding members of private corporations like: 'The National Rifle Association', 'Gun Owners Of America', or 'Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms'.

I spent a good 16 + years of my life in, both, public and private schools. Neither my generation, nor any of the generations before mine slaughtered one another in the way that events are occurring, today. These generations weren't plagued by: godless social immorality, despicable cruelty to one's own fellowman, cowardice, nor excessive gun violence—period!

Gee, can anyone give me the right answer? Can anybody tell me, 'Why'? (Come on, take a wild 'n crazy guess — I dare ya!)

 

Thank you to all who have replied. It comes down to defending the tribe. My feelings about this subject have been coloured by my folks, by going to church with my folks, listening to aunts and uncles and neighbors and school teachers (who, in those days were not rabidly anti 2nd amendment). As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Every case is different but early training counts. Parents need to parent, not leave their offspring to be raised in the street. I'd really like a response from a prosecuting attorney. Are there any lawyers watching this site?

 

You're kidding, right, my friend!

It was godless bankers, lawyers, and politicians who got America into this sociopolitical mess to begin with; and, now, we're supposed to call on some of these very same people, again, in order to straighten everything out?

 

I've got better odds of booking a cruse on the Titanic than that happening!

 

I don't think any one person, or group, can straighten out the problems we have. What we can do is try to be the best we as individuals can be. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Parent the best we know how. Vote, serve on the jury when you are called, keep up on the bills. Maintain a low profile. Not all lawyers are godless atheists. That said, I would still like to hear from, maybe a D.A., pro bono, because although I'm not destitute, I'm still retired on a fixed income, and paying off my wife's and my only child's funerals.

 

Lawyer... hmmm... found this not long ago...give a means of findin things out I guess?

consultation system it would seem...

Legal Protection Plan - Legal Access Service - Lawyer.com

Legal Protection Plan - Legal Access Service - Lawyer.com

 

HMMMM read carefully the exclusions, terms and conditions....and especially the fine print, before signing up with your credit card details.

Better call Saul!