Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A breaching round will undoubtedly kill a target in body armor; if not on penetration, certainly on shock.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I read my own stories, actually. I get tired of having to constantly correct misconceptions and idiotic generalizations about things however.

What? I pointed out you made a mistake by claiming something that wasn't directly contradicted by your own posted articles, and you're defending that by saying you're tired of constantly correcting misconceptions?

'I only made a mistake because I was tired of people making mistakes.'

Dude, it's alright. You made a small error. You just say 'yep, I made a small error' and then you move on.

Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?

I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."

I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.

Kanwulen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

As far as I knew, they are powdered steel that is designed for very short ranges. Shot fires, powder punches, then disperses.

If they breach, and there's a target right there wearing body armor--a shot to the chest will stun the guy long enough for him to get followed up on by a rubber baton round to the head or the follow-up officer to subdue him.

If they breach and there's a target there not wearing body armor, he unloads the round into a wall or the next door he spots ASAP and then nails the target with a rubber baton round.

Makes sense I guess, not that I have a huge amount of experience with this stuff.

dogma wrote:A breaching round will undoubtedly kill a target in body armor; if not on penetration, certainly on shock.

Entirely possible, but that's why SWAT teams have EMT certified personnel on them, and ambulances on stand-by if things go badly.

They're not just there for the officers themselves, y'know

Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.

And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Kanwulen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

As far as I knew, they are powdered steel that is designed for very short ranges. Shot fires, powder punches, then disperses.

Then these guys are making their own, which are solid steel slugs...

Wrexasaur wrote:

If they breach, and there's a target right there wearing body armor--a shot to the chest will stun the guy long enough for him to get followed up on by a rubber baton round to the head or the follow-up officer to subdue him.

If they breach and there's a target there not wearing body armor, he unloads the round into a wall or the next door he spots ASAP and then nails the target with a rubber baton round.

Makes sense I guess, not that I have a huge amount of experience with this stuff.

It's an interesting method, that's for sure. And it makes a good deal of sense, because if nothing else two quick shotgun discharges usually throws anyone in the target building off their game right off.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.

And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.

Hmm... it would make more sense to just take out the lock, wouldn't it? That would explain having two breaching shells in a clip though.





Not exactly a standardized shell, but it certainly isn't a solid slug.

Kanluwen wrote:Then these guys are making their own, which are solid steel slugs...

So they aren't breaching shells. The purpose of a breaching shell is safety, not lethality. Firing a slug into a lock sounds pretty freaking dangerous.

Kanluwen wrote:Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?

I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."

Yes, which was then followed a snide comment.

I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.

Sure, this is just a forum, there's no standard for 100% accuracy. It would suck if there was. But in a post where someone is correcting other people's mistakes... maybe there's a greater expectation someone will be correct?

And maybe there could also be an expectation that if someone values accuracy enough to correct others, they'll accept correction of their own mistakes?

It is occasionally fired at the lock. It depends on the door.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.

And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.

Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.

And by the by:
The area it's being fired at depends on the kind of door.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?

I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."

Yes, which was then followed a snide comment.

I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.

Sure, this is just a forum, there's no standard for 100% accuracy. It would suck if there was. But in a post where someone is correcting other people's mistakes... maybe there's a greater expectation someone will be correct?

And maybe there could also be an expectation that if someone values accuracy enough to correct others, they'll accept correction of their own mistakes?

For someone who's doing alot of correcting, you sure do manage to be wrong quite a bit.

Wrexasaur wrote:Hmm... it would make more sense to just take out the lock, wouldn't it? That would explain having two breaching shells in a clip though.

You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.

If he is firing a solid steel shell, then he isn't using a breaching round. It isn't uncommon for operators to misrepresent their equipment.

Also, calm down dudes. The pit bull is dead, and you can't bring it back with hot air.

sebster wrote:
You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.

My door has three. Screw you SWAT!

My guinea pig is safe!

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.

Yeah, I mean, I remember this one time this guy on the internet said a breeching round was a solid steel slug.

For someone who's doing alot of correcting, you sure do manage to be wrong quite a bit.

Yeah, I get stuff wrong. Fairly often. Point it out, and I'll be happy to acknowledge and move the conversation forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:My door has three. Screw you SWAT!

My guinea pig is safe!

Bloody Americans with your hinge crazy culture. Someone once told me there's more than three hinges for every American citizens.

dogma wrote:If he is firing a solid steel shell, then he isn't using a breaching round. It isn't uncommon for operators to misrepresent their equipment.

He uses it to breach doors.
Thus, breaching round!

I mean, if he was using it to peg hippies--it'd be a Hippypegger. Isn't that how the whole naming convention works?

As for the safety of it:
From what I've seen of how he uses it, he fires it at an angle from the upper left of a doorknob. It impacts the lock at a downward angle and blows it out that way.

Dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.

My door has three. Screw you SWAT!

My guinea pig is safe!

Three hinges?
You devious fiend.

I guess that means they'll need the breaching charges

That's where the guinea pig comes in.



FEAR ME

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Your not gonna win this one, just get up and walk away form the computer. Maybe take a walk, read a book, or learn something about proper use of force.

Goin in MY sig!! lol

Frazzled wrote:There is still a presumption of innocence in this country.

That's funny.... there wasn't when I had my 3 years (wish I could say day) in court.

Kanluwen wrote:That there's no evidence of them having done anything in front of the child, outside of arresting the father--who was, again, dealing illegal narcotics.

You can try spinning this however you want, but it all boils down to "man with prior record in dealing illegal narcotics and is currently dealing illegal narcotics has house raided by police".

There's no evidence he is currently dealing, apart from the tip-off, which was proved wrong by the search.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.

And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.

Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.

And he could be wrong too.

Consider doing some research to find out how doors are breached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_round

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...

No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.

And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.

Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.

And he could be wrong too.

Consider doing some research to find out how doors are breached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_round

I don't need to do research as I've seen how it's done in training exercises using said solid steel slugs.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't need to do research as I've seen how it's done in training exercises using said solid steel slugs.

I think you might be confusing 'a round used to breach' with 'a round specifically built as a breaching round, which means a round designed to have full force for about a foot before dissipating'.

Seeing the former in action might lead you to think that's what a breaching round, when a breaching round is actually built with the specific design goal of dissipating in an extremely short distance after leaving the barrel.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?

It's so cute how you think 'under investigation' actually means people can assume it is under investigation. Of course, a lot of the time it does, but not every police department has a culture of maintaining high standards. Some will investigate misconduct with the intent of clearing the police of wrong-doing.

Public pressure can be very important in bringing that culture into police departments.

Well in Kanluwen's defense, more and more weed running is being done with these sorts of guys now:
. They are way more violent and heavily armed.

Vs. these guys

Are, now, what they should have done is used napalm, no evidence see?

Why didn't the cop simply shoot the kid first? The kid is far more dangerous than a Corgi.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why didn't the cop simply shoot the kid first? The kid is far more dangerous than a Corgi.

I can't tell if you're being serious and bumping the thread, or bumping it with a stupid smartass comment.

In either case:
The Corgi was never considered dangerous. It got a stray round when they shot the Pit Bull.

Kanluwen wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why didn't the cop simply shoot the kid first? The kid is far more dangerous than a Corgi.

I can't tell if you're being serious and bumping the thread, or bumping it with a stupid smartass comment.

If you can't tell, then perhaps you should read more carefully. And seriously, why get in my face over it? Totally unnecessary trolling.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Totally unnecessary trolling.

You need me for something?

This thread has gone far enough.

Locking now.