Jump to content

Talk:Teflon-coated bullet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

NPOV! For God's sake! I'll do what I can here, but there's been so many edits and counter-edits we might need a total re-write.

The POV portion is the discussion of what people think (misconception, etc.) The facts of the show, what it claimed, what has not happened, and the conclusion to be drawn, are all valid.--Buckboard 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you posting on the right article? "the show"? It's ok, I've done it before myself!

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-18.htm Here are two of the links I used. I'll add them when I have the time. --Therealhazel 16:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should go to "Cop killer bullet", as that's the real issue--teflon is not a functional component of armor piercing ability of the bullet, it's the core materials that give it the hardness needed to penetrate steel without deformation. This in turn lead to the public outcry (or media crucifixion, take your pick) against "cop killer bullets". While teflon is mentioned in the law banning armor piercing handgun ammunition, so is core content, and the ban also impacts rifle ammunition such as 7.62 x 51 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. See http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm for information on banned ammunition. scot 16:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above issues appear to have been addressed some time ago. I'm removing the recently added NPOV tag, which was added without citing any reasoning. FriendlyDalek 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

In anticipation of rewriting this to cover AP handgun ammunition (since teflon is merely perhipheral to the whole issue), I'm collecting some resource links here:

scot 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty of removal

[edit]

Supposedly a Teflon-coated round is difficult to remove from flesh (it is slippery and hence difficult to grasp with a tool). Can anyone confirm/deny this?

As no one has ever been shot by a KTW bullet, I can say with some degree of confidence that it's never been an issue. Now Remington made, and may still make, some nylon coated lead bullets (Nyclad, the FBI used them in their .38 Special load) for similar reasons, to keep the lead away from the barrel. In the case of the Nyclad bullets, it was to keep things cleaner--less lead in the barrel and in the air. The nylon is pretty slippery, too, and if it did cause extraction problems, I'm certain the AMA would have complained--they raised a huge fuss about the Black Talon over issues that had never happened in reality, so I'm sure they'd have joined in the fray if there was a remote possibility that they KTW rounds would be difficult to extract. As it is, the solid KTW rounds are likely to penetrate all the way through, making it a moot pint. scot 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, that also raises the issue of exit wounds. Does anyone know whether having to remove a bullet or patch up an exit wound is worse?
I am not a physician or a surgeon, but I am given to understand that the conventional wisdom in such circles is that lethality is almost entirely dependent upon which anatomical structures are struck and damaged by the bullet. Damage to big blood vessels, for example, is strongly associated with patient death, regardless of whether the projectile goes on to exit or not. If a physician or surgeon is reading this, and I have failed to state the facts correctly, of course I welcome correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.21.154 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to look at:

"Most gunshot deaths occur from shock and loss of blood, and ball rounds tend to make entry and exit wounds, whereas hollowpoints go in and stay put. An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss." http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VG1.html
Any kind of penetrator bullet is more likely to kill someone than a standard hollowpoint round. Nevermind the whole bullet proof vest penetrating thing.
FAQ Maintainer: Note that this article covers some very subjective topics. Any recommendations given are based only upon the opinions of the author of this article, and the rec.guns FAQ nor its maintainer necessarily endorses or denies any claims or statements made below. Others (including manufacturers) are welcome to submit articles that provide alternative viewpoints.
Well, I disagree, as do most experts. If straight through wonunds are more disabling, why to police and hunters use hollow point ammunition, and why is the military prohibited from using it? Ideally, gunshot incapacitation is not due to blood loss, it's due to hitting vital organs; bleeding out takes time, and legal users of firearms don't want to shoot someone and then wait awhile for them to bleed out, they want to shoot them and have them stop now. The military is restricted by the Hauge Conventions to non-expanding ammunition because of the increased lethality of epxanding ammunition; the goal of infantry warfare is not to kill, it's to take and hold ground, and a soldier holding a bandage on to try to keep from bleeding out is not significantly more effective than one who is dead. Also, it's entirely possible to bleed to death without a single drop of blood leaving your body; hemmoraging into the body cavity is quite enough to cause death, and kills quite a number of auto accident victims. And as for "bullet proof vests", there is no such thing, there's only differing levels of resistance, and vests designed to stop rifle rounds will generally only stop a few before the plates fragment and loose effectiveness. On soft armor, bullet hardness has little impact, a lead core FMJ round that doesn't deform will penetrate just as well as a steel one, or even better if it is heavier. scot 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Police and hunters use hollowpoint ammunition to minimize the risk of collateral damage. When a police officer shoots a gun-wielding psychopath, the cop doesn't want the bullet to travel through the target, go three city blocks, go in through someone's window and kill a baby in a crib. Hunting weapons are even worse: they penetrate like nobody's business and have lethal ranges measured in multiple kilometers. Using bullets designed to stop very quickly is done not to increase the lethality to the target, but to minimize the danger to innocents. As to why militaries are forbidden from using hollowpoint, they aren't. The Geneva Conventions bar weapons meant to cause grievous injury, which is the usual reason people cite for barring hollowpoint rounds to the military--but militaries have no problem with, say, land mines or napalm. The real reason militaries use FMJ rounds is because FMJ is (a) more lethal and, more importantly, (b) _more reliable_.Rob 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On September 16, 2003, in Knoxville, TN, Thomas Martin McGouey painted a bullseye on his chest, called the police, and reported an armed man in the area. He then took an unloaded air pistol (indistinguishable from a distance from a real firearm) and stood in a field next to his apartment complex to await the arrival of the police, whom he wished to be killed by. After approaching the police and pointing the air pistol at them, 6 officers fired a total of 28 shots, 27 of which missed and one of which resulting in a grazing hit on his shoulder. These weren't rookies, but rather experienced officers (I can't quote you exact stats on that, can't find the original news article) and their experience was not unusual. Nearly all officer involved gunfights take place at ranges of under 15 feet, yet the hit percentages are, on average, only 1 in 6. So for every shot that hits the target, 5 shots miss--that's a far, far greater danger than an FMJ bullet that's already expended most of it's energy penetrating the target. The FBI's 1989 study on wound ballistics states "reguardless of the number of rounds fired in a shooting, most of the time only one or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be expected", and "immediate incapacitation is the only goal of any law enforcement shooting and is the underlying rationale for decisions reguarding weapons, ammunition, calibers and training". This states quite clearly the understanding that misses are common, and the goal is to provide the best terminal performance possible that is consistent with the ability of the officer to hit the target.
Expanding bullets are used because they create a larger wound channel, increasing the chances of hitting a vital area, and increasing the permanant wound cavity to increase the bleed rate; again quoting the FBI's report: "The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanant cavity" (emphasis in original). A 40% increase in diameter gives twice the bullet surface area of the unexpanded bullet, and will destroy twice the tissue along its path. The only hunters who use non expanding bullets are those shooting at large game with a handgun, or those shooting at dangerous game. In the first case, expanding handgun ammo won't penetrate far enough to hit the vital regions on large game. In the second case, dangerous game shots may need to be taken at the worst possible angles--i.e. when the game decides that it's going to be the hunter--and it may be neccessary to penetrate bone before the vital heart/lung area is reached.
As for military use, the "law of war" in question is Declaration III of the Hauge Convention of 1899, which reads "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions", and is an extension of the earlier 1868 Declaration of St. Petersberg, which stated "That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable". The 1899 addition was a result of the British use of the .303 Mark III, or Dum-dum bullet, a .30 caliber hollow point bullet that was designed to expand produce wounds similar to the 50% larger .45 caliber Martini-Henry rounds the .303 replaced. Modern military rounds are usually designed to work around this restriction, by fragmenting or tumbling; see the articles on the SS019 and the 5.45 x 39 mm M74 for details.
As for reliability, the failure mode of hollow point pistol bullets is a failure to expand, most commonly caused by eiterh the clogging of the cavity with cloth, hair, or other material that will prevent the hydraulic pressure from being exerted outwards on the inside of a cavity, or by hard materials such as steel or glass that crush the cavity closed. In the FBI's ammunition test protocol, ballistic gelatin is covered with denim fabric, steel sheet, auto glass, and wallboard, to see how they bullet handles each of those. When a hollow point fails to expand, it performs just like a non expanding FMJ. If FMJ performance were at all desirable, then the FBI wouldn't be nearly so concerned with finding a bullet that expanded reliably under the worst possible conditions. And since the worst case performance for a JHP is to fail to expand and act just like an FMJ, how can an FMJ be "more reliable"?
References:
scot 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statements in article

[edit]

"...the officers settled on a brass core with a 'lubricating' jacket of Teflon. Although a myth persists that the Teflon is there to either penetrate "bullet-proof" vests more effectively, or protect the bore of the firearm that fires it, Dr. Kopsch himself has testified that the Teflon actually reduces these bullets' penetration in Kevlar, and is only there to reduce the likelihood of ricochets."

Why is the word 'lubricating' in quotes? If the Teflon's purpose is not lubrication (as the text following indicates) then the word 'lubricating' doesn't need to be there at all. If the purpose is for lubrication then the quotes are inappropriate.

Also, the intro states that "Some types of small arms ammunition use lubricants to reduce barrel wear.", however the article later says that the Teflon component of the KTW bullet is not for lubrication. It is possible that both statements are true, but if this is the case then it should be stated more clearly. As it is the article is a bit confusing on this point which is central to article itself. --FriendlyDalek 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, this entire article needs to be rewritten. The whole "Teflon coated cop killer bullet" issue was entirely mythical; the current US legal defintion of "armor piercing ammunition"[1] doesn't mention teflon at all (and is, in fact, limited to handgun ammunition; a 120mm FSDS tank killer round is therefore NOT armor peircing by US law). Many states, however, do restrict teflon coated ammunition, of any core composition--in South Carolina, it goes one step futher and bans any ammunition or shells that are coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (teflon)(SC Code 16-23-520). What impact they expected Teflon on, say, the cartridge case has on any ability to penetrate armor, I have no idea...
That aside, ALL ammunition with a hardened core is provided with some sort of coating to protect the bore and to allow the bullet to swage into the rifling. This coating may be a copper jacket such as used in most military small arms AP rounds, a plastic sabot like that used in SLAP rounds, or in the case of the KTW rounds, a polymer coating. If you look here, it claims the Teflon was "to prevent damage", which is almost certainly true. The claim that the Teflon also provided better oblique penetration of hard surfaces is also believable, and it is a function that would not be as well served by a harder jacketing material, such as copper. Ironically, the Teflon here is actually acting as an adhesive rather than a lubricant, as the goal is to slow the bullet down, transferring energy to the target, rather than allowing it to glance off and go on with most of its energy still unspent. scot 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metals list

[edit]

How did they come up with this list "tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium"? Couldn't someone do the same thing (if that is anything at all) using some nickel-niobium-tantalum alloy, or any of a thousand other potential metals that might be harder than lead? More to the point, does such a bill establish that it is legally acceptable to outlaw lead bullets? Wnt (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten alloys, carbide steel and beryllium copper have all been used in small bore military AP ammo, brass and iron were used by KTW, and of course everyone has heard of the DU penetrators used by tank guns. And you're too late, lead ammunition has already been outlawed in some cases--specifically, waterfowl hunting, which is a Federal law, and California is trying to ban all lead bullets on the off chance one might be eaten by a condor. scot (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handguns only?

[edit]

I know nothing about the subject but was curious that the article starts out with "Teflon-coated bullets are handgun bullets..." Teflon coated ammunition has never been manufactured for long guns or larger guns (howitzers, etc.)? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com/2008/09/teflon-versus-non-teflon-65g-bullets.html which reports to show a teflon coated 6.5mm Grendel round, which is round used in rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.204.141 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA-centric information, so I changed a section's title accordingly

[edit]

I found the article to be well-written and contain lots of useful info, but most of it was useless for a European like myself. In order to reflect that fact and save time for other readers, I modified the section title from "Legal Status" to "Legal Status in the United States" since it is USA-centric information. I have no real problem with that, but when writing articles please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for English-speaking users and not just for North Americans... so the titles of e.g. the legal sections should reflect the scope of the various laws. 77.49.102.191 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

This topic is already covered on the Armor-piercing shot and shell page, under the Armor-piercing ammunition section. There's no need for a separate (and severely unWikipedic) page here. Merge. --Noclevername (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more.Jarhed (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just get it deleted it, eh? The sources I got when I first worked on this page were pretty awful, and it's a forgotten issue. I only edited it because I hadn't learned how to nominate for deletion back then! I'll get around to it soon. Therealhazel (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman Biaggi's 1982 Hearings

[edit]

I hate to copy-and-paste things, but I think the subject matter is worth noting, and adding to the article in some form. It is taken from an anonymous source, posted originally on the rec.guns newsgroup, found archived at http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VG2.html .

"At some point in 1981, or perhaps 1979, Congressman Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a very highly decorated retired NYC police officer, and a Congressman from the Bronx, N.Y., got wind of this ammo, and the fact that in some calibers it could penetrate the level II vest worn by some police officers as protection against handgun shooting. He, in concert with NBC, began in 1981, a campaign to publicize the existence of the ammo, and to whip up public outrage against this threat. He claimed that the Teflon coating permitted 20% greater penetration than a bullet without it, and that the coating assisted in penetrating body armor. He was assisted by Mr. Arthur Kassel, the then owner of the Beverly Hills (CA) Gun Club, who helped whip up media interest in California in the KTW round, and the dangerousness of its civilian availability...

The NRA opposed Rep. Biaggi's initial (1982) legislation because it used a performance standard, any handgun ammunition which would penetrate 18 layers of the Kevlar material used to make soft body armor would be covered by the law. This would have had the effect of banning nearly all rifle rounds for which handguns were made, as soft body armor cannot, in general, resist rifle ammunition. In the end, the NRA helped draft the current law, which is based on the construction of the bullet, without regard to its ability to penetrate body armor. Thus some pistol rounds which do penetrate some soft body armor are not affected, while rounds which do not penetrate body armor are regulated. And the problem of a law meant to apply to handgun ammunition also regulating rifle ammunition, including 7.62x51 and 7.62x39, was not solved by the re-write." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratgin (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional TV references

[edit]

I just wanted to add, that those bullets are mentioned in Stargate SG1. That is where I heard of these in the first place. The article mentions Ronin, which I can confirm, also mentions these bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.43.114 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teflon-coated_bullet&oldid=1205586885"