Full-metal jacket bullets; Kyle Rittenhouse

[bfoosh006]

I am pretty sure KR used Agulia FMJ .223 . At the very least , the empty cases found were Aguila headstamped 223.... and those same headstamps were on the rest of the ammo in the magazine.

Given KR said it was the "cheapest ammo there" ( or something like that )

And the POS Prosecutor pushed the "crazy dangerous" FMJ bullet terminal "properties" ( lol ) I would be willing to bet the bullet was a FMJ.

If the POS Prosecutor had known , or could prove, the bullet used was one of the "explosive" HP's ... he surely would have pursed that angle.

[rickyrick]

The prosecutor would have tried to use any choice of ammunition against KR.

I’m not going to review any more video of this, but at the ranges I saw, choice of ammunition wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcomes to the aggressors.

[Metal god]

The prosecutor was emphasizing FMJ's because of the reckless endangerment charge of the media guy behind Rosenbaum when Kyle fired four times at him . The media guy said he heard and felt something go by him . Prosecutor needed to show Kyle used bullets that would pass through the target and recklessly harm others . Interestingly enough 3 of the four bullets were recovered still in Rosenbaum which would seem to say that argument is not all that well thought out .

KE at muzzle.

end of discussion.

Um yes but no , It's actually cavitation that caused the bicep to explode . Yes kinetic energy is a huge factor in the temporary cavity but it does not tell the full story . If you've ever watched a ballistic gel test you know what I'm talking about . The temporary cavity created by the bullet pushing through soft tissue forces everything outwards away from the bullets path .All while drawing air in through the entrance wound to fill the cavity . When traveling through a large section of the body like the torso . The torso can stretch enough to contain the cavitation . However when that same bullet travels though a small piece of tissue like the arm or leg . The cavitation stretches that area past it's yelled point and it breaks . When it breaks through soft tissue it causes that tissue to basically explode do to the pressure the cavitation creates inside the tissue as it expands .

See this video of 5.56 in ballistic gel and how if the cavitation happened in the body it would likely absorb it like the gel block does but trying to expand your arm or leg that much would cause it to stretch passed the point it could stretch any more and rip apart/explode .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM

EDIT added another gel test video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HM96wpPVoQ

[Geezerbiker]

That's a cool video even if we weren't discussing some nonsense a a prosecutor tried to pull off...

Tony

[Double Naught Spy]

As for what the wound looked like in the picture, I will compare what happens between shots on a small animal versus a large animal. When the shot enters at roughly 3000 fps, there is going to be a good amount of temporary wound channel expansion. A small animal often cannot contain that expansion and blows apart. Larger animals contain the same impact and don't blow apart. Grosskruetz's arm is like that of a small animal.

Um yes but no , It's actually cavitation that caused the bicep to explode . Yes kinetic energy is a huge factor in the temporary cavity but it does not tell the full story . If you've ever watched a ballistic gel test you know what I'm talking about . The temporary cavity created by the bullet pushing through soft tissue forces everything outwards away from the bullets path .All while drawing air in through the entrance wound to fill the cavity . When traveling through a large section of the body like the torso . The torso can stretch enough to contain the cavitation . However when that same bullet travels though a small piece of tissue like the arm or leg . The cavitation stretches that area past it's yelled point and it breaks . When it breaks through soft tissue it causes that tissue to basically explode do to the pressure the cavitation creates inside the tissue as it expands .

See this video of 5.56 in ballistic gel and how if the cavitation happened in the body it would likely absorb it like the gel block does but trying to expand your arm or leg that much would cause it to stretch passed the point it could stretch any more and rip apart/explode .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM

EDIT added another gel test video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HM96wpPVoQ

We're on the same track.

Often, you will see some YouTuber or a bullet/ammo manufacturer demonstrate the amazing destructive capability of the new Super Duper Uranium 238 Space Modulator bullet and they will shoot it through a 3 or 4 pound chunk of pork shoulder and the meat is just shredded. You know then and there that the amount of destruction is such that no animal could ever survive even for an instant. Yet often when that same bullet is shot into the shoulder of a 250 lb boar, it bores a nice channel through the hog anywhere from a half inch to 2" in diameter (depending on the caliber, velocity, make, and model of bullet) and somehow the totality of the boar shoulder isn't shredded like the demo pork shoulder. You could have the same energy, same distance, but a totally different result due to the size and mass/weight difference of what is being struck. The demo pork shoulder can't withstand the cavitation, but the boar shoulder with the entirety of the body with it certainly can.

Another way of looking at it is to consider why prairie dogs blow up and hogs don't when they are shot with the same bullet and caliber.

It is a sort of dirty marketing ploy to show the results on a small chunk of meat (like a bicep) as the results tend to look so much more impressive.

[pete2]

The army is required to use FMJ, Expanding ammo is outlawed for war. Our objective was to kill or disable the enemy. FMJ does less damage then expanding ammo. A wounded enemy may take 2 others to take care of him, it may even be better to wound than to kill the enemy.

[NeverEnough]

regardless of bullet style, he was not legally allowed to have what he had

[mak2]

I thought the judge threw out the charge because in Wisc a 17 year old could have a long rifle, just not a handgun. Deer hunting and all.

[Metal god]

Correct , nothing Rittenhouse did that night was deamed illegal . Can’t believe ( Seriously ) even after a televised trial for all the world to see people still don’t understand the facts . And these people vote lol . You can disagree or not like the outcome but there’s no excuse to not know the facts .

[HiBC]

People get stuck on stupid no matter what the facts are.

Stirring up their pet conflict matters more to them .

The Eric Holder debunked "Hands up,Don't Shoot " slogan still gets chanted.

They can't handle the Truth when it deflates their story.

[rickyrick]

regardless of bullet style, he was not legally allowed to have what he had

Patently false

[Double Naught Spy]

I thought the judge threw out the charge because in Wisc a 17 year old could have a long rifle, just not a handgun. Deer hunting and all.

He threw it out because he said (IIRC and this is just the gist of his statement) the law was so convoluted that he didn't expect a 17 year old or anyone else to readily be able to understand it, that he has "some experience with the law" and that he had trouble understanding it.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by mak2

I thought the judge threw out the charge because in Wisc a 17 year old could have a long rifle, just not a handgun. Deer hunting and all.

I don't know how it is in Wisconsin and I'm too lazy to look it up. I do know here in MS there is no minimum age to own a rifle or shotgun. You do have to be 18 to buy one.

[HiBC]

If you look around on Youtube, I'm sure you can find incidents of under 14 year old people who were home alone when some form of thug tried a home invasion.
In the cases I'm talking about,this young person retrieves some firearm....I can think of one case where it was an AR-15, and they use the gun effectively to defend themselves.
In some cases,the bad people get killed.

I don't know what may have gone on behind the scenes, but I doubt a 12 year old girl who defended her younger brother and herself from a home invader would be charged for being under age.(For use of the gun. Being home alone COULD become an issue for the parents. I'd say if the kid could handle a home invasion,they are OK to be latchkey kids till parents get home from work. FWIW,that was my experience,son of divorced working Mom)

KR'a aquittal satisfied that he was in a position that justified the use of deadly force to defend himself.

The Judge ruled that his 17 year old age was not an issue,but lets set that aside.

In the greater situation of having his life threatened and defending himself,he is in the same situation as a 12 year old defending against a home invader.

It does not matter. I do not get where these quibblers are coming from. It a BS technicality that in no way delegitimizes KR defending his life.

I cannot help but believe those who keep throwing this out are either sympathetic to anarchist terrorists who get shot ,or anti-gun,anti self defense trolls with a talking point quota.

Its moronic to throw out "He was 17.not 18" as a reason to put him in prison when the real issue is Self Defense vs Murder.

You might as well be charging him with not wearing a Branch COVIDian facemask as reason to condemn him. Its that stupid.

Do the talking points of MSN pundits penetrate the tofu many people have inside their skulls that deeply that they lose capacity for rational thought?

[44 AMP]

The law requires a standard. Whether or not that standard is applicable in a specific case is one of the jury's functions.

There are competent individuals under the age of 18. Sometimes well under the age of 18. There are also incompetent individuals over the age of 18, sometimes well over. Sometimes, they hold public office.

The usually unspoken corollary to "one size fits all" is that while one size fits all, it fits almost no one properly.

[HiBC]

If prior to the shooting incident,Law enforcementhad contacted KR, asked for ID, etc, and IF APPLICABLE, written him a ticket for underage possession,temporarily confiscated the AR,and told him to go home,

Are we talking a $100 ticket? Might the AR owner have to prove ownership to retrieve it? I know,its all hypothetical gumbo, but I'd just shrug my shoulders.

"Do it different next time,KR. Maybe go fishing instead. No big deal"

But to weigh it into the Self Defense / Murder trial as an aggravating factor is BS.

[Metal god]

If prior to the shooting incident,Law enforcementhad contacted KR, asked for ID, etc, and IF APPLICABLE, written him a ticket for underage possession,temporarily confiscated the AR,and told him to go home,

Now because that didn't happen we don't know how that would have changed things because we don't know if KR would have done all the exact same things resulting in Rosenbaum attacking him and beating the crap out of him along with the mob . Or he Never leaves Balche's side because he's unarmed which likely results in Rosenbaum never trying to attack him or maybe he just goes up on the roof and one of the guys on the roof comes down on the street . IMHO the one thing I think would be certain is that the second incident would never of happened.

[pete2]

The judge did deem him legal all the way...............

[rickyrick]

Lots of teens under 18 can legally posses a rifle, not in all states, but many.

Rifles are common Christmas presents to young people. Heck, I had a 22lr since before I could remember.

[Pahoo]

regardless of bullet style, he was not legally allowed to have what he had

He had 2A rights much like you have 1A rights to express yourself. All is settled and well ......

Be Safe !!!

[HiBC]

MetalGod, I think you missed my point completely.

it wasn't an "If only...." Or a doorway to "Maybe if..." Lets stay in the real world.
I was trying to isolate the being 17 from the point of the trial,which was murder vs self defense.

It was about the fact that being 17 (which,per the Judge was OK) amounts to a spitting on the sidewalk ticket. Its nothing. The DA would not have held a trial over being 17. If he left his brass,they should have ticketed him for littering. Right?

My point had to do with the influence of talking point parrots.

He was declared "Not Guilty" of all charges.

Yet still I hear "He never should have been there" Or "He couldn't legally have that" He crossed the state line!. Bunch of ninnies!

Endless untrue sqwawking points repeated by those who are misinformed.

[Metal god]

MetalGod, I think you missed my point completely.................



Endless untrue sqwawking points repeated by those who are misinformed.

Yep I sure did haha

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by Metal god

The prosecutor was emphasizing FMJ's because of the reckless endangerment charge of the media guy behind Rosenbaum when Kyle fired four times at him . The media guy said he heard and felt something go by him . Prosecutor needed to show Kyle used bullets that would pass through the target and recklessly harm others . Interestingly enough 3 of the four bullets were recovered still in Rosenbaum which would seem to say that argument is not all that well thought out .

That was my impression also. Binger was trying to make KR look like a bad guy because he chose "military style" ammo and that ammo is more likely to punch through someone and hit an innocent bystander. He was pushing it pretty hard for a short while and then realized it wasn't going to go anywhere. KR was using whatever happened to be in the magazine which was basically the cheapest ammo they could buy.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by pete2

The judge did deem him legal all the way...............

I would not go that far. The judge explicitly said that he spent hours researching the issue and that the law was confusing enough that he couldn't determine how or if the exemptions applied to KR. Given that the longest serving judge in Wisconsin couldn't make a definitive determination on whether or not he could carry the rifle, it makes no sense that a 17 year old could rely on the law as written.

The way I read the law, it seems logical that a 17 year old would be able to carry the rifle in question, but having to cross reference multiple exemptions that are worded in a non-concise manner makes it awkward.