'Outrage as police officers armed with huge guns pose with children at Christmas market'

ianh said:
I would suggest he's a none firearm user from his posts. Those of us who use firearms know that most of what he posted is incorrect.

However I think he is probably correct that they'd not fire at a moving target as they'd have no clear backstop to do so and, with the way firearms officers get treated if it goes wrong, I doubt they'd take the risk.
Click to expand...

Agree on the first point. Anyone around firearms knows considerably better.

Re shooting at a moving target thought head on I would say the shot is as safe as it can be. The round will start to deform when going through the windscreen, and by the time its hit the driver or the seat and the back of the cab it will have lost enough momentum to not go any further or if anything not much further. Remember they are using 9mm so while a decent round, it ain't no 5.56 for penetration.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
I would suggest he's a none firearm user from his posts. Those of us who use firearms know that most of what he posted is incorrect.

However I think he is probably correct that they'd not fire at a moving target as they'd have no clear backstop to do so and, with the way firearms officers get treated if it goes wrong, I doubt they'd take the risk.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems during the Paris Attack, the police was firing on the moving truck as it drove down the road and the driver was hit, the truck came to a stop further down the road which am guessing because the driver started to succumbed to his injuries which didn't stop as the police kept on firing when the truck was at a full stop.
 
ianh said:
I would suggest he's a none firearm user from his posts. Those of us who use firearms know that most of what he posted is incorrect.

However I think he is probably correct that they'd not fire at a moving target as they'd have no clear backstop to do so and, with the way firearms officers get treated if it goes wrong, I doubt they'd take the risk.
Click to expand...

Then why did he try and refute it? Why did he explain that the movies have it wrong? That implies he knows better. Surely nobody with no knowledge would do that?
 
Dis86 said:
Then why did he try and refute it? Why did he explain that the movies have it wrong? That implies he knows better. Surely nobody with no knowledge would do that?
Click to expand...

No idea, you should ask him rather than me.

HybridX said:
Re shooting at a moving target thought head on I would say the shoot is as safe as it can be.
Click to expand...

Head on would be fine, side on or angled I'm not so sure they'd pull the trigger due to pass through risk, even though they'd be aiming upwards which would mitigate it some what.

HybridX said:
Remember they are using 9mm so while a decent round, it ain't no 5.56 for penetration.
Click to expand...

The guys in the OP's pic are armed with 5.56mm so no issues there :D
 
HybridX said:
Agree on the first point. Anyone around firearms knows considerably better.

Re shooting at a moving target thought head on I would say the shoot is as safe as it can be. The round will start to deform when going through the windscreen, and by the time its hit the driver or the seat and the back of the cab it will have lost enough momentum to not go any further or if anything not much further. Remember they are using 9mm so while a decent round, it ain't no 5.56 for penetration.
Click to expand...

9mm fmj penetrates better than 5.56 fmj.
 
Ah Dis, yet again the wrong end of the stick and you are firm friends :D

Just to extremely clear because, yet again, you seem to get simple things mixed up and I don't know why -

I...was...not...defending...him....he....is....wrong - I hope that's simple enough for you to understand? I mean I can't make it any simpler for you :D

ianh said:
I would suggest he's a none firearm user from his posts. Those of us who use firearms know that most of what he posted is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Nope, can't see the "defending" at all, in fact I'm saying he knows nothing and the proof is the rubbish he wrote, only I said it in a nice way. :D

Maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know, but that seems quite easy to understand to me?
 
HybridX said:
Ignore him hes either an idiot or a troll or both.

German police carry 9mm parabellum which will go through the windscreen like butter and re the above incident in France, the police are clearly on the offside of the vehicle shooting across into the drivers side at a 45 degree angle. Any idiot with eyes cant see that.
Click to expand...

Normal German Polizei are best Polizei, mainly all armed.

I was in take-away last night, two cops came in, both women, both with guns holstered on their belts.

Made me feel proud we have a police force with courage and the right tools for the job.
 
I was off when those cops were patrolling and visited the market and nobody batted an eyelid. The public engaged with them and they were perfect gents in return.

Quiet news day journalism at its worst.
 
HybridX said:
Re shooting at a moving target thought head on I would say the shot is as safe as it can be. n.
Click to expand...

I'd say shooting a moving truck "head on" is about as dangerous a shot as you can make.



cause your standing directly infront of a moving truck.....
 
kwerk said:
9mm fmj penetrates better than 5.56 fmj.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.

M855 5.56 NATO ball has a mild steel cap under the jacket (SS109) designed and capable of defeating Soviet issue body armour out to 300 metres.

Having 2/3 of the cross-sectional area and having almost 3 times the muzzle velocity of the 9mm round means that issue 5.56 NATO Ball penertrates like a greased Ron Jeremy.
 
should stick the fellas there after 6pm when its teeming with the downtrodden selling/smoking legal highs and other undesirables right next to monument.

northern pride
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom